PAR rant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dingo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None

Dingo

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
58
Reaction score
59
Location
PA/MD line
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am providing a dose of information for everyone here/ rant.

PAR is actually a measurement that tells us nothing about corals.
You can have pure red light with a PAR of 400 but that doesn't necessarily mean a coral will grow in it.
More important than the actual measured value of PAR is the ratio of each necessary wavelength (and this varies per each individual coral depending upon the coral's individual zooxanthellae).
Ok, rant is over. But with that said, I'd love to open up a conversation on this with anyone who would like to contribute here!
 
PAR is an interesting subject for today's reef builders. I say this because 10+ years ago PAR was not typically thought of. Replace your lamps at X number of months.
I put PAR topics right up with GFO topics.
 
The corals certainly should grow, however, if you wish to maximize growth you need to balance PAR with wavelength.

27c5e928745dbde12550494315ec70253091eee5.png
 
I like your second article very much.
So I probably did it word my thoughts in the best way possible.
PAR is the best available measure of light (assuming you have a full spectrum output from your light source). But in reality it is a terrible measure of the quality of light that corals are getting.
If you have a completely blue washed tank you might have really high PAR strictly due to the amount of blue being emitted into the tank. However, this doesn't mean the light is right though.

I think we have similar concepts of light, Matt. If you have not already reviewed the following check them out. They are a bit older but still quite relevant:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/1/aafeature1
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/9/aafeature (and then the following 8 articles too)
 
I stopped a long time to check and go by a par schedule.
Same as Po4, once a tank is matured it is all irrelevant.
With lights it's even more simplified,................ just watch your corals, they are you best indication of what's wrong.
I replace all T5 bulbs every six months.
 
I stopped a long time to check and go by a par schedule.
Same as Po4, once a tank is matured it is all irrelevant.
With lights it's even more simplified,................ just watch your corals, they are you best indication of what's wrong.
I replace all T5 bulbs every six months.
Money bags!!
 
I am providing a dose of information for everyone here/ rant.

PAR is actually a measurement that tells us nothing about corals.
You can have pure red light with a PAR of 400 but that doesn't necessarily mean a coral will grow in it.
More important than the actual measured value of PAR is the ratio of each necessary wavelength (and this varies per each individual coral depending upon the coral's individual zooxanthellae).
Ok, rant is over. But with that said, I'd love to open up a conversation on this with anyone who would like to contribute here!

Something just hit me.....you say PAR of 400 with red light....but did you measure that PAR value at the depth of the corals. If I remember correctly, I was told that red disappears within the first three inches of ocean water!
 
Sometimes I really think that people although good equipment is important... we have Gods creation is a box of glass and we should just let nature do it's thing... I will probably get destroyed for this post but it seems reefers now a days want to do what they did to baseball in the 90's....
 
This issue is a slippery slope. Depends on where the coral is from, water parameters of that particular area it was taken from, it's depth from the surface, photo period it was exposed to there and lastly, nutrients it had available to it.

This also applies to aquacultured coral.

All of which isn't provided to us at the retail end, but should be in my opinion.

At least some online coral retailers now are providing some information about what light source the coral for sale was kept/grown under. It's a start, but this is a much needed small piece of the puzzle that is needed in the hobby.

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg............

So, PAR? What is it and why do we stress over it?

Here's a glimpse of some of that in dana's presentation:
 
We all want that pop in our tank and for that we use more blue and red not to mention actinics.
Good thing is that I see more and more tanks using just a regular 10K daylight bulb in the T5 combo.
Even LED's going more clear Daylight mix.
Par is just a number to go by no matter what combo of lighting you use.
Lets ask out own expert @saltyfilmfolks
 
This issue is a slippery slope. Depends on where the coral is from, water parameters of that particular area it was taken from, it's depth from the surface, photo period it was exposed to there and lastly, nutrients it had available to it.

This also applies to aquacultured coral.

All of which isn't provided to us at the retail end, but should be in my opinion.

At least some online coral retailers now are providing some information about what light source the coral for sale was kept/grown under. It's a start, but this is a much needed small piece of the puzzle that is needed in the hobby.

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg............

So, PAR? What is it and why do we stress over it?

Here's a glimpse of some of that in dana's presentation:


Thanks for posting that Dana Riddle video.......very informative.
 
Your welcome. Regardless of the type of light.....MH, T5 and LED, we are just throwing darts in the dark.

It would be awesome if your light system came with a PAR meter from the manufacturer when you buy it! I can see it now, just pull the probe out of the light, attach the handle and place it in the water. Led screen on the light fixture tells you the reading! Awesome!

I believe that one tool could at least, with information given from the coral seller on what the coral was under, could at least help in placement in our tanks or at least fine tune it. All things equal, water parameters, etc..........

Still the best and tried and true measure of a corals health will be with our own eyes. It's up to us to recognize whether it's okay, great or in distress and act accordingly.
 
Last edited:
I thought PUR was what we should be using and PAR as just a reference to it. Then we would need to know what spectrum or lights actually put out to figure out any of this..
 
That second Dana Riddle article is a great one.....busts several myths.

It seems like a lot of folks may have read that article, but not the whole thing. Seems like folks want to transpose those charts into a lighting scheme.

It's a really interesting coincidence (to me, at least) that our vision (i.e. the luminosity function) maps to a Stokes shift. Didn't realize that until I was looking at all those absorption/emission graphs. I guess it stands to reason. Wow-cool.

Back to the article.

Here's my 2¢.

First:
  • People are chasing an empty concept of aesthetics too often or maybe too hard, IMO. Trying to force it.
  • If you run a healthy tank (obviously not a foregone conclusion), corals are beautiful even under plain blue+white LED fixtures.
  • It seems like this is easy to forget or disregard. Maybe lots of folks never knew it.
  • If aesthetics is why you are reading this and why you added an RGB channel to your blue+white light system (aka "full spectrum reef lighting"), then that's fine.
  • But know that none of this science really applies to your control situation.
  • There is no "scientifically correct" full spectrum light. That is a completely bogus concept.

So consider this:
  • Fluorescent pigments seem to be related to photo-protection. They are a stress response.
  • Photsynthetic pigments do the work with light we all think about. They are an energy harvesting response.
  • Photoprotection is needed because corals experience cellular damage from light – directly from UV radiation, and indirectly from byproducts of photosynthesis.
  • Corals have several strategies for dealing with this situation. Pigments are just some of them.
  • Photosynthesis happens everywhere along the absorption curve.
  • Corals have no problem getting enough light in any remotely normal environment.*
  • More energetic light (bluer) is more active, more damaging.
  • So, the sole purpose for corals is to reduce as much light as they can to heat.
  • Especially blue light, which some very common fluorescent proteins emit as green. (The GFP's). Guess where green gets absorbed and re-emitted? Red.
  • The photosynthetic pigments actually do this by absorbing and fluorescing the photons down a cascade of proteins that ends in much less active far-red light.
    • onephotosystem.gif

    • chlabsorb.gif

    • This is for plants, but the same setup occurs in all photosynthetic critters....only details vary.
  • I suspect a corollary phenomena is the reason for the density of all those peaks and shoulders in Dana's Figure 2 chart. It's no coincidence they can "dump waste light" everywhere along the spectrum.
    • Ask AA why they don't allow linking to Figure 2, cuz now you have to go look it up yourself:
      Figure2.JPG
  • Heat being "successfully lost" at every conversion (every Stokes shift).
  • They make use of some of the photons along the way for photosynthesis, but again, escaping damage is their game more-so than light capture.
* If there's any doubt at their capabilities on the low end, this will give you an idea:
Novel Adaptive Photosynthetic Characteristics of Mesophotic Symbiotic Microalgae within the Reef-Building Coral, Stylophora pistillata

There are at least a few other research articles linked in my Light section that someone might also find interesting.

I think The in situ light microenvironment of corals is a worthy update for anyone on Dana's 2006 article (if you read the whole thing) that I'm talking about here. ;)
 
That second Dana Riddle article is a great one.....busts several myths.

It seems like a lot of folks may have read that article, but not the whole thing. Seems like folks want to transpose those charts into a lighting scheme.

It's a really interesting coincidence (to me, at least) that our vision (i.e. the luminosity function) maps to a Stokes shift. Didn't realize that until I was looking at all those absorption/emission graphs. I guess it stands to reason. Wow-cool.

Back to the article.

Here's my 2¢.

First:
  • People are chasing an empty concept of aesthetics too often or maybe too hard, IMO. Trying to force it.
  • If you run a healthy tank (obviously not a foregone conclusion), corals are beautiful even under plain blue+white LED fixtures.
  • It seems like this is easy to forget or disregard. Maybe lots of folks never knew it.
  • If aesthetics is why you are reading this and why you added an RGB channel to your blue+white light system (aka "full spectrum reef lighting"), then that's fine.
  • But know that none of this science really applies to your control situation.
  • There is no "scientifically correct" full spectrum light. That is a completely bogus concept.

So consider this:
  • Fluorescent pigments seem to be related to photo-protection. They are a stress response.
  • Photsynthetic pigments do the work with light we all think about. They are an energy harvesting response.
  • Photoprotection is needed because corals experience cellular damage from light – directly from UV radiation, and indirectly from byproducts of photosynthesis.
  • Corals have several strategies for dealing with this situation. Pigments are just some of them.
  • Photosynthesis happens everywhere along the absorption curve.
  • Corals have no problem getting enough light in any remotely normal environment.*
  • More energetic light (bluer) is more active, more damaging.
  • So, the sole purpose for corals is to reduce as much light as they can to heat.
  • Especially blue light, which some very common fluorescent proteins emit as green. (The GFP's). Guess where green gets absorbed and re-emitted? Red.
  • The photosynthetic pigments actually do this by absorbing and fluorescing the photons down a cascade of proteins that ends in much less active far-red light.
    • onephotosystem.gif

    • chlabsorb.gif

    • This is for plants, but the same setup occurs in all photosynthetic critters....only details vary.
  • I suspect a corollary phenomena is the reason for the density of all those peaks and shoulders in Dana's Figure 2 chart. It's no coincidence they can "dump waste light" everywhere along the spectrum.
    • Ask AA why they don't allow linking to Figure 2, cuz now you have to go look it up yourself:
      Figure2.JPG
  • Heat being "successfully lost" at every conversion (every Stokes shift).
  • They make use of some of the photons along the way for photosynthesis, but again, escaping damage is their game more-so than light capture.
* If there's any doubt at their capabilities on the low end, this will give you an idea:
Novel Adaptive Photosynthetic Characteristics of Mesophotic Symbiotic Microalgae within the Reef-Building Coral, Stylophora pistillata

There are at least a few other research articles linked in my Light section that someone might also find interesting.

I think The in situ light microenvironment of corals is a worthy update for anyone on Dana's 2006 article (if you read the whole thing) that I'm talking about here. ;)
I guess I am wondering why you state that the fluorescent colors of corals are a an indication of stress. I thought that it was scientifically unclear as to why corals are fluorescent. Can you expand on this?
 
Stress can be interpreted differently in this situation.
Not stress as in "about to die"
But rather stress as in "not the preferred wavelength" so therefore the coral must perform more work to cascade the electrons down the visilble light scale through re-emittance and reuptake until they reach the preferred wavelength.
 
We all want that pop in our tank and for that we use more blue and red not to mention actinics.
Good thing is that I see more and more tanks using just a regular 10K daylight bulb in the T5 combo.
Even LED's going more clear Daylight mix.
Par is just a number to go by no matter what combo of lighting you use.
Lets ask out own expert @saltyfilmfolks
You are correct sir.
how rare

so is @Dingo


But in reality it is a terrible measure of the quality of light that corals are getting.
If you have a completely blue washed tank you might have really high PAR strictly due to the amount of blue being emitted into the tank. However, this doesn't mean the light is right though
correct. and a par meter can be fooled. quite easily. like many things its up to us to know how to use the tool.
I spoke to a member here recently with coral probs and he said he had 250 par. but the light was 30% white and 75% blue.
well yes the corals probably dont like 35,000k.

Something just hit me.....you say PAR of 400 with red light....but did you measure that PAR value at the depth of the corals. If I remember correctly, I was told that red disappears within the first three inches of ocean water!
yes. is quickly absorbed.
but a meter will register high par on a single spectrum of high intensity.
and although some red is visually lacking its a longer wavelength than the others and does actually penetrate resulting in the bit of red we see in "optimal reef light charts". and likely what spurs so many debates amongst science as to its use by the coral.

I guess I am wondering why you state that the fluorescent colors of corals are a an indication of stress. I thought that it was scientifically unclear as to why corals are fluorescent. Can you expand on this?
book is being rewritten now that fish also glow.
IMO monkeys have bad eyes. its always bright where they live. A mantis shrimp would probably know.

Stress can be interpreted differently in this situation.
Not stress as in "about to die"
But rather stress as in "not the preferred wavelength" so therefore the coral must perform more work to cascade the electrons down the visilble light scale through re-emittance and reuptake until they reach the preferred wavelength.
its sunscreen according to Dana. and also camouflage and likeley feeding tools. and can be considered a stress event as its more prominent when Photosynthesis shuts down.
why they have color period is a good question. we know why berries are red and flowers have color. I would assume corals have color for the same reasons.:eek:

thats said, the same coral can and does grow in the shallows and and depths.

So PUR. and how a corl figures out what it wants.
A coral at the surface is getting an even spectrum of 5600k. 15ft down its 10,000k. 20ft 20k. also each depth is a lower and lower Par.
Does it look a bit different, probably. esp if it gets pars higher than the 350 dana suggests. OR is only getting wavelengths that stimulate specific carotenoids and producing only specific tints as a result of "uneven tanning"
if were on a north facing slope w less direct sun its color temperature would actually be cooler. but it still grows. would it look the same ? not sure, but probably.

but here's this.
Take some coral and put it under a 48,oook Phillips led from home depot. Check that the spectrum is fairly even( like daylight), with a spectrometer. (a par lux test would be fun too)
put it on the corals and see what happens.
Hint. It grows corals perfectly.
none of the corals after a year or more looked any different then ones I had seen before. Visually some appeared "dull" as there's no 420 somthing to make them "Pop" like under reef lighting.(remember they're engineered for aesthetics too). but were otherwise completely normal. especially once put under standard reef lights.

So. Id say the coral will take whats available and use it.
Its likely major overdose and under dose of specific frequency is where you get into trouble.
 
I guess I am wondering why you state that the fluorescent colors of corals are a an indication of stress.

Well, maybe it's mincing words, but I said they are a response to stress. (Which is what I was attempting to explain, in a nutshell.) There should be no question that they are under stress.

Here's another angle:
Being photosynthetic is not a cnidarian's natural state. (As a family, they are deep-sea creatures.) It's an adaptation to a dinoflagellate infection that they have become expert at managing – expert enough to use the infection for food and energy (and more).

But, as I briefly described, the direct and indirect side-effects of being photosynthetic result in cellular damage. Cellular damage is stress.

Since corals can "get their fair share" from very little light (thanks especially to the photosynthetic pigments and their antennae pigments) and too much light actually damages them, they have these light-handling strategies that they use these to minimize cellular exposure to these direct and indirect effects.

This is the light acclimation we casually refer to....and what happens when we move corals that have had time to grow and adapt. They no longer have their photo-receptors and shields in the right places and start suffering damage and other related problems when light starts hitting their "soft parts".

What's brilliant about it though, is the same system also maximizes the useful light they are exposed to so they can operate in minimal light situations too.​

I don't know if you already looked at the "In situ..." article linked above, but I suspect you'd like a lot of what's in there. It's one of the most current articles on the subject I've bumped into. (And overall one of the most amazing articles I've bumped into. If you didn't already think corals were amazing, this article should do it.)

Going just from memory I think this one has some good tidbits on that front, though more on the stress angle than the pigmentation angle:
Is the coral-algae symbiosis really ‘mutually beneficial’ for the partners?

I hope this helps! :)
 
So. Id say the coral will take whats available and use it.

I think you nailed it on the head – this is one of their forte's.

Light at-depth for them is very blue-blue-green and not much other color to speak of and they seem to make it work! :)

On a tangent: Did you ever realize that chlorophyl emit their own red light? At-depth it's all the red light there is, and it combines with other far-red "waste light" in the "Emerson effect" which is a boost in photosynthesis using nothing but "waste light".

Amazing.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%

New Posts

Back
Top