SPS do not require more light?

Kungpaoshizi

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
514
Location
Earf
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Interesting.. Still reading it, but it makes me wonder about the sps I've kept in, less than bright, tanks.

I must admit that motivation to work on this project results partially from a frustration with the longevity of false notion that 'SPS' (small-polyped stony corals) require more light intensity than soft corals. This is not true due to a number of factors, including the fact that most Acropora, Stylophora, Pocillopora and others contain zooxanthellae belonging to Clade C - these are less tolerant of high light than a few other clades

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2016/2/aafeature
 
Wow, here's a lifetime of research in 2 sentences.. lol

Interestingly, Shick et al. report that the temperate sea anemone Anthopleura elegantissima obtains certain MAAs from ocular lenses in fishes it ingests. It is possible that bacteria and/or cyanobacteria can translocate MAAs, or modify translocated or ingested MAAs.
 
It now seems that higher light intensities and/or ultraviolet radiation are needed in order for the zooxanthellae to make these pigments (the coral host cannot, since shikimate pathway is known to occur only in plants). Hence, should high-intensity lamps (such as metal halide and mercury vapor) not be shielded with a UV-absorbing lens? No - the results of Banaszak's research only reinforces the notion that we should shield our aquarium inhabitants from potentially harmful UV radiation. For instance, a coral, grown in a dimly lighted portion of an aquarium, could be exposed to relatively intense UV radiation if it is moved only a few inches into a 'brighter' spot. These researchers also note the production of MAAs is an energetically expensive process (they quote a figure that 19% of a cell's total energy budget is required for production of the MAA Palythine - energy that otherwise could be used for growth and reproduction).
 
I have a tank that is less than 75 par. Maybe I'll pick up a few acros with clade C- zooxanthellae and experiment. I do have an entire 6"x 4" rock shelf remaining in my tank that I haven't figured out what to put on it.
 
The only problem I see really, is there's no way to verify the symbiont in our homes. Though this on-going research suggests we can abandon the child-like mentalities of 'sps need high light, lps and softies require low light' and expand our understanding of what corals actually need. I can only imagine the number of times I've seen arguments about a certain chalice and whether it's low or high light. One guy has it shaded while another has it front and center and super high up. Both look great.. lol

Jeeze, I'm halfway through.
Hey moderators, you should make a sticky of this info! :) (there's a pdf download in the article)
 
Last edited:
I've already found the species I want to test.

Its the Strawberry Shortcake, acropora microlados. :D

Time to go buy me a piece for the better of science!
 
I'm just happy to see our knowledge growing, this sure makes more sense from some of the corals I've encountered in oddly setup tanks. (oddly meaning, opposite what I figured they would "NEED" to be housed in)
 

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