Too much or too little light?

[madweazl]

I was referring to the LEDs, not the corals. Sorry about that.
And yes, those LEDs are the problem, of course it's a light issue!
Grandis.

So the LEDs cause an STN (RTN) issue at the base of his acro colony (which likely isnt receiving much light from the LEDs) and additionally with his montiporas (that have data points suggesting the PAR levels they're receiving to be higher than required and likely undesirable)? What in the LED (besides intensity) is causing this issue that you believe can be resolved by placing the corals further from the light?

 

[A. grandis]

So the LEDs cause an STN (RTN) issue at the base of his acro colony (which likely isnt receiving much light from the LEDs) and additionally with his montiporas (that have data points suggesting the PAR levels they're receiving to be higher than required and likely undesirable)? What in the LED (besides intensity) is causing this issue that you believe can be resolved by placing the corals further from the light?

I was referring to bleaching.
I already told you that I didn't suggest moving the corals. I don't believe in moving corals in a stablished system at all!!!!
The light fixture is what needs to be addressed!
STN/RTN is another story as we know... nothing to do directly with the light.
LEDs are problematic. Please know that.
I'm waiting for YOU to help him, please.
Grandis.

 

[madweazl]

I was referring to bleaching.
I already told you that I didn't suggest moving the corals. I don't believe in moving corals in a stablished system at all!!!!
The light fixture is what needs to be addressed!
STN/RTN is another story as we know... nothing to do directly with the light.
LEDs are problematic. Please know that.
Grandis.

You were suggesting to lower the LEDs in this sentence?
"Best thing to do is to put them very low and go from there if you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to keep the LEDs over the tank."

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I was referring to the LEDs, not the corals. Sorry about that.
And yes, those LEDs are the problem, of course it's a light issue!
Grandis.

Lol. Led aren’t poison buddy.
My feeling is lowwe nutrients and a meter prob.

A fwiw that does reinforce some of your beliefs. I’ve been recently working with folks on the par I thier tanks with the same leds as I have.
Everything is great and growing. But once they found out how actually high they were running the par , they assumed a problem when there conclusively was none, was quite interesting.




For the most part , it’s not the Light.
It’s not a rule , mostly a guideline.

If one element is out of whack , Light alk food etc, problem begins.
Knowing these numbers is just helpful. In troubleshooting.

If Led was the prob due to untestable elements and lack of something , it could also easily be flake food and he shoud feed live foods.

At the center of the tank, at 12in, with t5 alone , he shoud get about 150 par per tube. He shoud be running about 1000, not 500 from the t5.

The strip at 12in alone should be about 4-500 (although it’s a single at narrower band).

And yes , a simple inexpensive lux meter could help to verify the par question , but folks don’t belive that works. Key word, belive.

 

[A. grandis]

Hey madweazi, here is the first quote, so you can help him with the LEDs:
Hey everyone. I am noticing some bleaching in a few of my corals and I wanted to see what others think.
I have a 36" ATI 8 bulb dimmable fixture about 11 inches above the water line. About 10 inches below that is a rock that I have some SPS on. That rock is getting 250 PAR. At the top of the water line, i'm getting about 500 PAR. Here is my bulb combo:

From front to back:

Reefbrite Strip blue XHO
ATI Blue +
ATI True Actinic
BioTek Marine BTM5HO 20K LED
ATI Blue +
ATI Coral Plus
BioTek Marine BTM5HO 20K & UV LED
ATI True Actinic
ATI Blue +

Everything is running at 100% for about 6 hours with 2 hour ramp up and ramp down periods. A total of 10 hours of lighting. The PAR measurements were done in the middle of the 6 hour 100% period.

I feel like this is low PAR, but I've also read that the blue spectrum isn't picked up on a PAR meter very well. If this is the case, could I potentially be providing too much light to my tank?

Edit: Added more details:

Haha, alright alright, I should have included those details

1 coral that is showing signs of bleaching randomly in the middle of a few branches and it has been in the tank since the start. It's a purple stylo
2 corals that are showing signs of bleaching are sitting right at 250 PAR and they're monti's. 1 WWC grafted, 1 Tequila sunrise
3 SPS are in the same area getting 250 PAR, but they aren't bleaching. One is WWC Nuclear Fusion Acro and it's thriving. One is WWC Rodger Dodger Acro and it thrived at first and now it's just kind of surviving. One is a tri color dark green acro and it's thriving very well.
1 SPS is right next to the other acroporas on the next rock getting maybe 275 PAR, it's a TCK Pikachu and it's bleaching around the base. I've never seen polyp extension from this coral day or night. Every other coral has great PE.
1 SPS is getting about 125 PAR closer to the sand bed. It's a Garf Bonsai and it's doing great too.
1 Rose Bubble Tip Anemone with 2 clowns. At 200 PAR, it's doing really well, it deflates for about 10 minutes
I have a bunch of LPS on the sandbed. Acans, Hammers, Zoas, and Lobo. They are doing great.

Taken today at 3:00 PM. These numbers have been consistently like this for weeks so it's quite consistent. The tank has been up for about 9 months. However, it was an upgrade from a 17 gallon that was running for about a year. Algae issues that I have are bubble algae. I have a ton of it and there is also a film of green algae on the back wall. My tang eats it all day.

Calcium: 480
Alkalinity: 7.5
Magnesium: 1275
Nitrate: 25ppm
PH: 8.2
Salinity: 1.025
Temp: 78.3

 

[A. grandis]

Lol. Led aren’t poison buddy.
My feeling is lowwe nutrients and a meter prob.

A fwiw that does reinforce some of your beliefs. I’ve been recently working with folks on the par I thier tanks with the same leds as I have.
Everything is great and growing. But once they found out how actually high they were running the par , they assumed a problem when there conclusively was none, was quite interesting.




For the most part , it’s not the Light.
It’s not a rule , mostly a guideline.

If one element is out of whack , Light alk food etc, problem begins.
Knowing these numbers is just helpful. In troubleshooting.

If Led was the prob due to untestable elements and lack of something , it could also easily be flake food and he shoud feed live foods.

At the center of the tank, at 12in, with t5 alone , he shoud get about 150 par per tube. He shoud be running about 1000, not 500 from the t5.

The strip at 12in alone should be about 4-500 (although it’s a single at narrower band).

And yes , a simple inexpensive lux meter could help to verify the par question , but folks don’t belive that works. Key word, belive.

Well... having only T5s one can have many variables and will never have nutrient/alkalinity/PAR related problems.
That's my point, and aways will be.
If he wants to keep those LEDs with the T5s...
The help here comes from you guys that deal with the LEDs and try t help him with the intensity/spectrum relationship. I should be easy for you guys once you have the PAR values then... also you can try to let him know about all the alk, nutrients relationship with the PAR and so on.
My suggestion is to make it easier and save those corals now.
I'm interested to know how this will be solved before the corals die from the bleaching.
Grandis.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Well... having only T5s one can have many variables and will never have nutrient/alkalinity/PAR related problems.
That's my point, and aways will be.
If he wants to keep those LEDs with the T5s...
The help here comes from you guys that deal with the LEDs and try t help him with the intensity/spectrum relationship. I should be easy for you guys once you have the PAR values then... also you can try to let him know about all the alk, nutrients relationship with the PAR and so on.
My suggestion is to make it easier and save those corals now.
I'm interested to know how this will be solved before the corals die from the bleaching.
Grandis.

I’d shorten the photo period or decrease intensity till the meter question is fixed or answered.

With any tank , it’s how you find the Sweet spot. Search

I like simple things.

 

[A. grandis]

You were suggesting to lower the LEDs in this sentence?
"Best thing to do is to put them very low and go from there if you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to keep the LEDs over the tank."

Correct, my friend.
If you look the context you will see that I was referring to LEDs, not corals:
"My dear, it's not the "amount of light" per say. It's the application and all together.
The unnecessary presence of those LEDs.
If you had only T5s, and your tank is up to 24" deep, you would be more than fine and you wouldn't need to figure out anything, but that is the world of LEDs.
Best thing to do is to put them very low and go from there if you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to keep the LEDs over the tank.
Grandis."
Again, sorry for the confusion.
Grandis.

 

[madweazl]

Hey madweazi, here is the first quote, so you can help him with the LEDs:
...

showing signs of bleaching are sitting right at 250 PAR and they're monti's. 1 WWC grafted, 1 Tequila sunrise
3 SPS are in the same area getting 250 PAR, but they aren't bleaching. One is WWC Nuclear Fusion Acro and it's thriving. One is WWC Rodger Dodger Acro and it thrived at first and now it's just kind of surviving. One is a tri color dark green acro and it's thriving very well.
1 SPS is right next to the other acroporas on the next rock getting maybe 275 PAR, it's a TCK Pikachu and it's bleaching around the base.

As I posted earlier, 250 PAR is getting into the photo-inhibition range of some montiporas. Recommendation: lower intensity or - because acroporas may be in the same location - move the montiporas to a more suitable location. I did read the original post and I did make a recommendation based on data we have here on the site to assist the member rather than to suggest removal of a light source because another member vehemently believes they're the sole cause of a/the problem.

 

[A. grandis]

I’d shorten the photo period or decrease intensity till the meter question is fixed or answered.

With any tank , it’s how you find the Sweet spot. Search

I like simple things.

Great, yes, that's kind of what I suggested too.
I would play with the LEDs' intensity and photoperiod, and leave the T5s' photoperiod alone though.
Grandis.

 

[[Cameron]]

My suggestion is to not do anything immediately with the lighting. SPS HATE change. Fussing with the light is likely going to make things worse. Next, I would immediately pack up a water sample and send it in for testing. Triton labs or similar. Add fresh carbon into a high flow area if you don't have it already. Do weekly water changes with a different and high quality brand of salt but don't go crazy. Ten to twenty percent is ample.

 

[A. grandis]

As I posted earlier, 250 PAR is getting into the photo-inhibition range of some montiporas. Recommendation: lower intensity or - because acroporas may be in the same location - move the montiporas to a more suitable location. I did read the original post and I did make a recommendation based on data we have here on the site to assist the member rather than to suggest removal of a light source because another member vehemently believes they're the sole cause of a/the problem.

That was MY suggestion. The easiest and safer of all IMO.
But that's only MY opinion, right?
You know... every time I suggest that to LED users they always come back thanking me forever.
I've never had a negative response from removing LEDs and replacing for T5s and / or halides, according to their needs.
But I did see loss of corals due to changing LED settings here and there, so that shows me there is also a risk.
Therefore my suggestions are aways to cut those LEDs from the equation... 100% happy with results at all times.
Hope you guys understand once for all my point when recommending such thing.
See... I have good friends that stays with the LEDs because they had an investment and don't want to go back to the T5s, but they are ways letting me know why such "this" and "that" is happening in their tanks... They are my friends and they aren't afraid to admit it. They aways say: "yeah, that's because of the LEDs" or " yeah, can't help that cause of the LEDs"...
I'm just exposing the truth of dealing with this LEDs. Until they find the right sweet setting for that particular system they will play a bit of Russian roulette with some touch of PAR numbers. Unless they turn the LEDs all the way low in intensity and go from there. But don't forget to keep the params perfectly at all times and specially know the lines of those water parameter values. Hope they can figure out and keep them very stable too. I'm not too worried about that for my system because I'be got my T5s.
Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

My suggestion is to not do anything immediately with the lighting. SPS HATE change. Fussing with the light is likely going to make things worse. Next, I would immediately pack up a water sample and send it in for testing. Triton labs or similar. Add fresh carbon into a high flow area if you don't have it already. Do weekly water changes with a different and high quality brand of salt but don't go crazy. Ten to twenty percent is ample.

Well, if the problem is truly light they will die before that lab send you back the results. ;Wideyed
SPS corals can survive many days without "great" PAR/ intensity. That's natural of them.
The stability you need to look for a SPS system is water, not much light.
In nature light varies, not much the water qualities.
Grandis.

 

[jda]

A 8 bulb ATI is not too much light for a reef tank.

The only thing that I would change is to just put normal T5 bulbs back in and take those LED tubes out. The T5 will have better spectrum... and probably better output if your PAR is that low. I would replace them with on GE 6500K and a True Actinic and keep them in the middle.

True Actinic will always register low on a PAR meter since a lot of their output is below what the meter can capture. The spectrum is very useful, it is just a reading error with a hobby-grade meter.

 

[madweazl]

There must be some language barrier here..

...
Your LEDs are probably doing this, considering your temperature and assuming there is no chemistry provoking the bleaching!
Your algae problem is probably related to the LEDs/phosphates.
...

That statement suggests the intensity was too high? LEDs cause bubble algae now?

 

[A. grandis]

A 8 bulb ATI is not too much light for a reef tank.

The only thing that I would change is to just put normal T5 bulbs back in and take those LED tubes out. The T5 will have better spectrum... and probably better output if your PAR is that low. I would replace them with on GE 6500K and a True Actinic and keep them in the middle.

True Actinic will always register low on a PAR meter since a lot of their output is below what the meter can capture. The spectrum is very useful, it is just a reading error with a hobby-grade meter.

Bingo!
Grandis.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Glad to hear I helped in a small way!

 

[A. grandis]

There must be some language barrier here..

That statement suggests the intensity was too high? LEDs cause bubble algae now?

Either you are very confused or you are really looking for something to get me. LOL!

The bubble algae sentence isn't directly related to the other sentence.
I have bubble algae with my T5s. That would be silly of me stating LEDs cause bubble algae.
We do not have LEDs over the ocean and it's full of bubble algae. LOL!
I don't have a huge amount of bubble algae though. They are under control.
The combination of those LEDs's intensity and phosphate could be the reason in his particular case.
I was just trying to help him out.

I'm still waiting for you to help him more than trying to analyze my sentences, please.

Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

Glad to hear I helped in a small way!

You aways help us.
Thanks!
Grandis.

 

[madweazl]

PAR data from one of Dana Riddle's posts (I cant find the original thread where he posted them for the link). Formatting was edited a bit to make it easier to read (hopefully I didn't goon up any values in the process).

Host -- Compensation -- Saturation -- Photoinhibition -- Depth

Acropora cervicornis ------ n/a --281 -- n/a -- 17m
Acropora cervicornis ------ n/a --331 -- n/a -- 17m
Acropora digitifera -------- 82 ---387 --n/a -- 1m
Acropora divaricata --- --- 10 ---77 ----n/a ---40m
Acropora formosa ---------170 --340 --n/a ---1m
Acropora gemmifera ------ 270 - 340 --n/a -- 1m
Acropora granulosa ------- 53 ---102 -- n/a --40m
Acropora microphthalma -n/a - 300 --n/a --n/a
Acropora millepora --------n/a - 190 -- n/a - <2m
Acropora millepora -------- n/a --230 --n/a - <2m
Acropora nobilis ------------n/a --310 -- n/a - <2m
Acropora nobilis ------------n/a --180 -- n/a - <2m
Anthopleura elegantissima -73 ---n/a ---n/a --n/a
Montipora capitata -------- n/a --135 ---250 - n/a
* Montipora danae --------- n/a --200 -- n/a - n/a
Montipora tuberculosa ---- n/a --180 -- n/a - <2m
Montipora tuberculosa ---- n/a --300 --n/a --<2m
Pavona varians ------------ n/a -- 110 --350 -- n/a
* Pavona/Leptastrea ------ n/a-- n/a-- 500 -- n/a
Pocillopora damicornis ----n/a -- 225 --n/a -- <2m
Pocillopora eydouxi --------n/a -- 323 --n/a -- n/a
Porites cylindrica ---------- n/a -- 200 - n/a -- n/a
Porites lobata ---------------n/a -- 250 - 350 -- n/a
Porites lutea ---------------- n/a -- 400 - 750 -- 1.5m
Sinularia densa ------------ n/a -~207 --n/a -- n/a
Stylophora pistillata ------ 40 ----200 - n/a -- n/a
Stylophora pistillata -------n/a ---300 - 600 --n/a
Tridacna maxima ----------n/a- >600 >1,900 n/a

* Monti danae "Superman"
* Pevona/Leptastria "Jack-O-Lantern"