Cali Kid Corals

I can't stop thinking of this light study

Tell me what youse guys think about this, and yes I do know it is a small study with limited data, but the whole photosynthesis and spectrum thing is making me rethink PAR....

"The idea that the wavelength (color) of the light under which a coral has grown can influence some characteristic of the coral is not new. Kinzie and later Schlacher both have probed specific hypotheses is this general area of coral research. Seminal studies by Kinzie assessed coral skeletal growth rates under the influence of blue, red, green, and white growth lights for both Montipora verrucosa and Pocillopora damicornis (Kinzie, 1984). They concluded that these corals grew fastest under blue light, followed closely by white light, then green light, and finally the slowest growth was observed under red light. They followed up this study by measuring photosynthesis rates of Montipora verrucosa under these same lighting conditions (Kinzie, 1987). Once again, the highest photosynthesis rates were achieved under blue light; slightly lower but similar rates were observed for corals grown under both white light and green light, followed distantly by photosynthesis rates under red light. More recently, Schlacher et al. examined growth rates of Acropora solitaryensis under 150W metal halide bulbs rated at 5.5K, 10K, 14K, and 20K color temperatures (Schlacher, 2007). After 3 months of grow-out, the overall growth rates under the different bulbs were quite distinct: 6.2 mg/day at 5.5K, 4.9 mg/day at 10K, 8.5 mg/day at 14K, and 10.9 mg/day at 20K. Thus, the bulbs delivering the highest proportion of blue light (20K and 14K) promoted the highest growth rates. One concern clouds the interpretation of these results; the authors positioned all of the bulbs at the same height above the corals, leading to significant differences in the measured Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD) delivered to the coral from each of these lamps. For example, the PPFD of the 20K lamp at the 400-450 nm spectral range of chlorophyll absorption is about 7.5 times greater than the PPFD of the 5.5K lamp at this same spectral range. The significance of these photon quantity differences on growth rate, independent of overall bulb "color", remains to be determined. The relationship between incident light color and consequent coral coloration, the topic of this essay, was considered by Riddle (Riddle, 2003). Using a brown Pocillopora meandrina as a test case, coral coloration was visually assayed after exposure of this SPS to focused light from either blue, red, green, yellow, or ultraviolet LED's over a period of greater than 7 weeks. The coral section irradiated by the blue LED turned from brown to pink, whereas the other colored lights either had no effect, or promoted coral bleaching. This limited investigation led to some intriguing speculation about the connection between growth light and coral color, and it sets the stage for the more extensive studies described below."

you can read the entire article here http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/3/aafeature1


Dammit I feel like I need to change my lighting again :p
 
heheh Jeremy, well damn you for posting this :p I've been seriously considering switching back to 10k bulbs with reduced lighting time and forcing some blue t5s over the canopy somehow. Now this makes me want to stick with my 14k hamis, I would like to try 20k Radiums but from everything I've seen if you don't overdrive them with a HQI ballast they won't quite do the same as an electronic ballast.
 
Even if that is true, it is just a study of growth rate. It doesnt really show kelvin affects on color. I just switched to 14ks from 20ks and my colors have gotten way more intense. My change is from helios 20ks to aquaconnect 14k, so Im also making a huge jump in par. If the study is correct and Ill have slower growth as a consequence, this is acceptable to me if I can maintain really good coloration.
 
[quote author=Paradox link=topic=3968.msg46953#msg46953 date=1214275011]
Even if that is true, it is just a study of growth rate. It doesnt really show kelvin affects on color. I just switched to 14ks from 20ks and my colors have gotten way more intense. My change is from helios 20ks to aquaconnect 14k, so Im also making a huge jump in par. If the study is correct and Ill have slower growth as a consequence, this is acceptable to me if I can maintain really good coloration.
[/quote]

The Aquaconnect is a higher quality bulb IME, no surprise here. The difference between the 10k and 14k is of interest to me, seems as if there is a larger difference there.

That's the question that keep running through my head, the whole a photon is a photon is a photon thing.. Maybe efficiency isn't what is assumed by many (as was in my case).
 
shorter wavelenght (more blue) photons have more energy then longer wavelength photons.

E= hc/l

h and C are constants. l (wavelength) varies. as it gets smaller, E (energy) gets larger.

But that is only touching the surface.

The next factor is overlap. For the energy to be useful, it needs to be absorbed. The most ideal case is when the energy * overlap integral is maximized. (geek speek).
 
[quote author=Gomer link=topic=3968.msg46961#msg46961 date=1214280932]
shorter wavelenght (more blue) photons have more energy then longer wavelength photons.

E= hc/l

h and C are constants. l (wavelength) varies. as it gets smaller, E (energy) gets larger.

But that is only touching the surface.

The next factor is overlap. For the energy to be useful, it needs to be absorbed. The most ideal case is when the energy * overlap integral is maximized. (geek speek).
[/quote]OK I'm feelin you, how does that relate to PAR?
 
I am not 100%, but I THINK PAR is the sum of energy between 400-700nm. I do not think it is the overlap integral.

(overlap integral: light intensity * absorption strength summed over all wavelengths. If something absorbs at 50% with 50% intensity, the "integral" at that wavelength is .25. If 1% absorbance and 100% intensity, then 0.01. If 100% absorbance and 1% intensity, then 0.01)

The most ideal case for growth is when the intensity tracts the absorption at a maximum efficiency. This second part is a little trickier. Some wavelengths are not directly usable efficiently by chlorophyll, BUT you can have another compound absorb the color, and emit energy at a lower wavelength which indirectly increases efficiency beyond just that of chlorophyll. I think the caratinoids do this (spelling). Been a long time since I hit those text books :p
 
hiep, I think it would be interesting to do a PAR, CCT study I nominate you to head that one up :D


Interesting stuff Tony, thinking of it from a surfing perspective, or a musical perspective, there's more to it than just PAR potentially because those longer wavelengths may be quantified diffrently from different perspectives (volts/amps wave height/period). Am I making any sense here? Am I out of my mind?
 
[quote author=tuberider link=topic=3968.msg46960#msg46960 date=1214279346]

The Aquaconnect is a higher quality bulb IME, no surprise here. The difference between the 10k and 14k is of interest to me, seems as if there is a larger difference there.

That's the question that keep running through my head, the whole a photon is a photon is a photon thing.. Maybe efficiency isn't what is assumed by many (as was in my case).
[/quote]

I agree that aquaconnects are quality bulbs. Well at least I hope so for the costs... However, what variable of the quality is producing better colors.. Par or kelvin rating?
 
As I interpret what you are saying, you have 2 thoughts which aren't connecting lol.

Energy can be expressed in different units if that is what you mean. I think we can have a powwow sometime to get each other on the same thought process :-D
 
re: aquaconnect. they may be built better, have a more pleasing color, last longer etc etc, but that doesn't necessarily make it quality for growth :p
 
[quote author=Gomer link=topic=3968.msg46975#msg46975 date=1214284680]
As I interpret what you are saying, you have 2 thoughts which aren't connecting lol.

[/quote]


Yes
 
Photosynthesis from a music perspective! PAR (as I understand it's definition) is: If a note is between C1 to C2 on a chromatic scale, it counts equally. A C or Bb or F# are all good and all equally sound good. But coral has better ears. But you and I know, that you can't pick random notes and have it sound good. What you want, is to play within a key. lets make it C. If you play substitute a Bb in place of B, it sounds like ass (usually). Right notes sound right, the wrong notes sound wrong. You want your coral to be tapping to the music, so you need to play things that sound good. C, G, F, C, F, G, C and your coral is happy. Your coral resonates with a key. Give it what it wants :p Toss at it an arpeggio, or octaves. It will take a dissonant cord from time to time, but toss it majors and it will be all shiny and happy.

Did I just go off the deepend?
 
[quote author=Gomer link=topic=3968.msg46982#msg46982 date=1214285784]

Did I just go off the deepend?


[/quote]

Fer shure dood.



maybe what I was implying was the amount of energy involved in creating tones, as well as light, they're all waves right, you can quantify them from differing perspectives, what the coral uses most efficiently is the question.
 
ah. sound waves and light are very different. Light is electromagnetic radiation...just think of it as...a photon and ignore anything else lol. Sound waves do have energy, but all sound is, is a contraction or expansion of air pressure. Very different beasts. Comparing them would be like ...comparing Flower and Flour. Sure you can make very vague connections, but that is about it.
 
science.jpg
 
Back
Top