natejonesis Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Last week I did a big cleaning and water change in my tank. Since then I've observed that some of my Mushrooms started dividing and my xenia and cespitularia started showing new growth. I assumed that my tank had hit some magic turning point. Then last night I realized that instead of plugging my Actinic lights back into the timer, I accidentally plugged it into an always-on outlet. My actinics had been running continously for the past week. I have a 20L and I use a Current Orbit Fixture with (1)65W 10K and (1) 65W Dual Actinic. Is there any danger in having my actinics running 24 hours a day?? I don't have any fishes, just corals and I kinda like the results so far. Link to comment
proraptor Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 I run my dual actinic all day....I thought you were supposed to Link to comment
Caesar777 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 You stirred up a lot of settled nutrients in the tank--the corals are having a feast. I don't think there's any problem with running actinics all day--and proraptor: no, they're meant to be run as "dawn" and "dusk", generally--BUT it's definitely something to look into. The best people to look up would be the experts like Anthony Calfo, Robert Fenner, maybe Robert Schimek(sp)... They all have decades of experience, schooling, etc., and do reefing professionally. Have any photos of your Cespitularia, btw? That's rare, awesome stuff--nice score! Link to comment
natejonesis Posted July 30, 2005 Author Share Posted July 30, 2005 My camera is a mess, but I'll try to take a shot later. Just so you know, it's not the blue one, its kind of a silvery/beige color. I like it though, they're pretty cool. Link to comment
shaggydoo541 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 From what I've read running lights 24/7 can cause some good growth spurts at first but long term is not a good idea. Corals naturally have a day/night cycle in the ocean. They have evolved over time w/ this cycle never changing, and since we should try to provide as natural an environment as possible IMO giving them a night time w/ no lights is for the best. Link to comment
offsprg01 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 i run my atinics 24/7 i have much better polyp extention. i think i more closely resembles moon light on the upper stratta of a reef. hth Link to comment
ejls2 Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 My girlfriend is doing a doctorate on the molecular clock which plants and animals use to adjust themselves to the dawn/dusk cycle. While I know diddly about how it works in corals, from what I know about the mechanisms in general and from what I've read in particular, I'd have thought that doing it in the long term really woudn't be a good idea. As with everything else in this hobby there'll probably be quite a few people who've had good experiences using 24hr light and I don't mean to cast doubt on their achievements but I'd have thought that in the long run it would be best to stick to a vaguely natural cycle. I think this would especially be the case if you ever want to trade/sell frags as the adaption back to a 12/12 lighting system will be an added shock when the frags go to the new system. HTH and I'll try and find out more and PM you if I find anything interesting. Link to comment
natejonesis Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 Thanks. Ejls, I'm looking forward to hearing what you find. Offsprg01, how long have you been running your actinics 24/7? I think that they mentioned running 24/7 actinics at GARF.org as well. Link to comment
phergus_25 Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 I dont know that I would suggest actinics 24/7. I know it was full light but a friends tank lookes like ######, we couldent figgure out why, then it turns out that his timer was broke, since the lights were set to come on before he ot to work and og off fater he never knew. but to each his own. but Like plants corals need a dark period. -greg Link to comment
fishwife Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Originally posted by ejls2 HTH and I'll try and find out more and PM you if I find anything interesting. Please post any additional information you find here so we can all read it. I'm interested in this issue too. Link to comment
natejonesis Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 Phergus, when you say his tank looked like ######....do you mean the corals(expansion, coloration)?? or do you mean it was getting coated in algae, etc, etc. Also, just to be sure; you said that his was running full light, not just actinics...right. Link to comment
phergus_25 Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Well algea want much of a problem, it was mainly that his brain coral started bleaching and had bad tissue expantion, shrooms wouldent expand... the list wend on and on, a weak actinic I could see that working well, but I know that I consider my 2 watts of moon light too much for all night, I have it on a timer too. but to each his own of corse there are aout amillion diffrent approches to reefing and about .5 million of em work. Link to comment
phergus_25 Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 his full light did go on for about 8 months, and thne the firt night he had the lights off his poor tang beat its self to death because t was scared is what we figgure. Link to comment
natejonesis Posted July 31, 2005 Author Share Posted July 31, 2005 Insomnia will do that.. Link to comment
proraptor Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 BTW: I didnt mean to say I run my actinics al the time...I meant I run them when Im simulating daylight. They go off at night and I run a moon light all night. Everything seems to like it and is thriving... Link to comment
phergus_25 Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 ha ha yea if a fish hasent been without light for all its life in a tank then I guess the sudden shock of darkness... verry confused fish. Link to comment
ejls2 Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Right, have checked with the boss. She doesn't know specifically about corals but will try and dig up some papers on it later today. However she did say that so far, to the best of her knowledge, scientists hadn't found a single organism that did better under 24 hour light than under a natural light dark cycle. As Shaggydoo said all organisms are usually best evolved to their own habitat so any variation from that is likely to be less than beneficial. An experiment her lab just published showed that photosynthesis is inhibited by up to 30% in some cases so if this holds true for the sybiotic photoautotrophs our corals rely on then they should grow less quickly in the medium to long term. Animals if anything tend to react even worse to constant light than plants so it seems like it's not a good plan! However these growth spurts could be caused by the lighting indirectly. If you aren't turning your lights on and off so much you will get less temperature and pH variation (from dissolved CO2) so in a small system it might lead to better stability. Not sure its worth it when balanced against the potential harm though. Link to comment
natejonesis Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 Now keep in mind that as far as a cycle goes there is a day and a night. The day is represented by the 10k combined with actinics while the night is actinics only. I'm not sure if the actinics is sufficient to support or trigger photosynthesis??? Link to comment
ejls2 Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 If it wasn't triggering photosynthesis then there shouldn't really be any difference between them. I think the actinics would be suffieient (though I don't know quite how bright/far away they are etc so can't say for sure) as photosynthesis can occur in really quite dim light. Pure blue light itself isn't enough for photosynthesis, some red is needed. Green is fairly irrelevant (assuming the main pigment is chlorophyl) . However even with actinics there is almost certainly a fair bit of red coming out, though it is masked by the blue so they are probably photosynthesising. As long as the intensity isn't much more that say moonlight it shouldn't affect it, but any more than that could be detrimental. Like I say though I'm not sure about this though I am very tempted to set up an experiment to find out more. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.