Do actinics provide any value to corals?

[shaggydoo541]

What the hell he's not even a biologist he's a professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. That's about as far from this topic as it gets.

 

That doesn't mean he doesn't know a thing or two about reef lighting. Look at his articles and especially his work in researching and analyzing MH bulbs etc. Its extremely useful but I don't know about it being relevant to this topic....

[Nyxis]

Ok, so can anyone point me in the direction of this experiment prop is talking about because all I see are spectral analysis reports and about four links to some tank one of their graduating classes set up.

[The Propagator]

Well since I am beign slammed for links in a thread that has nothing to do with the one I posted links in here ya go:

 

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=99188

 

 

 

The man may not be a marine biologist but I bet a dollar he knows more about lighting than all of us put together.

WE are armchair researchers, he actualy DID IT.

 

His findings are scientificly proven and founded.

Thats solid evidence any way you look at it, marinebiologist or not.

 

I am going to look for the Actinic findings right now.

 

When I do I dont want any whimping out like " but he isnt a marine biologist WTF!" Facts are facts. Take the information and run the numbers your self.

 

 

If actinic lighting didnt offer anything other than asthetic value then why is blue light a MAJOR component in ALL reef lighting?

EVEN IN 10k ( "white" light) THERE IS BLUE LIGHT

 

I am not saying ALL actinic bulbs are good for growth and healthy coral.

Only those in a certain NM range with a certain wattage out put. ( IE pc's, or VHO)

 

 

 

I need links too. I'm beginning to think sanjay is just someone you made up as a fake scientist to win arguments. Seriously I can find nothing on the web written by this person. Also according to that experiment I linked actinic only provides benifit if you are below a certain intensity threshold so I would be very interested in seeing what intensity they used.

 

edit: Is it Sanjay Joshi?

 

 

Thats probably because you never looked.

 

I found it on my FIRST GOOGLE attempt FIVE links down from the top.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=S...G=Google+Search

 

didnt the words "SANJAYS REEF AQUARIUMS" give you any sort of clue what so ever?

 

Jesus, Mary and joseph in a tiny canoe guy!

 

 

 

EDIT:

I am going to do one better.....

I have a direct line through a friend to Anthony Califo, and Eric Boreneman.

I will email them directly and pose the same questions raised here to them and see what they fire back with.

Good?

 

 

Emails sent.....the wait begins LOL!!

 

 

 

Edit ( the sequal! )

I havent recieved an email reply yet but I did find where Borneman wrote what he thought about actinics and this very question......

 

"Eric Borneman

That's a crock. Now, if you have a tank that is mostly lit by metal halides and there are a couple of normal output actinics, it may be relatively small by comaprison. But if you have a tank lit by normal output lights, its a different story. If you use VHO actinics, its a different story. Actinic lighting is a special spectrum, sure - yes, its aesthetic, but it is also functional...as functional as any light soruce for corals and the spectrum part, while duplicating deeper water spectrum, is also functional to shallow water photosnthetic life."

 

 

and again here :

 

 

"Eric Borneman

Thanks, Dallas, for nicely summarizing my point...thats exactly what I was saying...and naturally you would know the same as true ;-)

 

Kevin, you can disagree if you want, but I promise this is not a defended opinion. I can assure you I have the "data", and we can chat about relative contribution of wavelengths to zooxanthellae day and night - and I will have the papers to back myself up.

 

But, this is not the point. The point is if actinics are mostly aesthetic. They aren't. Photosynthesizers need light. They need x amount of light to reach their photosynthetic saturation level. Any above that must be dissipated or it is photoinhibitive or damaging. White light, red light, blue light....just get the photosynthetic machinery to that level. Now do corals have the photosynthetic machinery to do this with actinics. Yes. Case closed. "

 

 

 

University of Houston

Department of Biology and Biochemistry

Room 329, Science and Research Bldg. II

4800 Cullen

Houston, Texas 77204-5001

(713) 743-2667 phone

email: eborneman@uh.edu

 

Is that a figure with enough authority on coral for you Nyxis ?

Not a marinebiologist, but with a degree in Biology AND Biochemistry I tend to think

he knows what he is talking about

 

 

Found here:

http://www.reefs.org/library/article/actinic_lighting.html

 

Dallas Warren on the same topic (of OZ Reef also found in the same link above):

 

"Dallas Warren

I think here you need to be all talking on the same level, which I don't think you are all currently.

 

The context with which I believe the statement that actinics are for nothing more than aesthetics is that it isn't that important what the composition of the spectrum of the bulb is, as long as there is enough light of the appropriate wavelengths for photosynthesis to occur. So as long as you satisfy the needs of photosynthesis, beyond that it doesn't matter what bulbs you use, actinic, day light etc.

 

As for Eric's stance on this, he is saying that the spectrum from actinic lights are important, because of the fact it is important for photosynthesis. So on this basis saying actinic lights is for aesthetics is incorrect, it can be very important if it is the important/dominant source of light of the right spectrum for photosynthesis to occur. So before anyone argues any further, may I suggest you state first on which part you are arguing ;-)"

 

 

 

Bada-bing! Bada BOOM !!!! KISS IT BABY !! YEAH !!!!!! Kiss that "P" on my shirt!! BOW DOWN BEFORE MY LITTLE BLACK SLIPPERS !!!

[Mr. Fosi]

Well, now there are some Borneman quotes to back up what I had been saying for 3 pages.

 

Sanjay is a great researcher. It really doesn't much matter what his degree is in, especially since he is measuring the properties of the light output, not making statements about what it means biologically.

[PhatSOB]

I would remove his contact info to prevent him from getting unwanted calls from random people!!

 

Interesting read.

[Nyxis]

Prop I cannot find anything in there about Actinic increasing coral health(your original statement). Was anyone arguing that actinic was completly useless to corals? Because that's who it looks like your reply was written for. The point I was arguing is essentialy this one

 

The context with which I believe the statement that actinics are for nothing more than aesthetics is that it isn't that important what the composition of the spectrum of the bulb is, as long as there is enough light of the appropriate wavelengths for photosynthesis to occur. So as long as you satisfy the needs of photosynthesis, beyond that it doesn't matter what bulbs you use, actinic, day light etc.

 

 

The man may not be a marine biologist but I bet a dollar he knows more about lighting than all of us put together.

WE are armchair researchers, he actualy DID IT.

 

If anyone of us had access to the equipment he does we could have done the exact same thing. From his webpage all I am convinced of is he knows how to make graphs in excel and can use a spectrometer. That does not constitute a guru of all things saltwater IMO.

 

My point here was based on the first link I posted is that if you have enough light intensity you do not need actinic bulbs. Everything you posted here either backs that up or is about corals being able to use actinic for photosynthesis, something I never refuted. So maybe you and me are just running on different brain wavelengths because I don't think your understanding what I'm trying to say here.

[supernip]

um doesnt chlorophyll a absorb both in the 450 and 700 range +/- 50nm-ish? and the reaction center uses 680 and 700 right? So i dont really understand what the point is of absorbing the shorter wavelengths and having it bounce from pigment to pigment until it hits the less energetic wavelengths. I will have to read up on it.

 

 

I didnt really bother to skim through the posts but i had a few questions for an upcoming project.

 

1. does the effects of a narror band of light stress the corals out? i.e. decrease in other pigments/ specific zoanthellae .

- er this question depends on if the the coral has more than 1 symbiotic species. zoanthellae isn't a species right?

 

2. how does that affect adaptability when moved from environment to environment, does it harm the coral's light buffering ability. by which I mean tolerance to other wavelengths

 

3. Is any of this even relevant or do the corals we keep have the ability to regulate its symbiote population to the point where if I gave it enough photon source, it would grow anyway.

 

 

I guess this is more of an led system but I think it fits well too as most actinic bulbs we use have a huge spike at the blue-violet end and practically nothing in the higher ranges (if theyre good bulbs.)

 

 

and lastly, from my understanding a brown coral= healthy coral, and the overkill lighting(broader spectrum) we use is to increase population of carotenoids that protect the coral from excess energy and are thusly more appealing to us? which would be more apparent in sps, but wouldnt matter so much in lps/ softies. or please correct me if Im wrong.

 

plus, not having those middle spectrums would pretty much just give you a brown coral doesnt it? If so, then the actinic bulbs themselves are biologically important, but not so much so aesthetically, yes? sorry im in a rush. Im ask these questions formally in another thread later. thanks, sorry for hijacking this thread.

 

 

p.s.,

please state sources if you choose to answer my questions. And um... please refraining from citing online sources if possible. Online quote= F in a lot of my classes

[Mr. Fosi]

please state sources if you choose to answer my questions. And um... please refraining from citing online sources if possible. Online quote= F in a lot of my classes

 

Same for me.

 

Check some of the citations that I listed earlier in the thread, plus this one:

 

Dustan, P. (1982) Depth-dependent photoadaption by zooxanthellae of the reef coral Montastrea annularis. Journal of Marine Biology, Vol 68, #3, pp253-264.

[supernip]

thanks, i will look into it after I read the book on photosynthesis you recommended earlier

[Mr. Fosi]

... after I read the book on photosynthesis you recommended earlier

 

That may take a while , but it is a friggin awsome book. It has been my best friend for a couple questions on my adv. biological oceanography class midterm.

[The Propagator]

Nyxis,

Your obviously insane.

Knit picking at words wont change facts.

Wheather it increases health or helps them remain healthy are one in the same to me bro'.

All your doing now is scrambling franticly trying to find somthing wrong, and holding on to what ever scrap you can make up or dig up, and trying your damndest to twist words to make them suite you.

 

Take your beating like a man/woman/chronic complainer, what ever.

 

 

Remember what I said?

 

"When I do I dont want any whimping out like " but he isnt a marine biologist WTF!" Facts are facts."

 

[chuckfullservice]

Ok the novice is back!

So what I get from all this is that , I'm going to run both my white and acintic all day , maybe have the acintic come on first in the mornig and stay on for maybe an hour after the white shut off, this way my corals recieve both spectrums for the majority of the day I feel this gives them the best opportunity to absorb what the corals can from what is availible. Just incase everyone is right .

 

From a spectators view I would have to lean on the side of Mr. frosi considering that the oceans water would turn the light source availible to corals in nature blue for the most part , but I think we can all agree on the fact that its the most intense blue availible on the planet, from the sun! Now is this acintic availible in our hobby equal to the suns output or intensity ? I would guess not also I would have to assume that stray spectral rays of other colors would reach the corals if only in small quantities, would that not be a correct assumption? I would wonder though if we had extemely intense acintics would the coral thrive only under the blues? Man can not live on bread and water alone I like a variety in my diet wouldn't then corals like a variety as well?

Well thats my uneducated minorly informed opinion!

 

sTUPID MONKEYS Had to go and evolve didn't we!

[The Propagator]

Personaly under VHO or high watt PC actinics in the 420nm - 500nm range I strongly believe coral would still thrive.

 

It just wouldnt be apealing to your eye.

[Mr. Fosi]

Personaly under VHO or high watt PC actinics in the 420nm - 500nm range I strongly belive coral would still thrive.

 

It just wouldnt be apealing to your eye.

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

Hence my comment that "full spectrum" lamps that provide "white" light ("I wanna see all the pretty colors mommy!) are as much for our aesthtic benefit as are "actinics" (giving the corals that "pop" in fluorescent color).

 

Mr.Anderson pointed out the definition of "actinic", what was it again...?

 

The "assumption" about small amounts of other wavelengths reaching them may or may not be correct depending on where in the water column we are talking about. You should really check out that last ref I posted for supernip.

[The Propagator]

[supernip]

this is confusing, can you guys just use growth instead of thrive? because that's what we're discussing. Pure growth. Some folks might get the idea that thrive is gonna mean better color.

[chuckfullservice]

Figure 4 Figure 5

 

 

Figure 6 Figure 7

 

 

Figure 8 Figure 9

Wouldn't then going by theese charts the best light be 7000k bulb because the color 450-490 nm are stongest and have the most E. ??? Sorry pics didn't come thru heres the link

Scroll down to colour temp.http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-03/atj/index.php

And this line is at the bottom of the paragraph and really confuses me.

Please note that colour temperature can only be applied to "white" light, that is, light that has a mixture of all wavelengths. Actinic lights, for example, do not have a colour temperature as such.

Does that mean that acintics have no range of nanometers or no kelvin rating???

[supernip]

umm that chart says 10k does. I think you're looking for 400-450. Photosynth around 700 too. Intense middle spectrum= more acessory pigments

[Nyxis]

You sir are a madman. Your last very long post was supposed to be against me but in reality everything in it supported my position. If your objective was to confuse me about what you are trying to acheive here you have succeded admirably.

 

Also yes I was shocked that you would bring up information gathered by someone who has not received any formal training in this field as an expert. Plus none of his articles were remotely close to what you claimed they were. All he has is spectral analysis of mh bulbs, useful but not relevant to this converation. I'm beginning to think you are a politician. I ask a question and you answer the question you wish I had asked.

 

edit: adressed to prop

[chuckfullservice]

Does anybody know of a book that is titled

Lighting my aquarium for Idiots???

I have been staring into my computer screen for so long all I see is white and what wavelength is that 1000 Nanometers or 50 ugh ?

ohh wait white isn't a color is it its a shade I'm soo cunfused !

I can't wait for technology to get to the point of the matrix movie so I can just download it right into my brain like Neo.

Any ways I'll keep reading it until I comprehend it better but until then I'll take the word of you nice people.

[Nyxis]

Does anybody know of a book that is titled

Lighting my aquarium for Idiots???

I have been staring into my computer screen for so long all I see is white and what wavelength is that 1000 Nanometers or 50 ugh ?

ohh wait white isn't a color is it its a shade I'm soo cunfused !

I can't wait for technology to get to the point of the matrix movie so I can just download it right into my brain like Neo.

Any ways I'll keep reading it until I comprehend it better but until then I'll take the word of you nice people.

 

lol. You can get really good advice here if you post your tank specs and the types of coral you want to keep. Unlike this theoretical discussion you will get answers based on what's worked well for people.

[The Propagator]

You sir are a madman. Your last very long post was supposed to be against me but in reality everything in it supported my position. If your objective was to confuse me about what you are trying to acheive here you have succeded admirably.

 

Also yes I was shocked that you would bring up information gathered by someone who has not received any formal training in this field as an expert. Plus none of his articles were remotely close to what you claimed they were. All he has is spectral analysis of mh bulbs, useful but not relevant to this converation. I'm beginning to think you are a politician. I ask a question and you answer the question you wish I had asked.

 

edit: adressed to prop

 

 

Well no ######e sherlock !!

Ofcourse it supports THIS TOPIC and your FIRST post.

 

BUT your stance seemed to change when you started atacking source credentials.

Thats where the lines blurred.

 

Actualy you brought TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS from TWO DIFFERENT THREADS that we BOTH posted in into THIS topic.

 

Hence your Sanjay comment, and my posting the link since you mentioned that link in this thread.

 

BTW heres the reply Email from Eric B. :

 

 

"Yes - it provides usable light. Actinic has intrinsically less PAR than white light per watt because its spectrum is pushed to one side, but a lot of it overlaps the primary blue spectrum used by chlorophylls , so it is indeed useful, and not just pretty.

 

 

Eric"

 

 

My original statement was that I had though that someone had already performed a experiment to find out if actinics were usable or purely asthetics, and I dropped a few names.

( AND THEY HAVE BTW)

 

Then you proceded to mix things up and twist it all around by bringing in comments about the link I posted in another thread on another topic.

From then on I had no idea what in the hell you were talking about.

The other thread or this thread?

 

My whole point was to prove that they had already performed tests to see if actinic's provided usable lighting.

You said I was making up names, and they had not.

I found it. I posted it, and made a point to let you know the persons credentials.

 

 

Your taking this way to seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supernip,

To me, "thrive" means a coral is keeping its color and or gaining color, and continuing to "grow" at an average or slightly above average rate.

[Mr. Fosi]

Supernip,

To me, "thrive" means a coral is keeping its color and or gaining color, and continuing to "grow" at an average or slightly above average rate.

 

But Prop, these are not directly biologically linked.

 

As already stated here and elsewhere, the pretty colors that we want them to keep are primarily a stress response to a huge amount of light energy. That has nothing to do with their growth.

 

Heck, I have some brown Madracis in my tank that is growning like a weed, but has no pretty colors...

[The Propagator]

I am not as "techy" as the rest of you and all my comments are going to be in laymans terms. LOL!

 

 

I just gave my take on what "thrive" ment man.

 

Technicly it is biologicly linked though isnt it?

I mean it is biologicly stressing them to make them produce those prety colors right?

 

Thats a question not a statement guised as a question BTW

[Nyxis]

Prop I'm not even going to bother reading that entire post. I respect the fact that you have a lot of practical knowledge on this subject but I will not beat my head into the wall trying to explain to you what is being discussed here. It's giving me a headache and I'm not convinced it's worth the effort nor am I convinced that if I tried it would have any effect on you.