Light Intensity Question

[saltkreep88]

Does less light for a longer period equal more light for a shorter period? For example is having leds at 30% for 12 hours roughly the same as having them at 60% for 6 hours? Would corals benefit from one approach over the other? Let me know what you guys think.

Thanks,

Joe

 

[ATLL765]

Does less light for a longer period equal more light for a shorter period? For example is having leds at 30% for 12 hours roughly the same as having them at 60% for 6 hours? Would corals benefit from one approach over the other? Let me know what you guys think.

Thanks,

Joe

I would imagine it's the same if the coral was 1" from the light, but I would think having it at 30% it might not penetrate the water well enough to provide the same amount of usable light to corals at different depths.

 

[saltkreep88]

Can everyone add their photo period as well.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

 

[redfishbluefish]

What a great question.

I have advanced degrees in ignorance (some call it philosophy), so take this with a grain of salt.

Plants require a minimum photoperiod to live (and actually it is uninterrupted darkness to flower). Since almost all the corals we have are in a symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellea algae, I would have to conclude that the LENGTH of light is critical to our corals. The “chlorophyll” reaction to produce sugars (and polymers thereof) has a minimum threshold of light required, but increasing it past that level will not speed up the reaction. You’ll “burn” the plant and kill the cells. JMTC

 

[dppitone]

IMO no, the important variable is the intensity of the light. It has to reach a "certain" intensity before it becomes efficient for the zoo.

 

[Xavier613]

Many people here have seen spideybry's tank and how his corals are doing and growing (quite well with awesome coloring). He has a very interesting lighting scheme that follows what saltkreep is speaking of, intense whites for a shorter period of the day and relying on blues for the rest of the photoperiod. Hopefully he sees this and chimes in, because I forget his exact timings.

 

[saltkreep88]

Many people here have seen spideybry's tank and how his corals are doing and growing (quite well with awesome coloring). He has a very interesting lighting scheme that follows what saltkreep is speaking of, intense whites for a shorter period of the day and relying on blues for the rest of the photoperiod. Hopefully he sees this and chimes in, because I forget his exact timings.

This is similar to what I do but don't want to sacrifice color or growth

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

 

[dppitone]

In either case it doesn't work that way, light isn't cumulative. If 30% is below what the subject needs to be productive, than it doesn't matter if you run 30% for 24 hours straight - it won't accumulate over the longer time span to the benefit of the coral. There will be a par value that is spot on for a particular coral. That is why you put them at different depths, away from the light source. They should have that spot-on intensity for a proper duration, eg. 6 hours at least or whatever it is.

 

[saltkreep88]

I guess I should have asked if light was cumulative, that is the root of my question. Thanks dppitone!

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

 

[Tommyboynj]

Interesting discussion. I would also hope that spidybry chimes in. I have often thought of trying something out like this myself. Mabe ill try in on my frag tank and sees what happens.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk