extended photoperiod?

joshPensacola

New member
any benefits to running long term 18hour photoperiod? i found some reports of people saying its bad but the tests were done for 3 days.... they dont acclimate in 3 days. so if proper acclimation were to occur, could it be beneficial to run lights longer than a set "daylight" time duration?
 
No. There have been scientific reports that demonstrate that lighting periods longer than 8 hours has no positive effect on growth. Constant light bleaches the coral. As long as you have the correct PAR, then ~8 hours is desirable.

Paper is below.

Light intensity, photoperiod duration, daily light flux and coral growth of Galaxea fascicularis in an aquarium setting: a matter of photons?
Author(s): Schutter, M (Schutter, Miriam)1,2; van der Ven, RM (van der Ven, Rosa M.)1; Janse, M (Janse, Max)3; Verreth, JAJ (Verreth, Johan A. J.)1; Wijffels, RH (Wijffels, Rene H.)2; Osinga, R (Osinga, Ronald)1
Source: JOURNAL OF THE MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Volume: 92 Issue: 4 Special Issue: SI Pages: 703-712 DOI: 10.1017/S0025315411000920 Published: JUN 2012
Times Cited: 1 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 57 [ view related records ] Citation Map
Abstract: Light is one of the most important abiotic factors influencing the (skeletal) growth of scleractinian corals. Light stimulates coral growth by the process of light-enhanced calcification, which is mediated by zooxanthellar photosynthesis. However, the quantity of light that is available for daily coral growth is not only determined by light intensity (i.e. irradiance), but also by photoperiod (i.e. the light duration time). Understanding and optimizing conditions for coral growth is essential for sustainable coral aquaculture. Therefore, in this study, the question was explored whether more light (i.e. more photons), presented either as irradiance or as light duration, would result in more growth. A series of nine genetically identical coral colonies of Galaxea fascicularis L. were cultured for a period of 18 weeks at different light duration times (8 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):16 hours dark, 12 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):12 hours dark, 16 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):8 hours dark, 24 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):0 hours dark) and different irradiance levels (8 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):16 hours dark, 8 hours 225 mu E m(-2) s(-1):16 hours dark and 8 hours 300 mu E m(-2) s(-1): 16 hours dark). Growth was determined every two weeks by measuring buoyant weight. Temperature, salinity and feeding levels were kept constant during the experiment. To detect possible acclimation of the corals to an increased light duration, rates of net photosynthesis and dark respiration were measured, hereby comparing coral colonies grown under an 8:16 hours light (150 mu E m(-2) s(-1)): dark cycle with corals grown under a 16:8 hours light (150 mu E m(-2) s(-1)): dark cycle. No increase in growth was detected with either increasing photoperiod or irradiance. Continuous lighting (24 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):0 hours dark) resulted in immediate bleaching and the corals died after 14 weeks. Hourly photosynthetic rates were significantly reduced in the 16 hour light treatment compared to the 8 hour light treatment. As a result, daily net photosynthetic rates were not significantly different, which may explain the observed specific growth rates. Acclimation to photoperiod duration appeared neither to be mediated by changes in chlorophyll-a concentration nor zooxanthellae density. Based on the results of this study, we can conclude that the enhancing effect of light on coral growth is not only a matter of photons. Obviously, the availability of light was not limiting growth in these experiments and was probably in excess (i.e. stressful amounts). Other factors are discussed that play a role in determining growth rates and might explain our results.
 
Good question. Good answer.

I just got new controlable led lights and I can run longer now with way less heat than the old 250w MH's and I have higher and controlable PAR than the MH's. So these kind of questions were kicking around in my head. Thanks.
 
led's are exactly what got me thinking the same thing. i bought a sunbrite 72inch fseries v2 and was debating doing a 12 on 12 off deal but i think i will just stick to around 8 on.
 
how about doing an extended ramping of the lights. light is at its max in the ocean for something like 4 hours so maybe ramp up from 0 to 100 back to zero for 12 or 14 hrs?
 
how about doing an extended ramping of the lights. light is at its max in the ocean for something like 4 hours so maybe ramp up from 0 to 100 back to zero for 12 or 14 hrs?

Thats what I do. :)

4 light fixtures on 3 timers...

Corals respond well to the system, and open up the most about 3 hours after all lights are on...
 
So with LEDs r we saying that the white light cycle needs to be 8 hours? Or the total light cycle? I ramp up for hour and a half and ramp down for hour and a half. Total light duration is like 12 hours but whites r only 6 hours.
 
8 hour photo-period is a rule of thumb - and is different for every coral (in time + spectrum) but you can do more than 8 hours.

Remember most of these corals are from tropical regions, where they may receive more than 8 hours of natural sunlight.

I have my ramp up cycle start @ 9:00 am (blue LEDs only for 2 hours - but on for whole day)
@ 11:00 - 50% T5's come on.
@ 12:15 - 100% T5's come on.

Corals peak (more robust, open most, 'happiest') at about 3pm (about 6 hours after light started, their equivalent noon)

@ 8 - 50% t5's off
@ 9 - 100% t5's off
@ 11:30 - Blue LED's turn off


Its an interplay with many factors however. Too much light [intensity or photo-period] can actually lead to photo-inhibition and reduced photosynthesis gains - so even if your giving them light, its too much and their actually doing worse.

So depending upon your setup 8 hours might work, or 12 hours might work... My total cycle is 14 hours including everything (9.5 hours full daylight spectrum w/whites+'blue plus' bulbs AND 4.5 hours LED blues only).

Don't leave your blues on all night as some suggest, most fish and corals treat this light as 'day' - I've noticed my LPS don't really truly open until all the lights go out for 30 min or so... My favia, favites, trumpets, and acans, and bubble corals open a ton more after dark (to let their feeding tentacles out)...



Another cool by-product of this lighting system is the change in fishes behavior!

The fish know the schedule down to a few minutes somehow. Some don't full come out until the first 'daylights' come on like my male leopard wrasse...

And they all get really standoffish right before the day-lights go off and blues stay on...

Whenever I see some sort of crazy aggression from one fish to another, I look at the clock and their 'day' is just about to end! Its their pre-night assertiveness saying "This is my spot for the night!"

So cool to see their change in behavior -and extra cool that they learned when 'night comes' within a few minutes!
 
I would agree that longer than natural photo periods are most likely not beneficial and perhaps harmful, but I would second the caution of ReeferB on shortening the photoperiod too much as I feel this is highly coral dependent. I would make a few minor points just for the sake of discussion:

1) My personal experience is that the highest light loving corals in my tank turned slightly pale when I tried reducing to a 6 hour maximum photoperiod so I now stick with 8 hours of maximum lighting.
2) The article above only tested one coral and it is not a high light loving coral and other research on photoinhibition in acropora has demonstrated major differences in photoadaptability so drawing any major conclusions from that study is difficult.
3) Other research has shown that water motion is far more important to increasing photosynthesis than increasing light once adequate light is supplied.


and finally here is a graph showing daily PAR in Hawaii. Notice that from 8:30 to 4:30 the PAR at the surface is above 750 meaning corals that live in the uppermost regions of reefs get very highlight levels 8 hours a day.


Anyways, don't think there is any "perfect" answer as to optimum photoperiod for a home reef, but great discussion everyone!


Joe


photoperiod.jpg
 
Last edited:
1) My personal experience is that the highest light loving corals in my tank turned slightly pale when I tried reducing to a 6 hour maximum photoperiod so I now stick with 8 hours of maximum lighting.
2) The article above only tested one coral and it is not a high light loving coral and other research on photoinhibition in acropora has demonstrated major differences in photoadaptability so drawing any major conclusions from that study is difficult.
3) Other research has shown that water motion is far more important to increasing photosynthesis than increasing light once adequate light is supplied.
Joe

Joe, I'm interested in the 3rd point as well. How does water motion increase photosynthesis? I'm not saying it doesn't, I just want to understand the principal. :thumbsup: I don't have strong flow in my tank, but I have a lot of gentle flow (CL with OM4 and Revolution heads as well as sump return thru long spray bars in behind my rock wall).
 
No. There have been scientific reports that demonstrate that lighting periods longer than 8 hours has no positive effect on growth. Constant light bleaches the coral. As long as you have the correct PAR, then ~8 hours is desirable.

Paper is below.

Light intensity, photoperiod duration, daily light flux and coral growth of Galaxea fascicularis in an aquarium setting: a matter of photons?
Author(s): Schutter, M (Schutter, Miriam)1,2; van der Ven, RM (van der Ven, Rosa M.)1; Janse, M (Janse, Max)3; Verreth, JAJ (Verreth, Johan A. J.)1; Wijffels, RH (Wijffels, Rene H.)2; Osinga, R (Osinga, Ronald)1
Source: JOURNAL OF THE MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Volume: 92 Issue: 4 Special Issue: SI Pages: 703-712 DOI: 10.1017/S0025315411000920 Published: JUN 2012
Times Cited: 1 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 57 [ view related records ] Citation Map
Abstract: Light is one of the most important abiotic factors influencing the (skeletal) growth of scleractinian corals. Light stimulates coral growth by the process of light-enhanced calcification, which is mediated by zooxanthellar photosynthesis. However, the quantity of light that is available for daily coral growth is not only determined by light intensity (i.e. irradiance), but also by photoperiod (i.e. the light duration time). Understanding and optimizing conditions for coral growth is essential for sustainable coral aquaculture. Therefore, in this study, the question was explored whether more light (i.e. more photons), presented either as irradiance or as light duration, would result in more growth. A series of nine genetically identical coral colonies of Galaxea fascicularis L. were cultured for a period of 18 weeks at different light duration times (8 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):16 hours dark, 12 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):12 hours dark, 16 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):8 hours dark, 24 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):0 hours dark) and different irradiance levels (8 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):16 hours dark, 8 hours 225 mu E m(-2) s(-1):16 hours dark and 8 hours 300 mu E m(-2) s(-1): 16 hours dark). Growth was determined every two weeks by measuring buoyant weight. Temperature, salinity and feeding levels were kept constant during the experiment. To detect possible acclimation of the corals to an increased light duration, rates of net photosynthesis and dark respiration were measured, hereby comparing coral colonies grown under an 8:16 hours light (150 mu E m(-2) s(-1)): dark cycle with corals grown under a 16:8 hours light (150 mu E m(-2) s(-1)): dark cycle. No increase in growth was detected with either increasing photoperiod or irradiance. Continuous lighting (24 hours 150 mu E m(-2) s(-1):0 hours dark) resulted in immediate bleaching and the corals died after 14 weeks. Hourly photosynthetic rates were significantly reduced in the 16 hour light treatment compared to the 8 hour light treatment. As a result, daily net photosynthetic rates were not significantly different, which may explain the observed specific growth rates. Acclimation to photoperiod duration appeared neither to be mediated by changes in chlorophyll-a concentration nor zooxanthellae density. Based on the results of this study, we can conclude that the enhancing effect of light on coral growth is not only a matter of photons. Obviously, the availability of light was not limiting growth in these experiments and was probably in excess (i.e. stressful amounts). Other factors are discussed that play a role in determining growth rates and might explain our results.

The paper you posted does not support your statements.

From the paper. "the availability of light was not limiting growth in these experiments and was probably in excess (i.e. stressful amounts)." So, what they're saying is that if you blast a coral with excessive amounts of light, to the point of being stressful, prolonging this stress beyond 8 hours does not increase growth. Which seems perfectly logical to me. The paper does not discuss the corals reaction to a more natural light level, so we can draw no conclusions from this data, when it comes to this.

The abstract goes on to say, "Other factors are discussed that play a role in determining growth rates and might explain our results." So there's more to this study that the abstract does not cover. In order to draw any meaningful conclusions here, we would need the whole paper, and not just the abstract. Even then, it sounds like we would be left with more questions than answers.
 
Joe, I'm interested in the 3rd point as well. How does water motion increase photosynthesis? I'm not saying it doesn't, I just want to understand the principal. :thumbsup: I don't have strong flow in my tank, but I have a lot of gentle flow (CL with OM4 and Revolution heads as well as sump return thru long spray bars in behind my rock wall).


You betcha guys . . . the papers are a few years old, and I haven't taken the time to see if recent research contradicts these findings, but here's where I first read it:


Joe :beer:


Water flow is more important for corals than light.

In a beautifully simple experiment, researchers William Dennison and David Barnes maintained samples of Acropora formosa under stirred and unstirred lab conditions (1). The experiment showed that corals maintained under stirred conditions show significantly higher rates of photosynthesis, respiration and calcification than corals maintained in unstirred conditions. Corals maintained under unstirred conditions photosynthesized and respired about 25% less than corals in stirred conditions. The calcification rates of corals in unstirred conditions were also lower than corals in stirred conditions but this reduction was not statistically significant. The researchers concluded that the coral's metabolic response to water motion would influence rates of coral growth and the development of reefs overall.

In 2003, Sebens et al. published a paper on the effects of flow on the physiology of Agaricia tenuifolia in Belize (2). Interestingly, the study showed that although the respiration seemed to increase proportionately with increased water flow, water flow speed had little effect on the maximum photosynthesis rate of A. tenuifolia. It appears that this species is able to carry out maximal photosynthesis even under greatly reduced flow which is in contrast to other coral species which have increased photosynthesis when they are exposed to higher water flow speeds.

One of the most thorough and detailed papers I have ever read about flow effects on coral physiology is "œIn Situ measurements of flow effects on primary production and dark respiration in reef corals" by Patterson et al (3). The researchers used sealed recirculating chambers deployed from the underwater research habitat Aquarius in Key Largo FL. They measured respiration and photosynthesis rates of Montastrea annularis under flow speeds of 2-16cm/s. Like Denison and Barnes the study also found that there was an increase of primary production and respiration with increased flow rates but more importantly, the discussion gives detailed explanations of the interactions between hydrodynamic forces and diffusional properties of gases to explain their results. The discussion goes far beyond the mechanisms I introduced in my previous article so if you are interested in learning more about how flow affects gas exchange in corals I would strongly recommend reading this paper.
 
The paper you posted does not support your statements.
Only if you blatantly ignore the context of what was posted and said.

The point (IN CONTEXT) is that once photosaturation is reached the coral begins to shut down photoreceptors to protect itself and thus a steep decline in energy conversion occurs as exposure level and time incrase.

So parse the words however you see fit, but given "normal" or "reasonable" photon energy, 8 - 10 hours of light is plenty and dumping more light onto the coral can be useless, if not detrimintal.

Numerous studies on photoinhibition have been conducted from folks tied to our hobby and those not at all affiliated.

Please take the time to read some of the information compiled by Jake Adams, Danna Riddle, The Centre for Marine Science, Masa, etc.
 
Back
Top