PAR table for SPS and other corals...

[eisaiasjr]

Hello,

I recently attended MACNA 2010 and 1 of the speakers posted this slide

As you can see it gives good information as to what PAR is required for each coral.

Now, Does anyone know of a table like the one I posted that has MORE detail? maybe some breakout of which SPS fall into these categories?

Best Regards,

Estefano

 

[stanlalee]

Test have shown some leathers are able to utilize more light than many SPS. Zooanthid are not low light (50-100 PAR) corals just because they dont die with low light (same with many leathers). Crocea and maxima clams have been shown to virtually be impossible to oversaturate with light so they definately dont fall under medium light and based on saturation ability would be considered very high light. even less demanding clams like deresa's are able to utilize high light without reaching full saturation.

 

[eisaiasjr]

so, has anyone put this knowledge into numbers so that I nerd with an apogee PAR meter like me can know where to "best" place their corals?

Best Regards,

E

 

[bmiller1234]

That's just a guideline slide. Those numbers are a generalized synopsis of what levels will give enough light to be healthy. Sure you can blast a clam with four hundred watt halides four inches of the water and it will live. Will it look good prob not. Its mantle will retract and colors will prob fade since it got enough light to photosynthesize itself and will retract once its done creating a food source.

Par is a great guideline on what it takes to keep a coral but so many other factors play into each specific corals requirements its a lot of trial and error. If you place something low it might have great daytime polyp ext but will brown out. Too high and polyps may never show and colors will fade. It also depends on what bulbs and how long of a photoperiod you run.

Basically if you have the ability to test your par and see the different areas of your tank and how much par they receive you are able to get an idea of what and where you can place corals in your tank. If you really want a maxima in the corner and find out its only getting 50 par then you know that can't go there but you could out that soft coral there and it would be happy. Or you find out that lower light acro that just never looked right has been cooking under 500 par and would be much happier down a few inches where the par is 250.

Make sense?

 

[XSiVE]

what you're looking at there should be labeled as "generic minimum guidelines"

really though, it doesn't need to get much more specific as most of what we keep can utilize such a wide range of light intensity that it does not matter..

It's virtually impossible to say that X coral needs Y light to thrive when you've got so many other variables in any single reef.. flow rates, nutrient levels, ca/alk/mag levels.. You could have a super-secret rare pink and orange millepora that thrives at 150PAR if the other conditions are right, or that it does the same at 450PAR if the other conditions aren't quite right for it.

 

[stanlalee]

. Sure you can blast a clam with four hundred watt halides four inches of the water and it will live. Will it look good prob not. Its mantle will retract and colors will prob fade since it got enough light to photosynthesize itself and will retract once its done creating a food source.

not really (crocea and maxima tested):
"Results from recent experiments suggest that most aquarium lighting systems will not saturate photosynthesis. An Iwasaki 400-watt metal halide lamp with a polished aluminum reflector was used to irradiate the clam with light intensity as high as 600 µmol·m²·second (or about 30,000 lux). Ralph et al. (1999) found no Photoinhibition when determining ‘rapid light curves’ with light intensity to 1,900 µmol photons·m²·second (or about 95,000 lux)"

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/3/aafeature1

Bottom line is the most popular clams can utilize more light than even the most demanding sps so in no way should they be generally categorized as medium light. While the chart is just plain wrong on clams the other stuff seem to be general guidelines based on ability to not die rather than actual optimal thus pretty useless to use as a guideline for whats "best" opposed to what wont die.

 

[bmiller1234]

If your going to try to quote and post links at least put the whole article in with the end that reads as follows...

""but view this information cautiously. "˜Rapid Light Curves' are determined in short order (a matter of seconds), and this short time frame does not allow time for conversion of xanthophylls (one of the "˜safety valves' in photosynthesis).""

That research, being published in 2007 was based off of a study that dates to a publish date of 1999. so research was probably done in 1998...

The advances of par technology and ballast effeiciency in the last 10 years has been ten fold. If you take that same iwasaki bulb that he tested off an old probably magnetic ballast in 1998 and put that bulb in a new fixture with electronic ballast and a true 95% reflective aluminum not the "polished aluminum" that was used in 1999 I would almost guarantee an increase of 50% in par and lux woud be more if not doubled.....

 

[stanlalee]

If your going to try to quote and post links at least put the whole article in with the end that reads as follows...

""but view this information cautiously. "˜Rapid Light Curves' are determined in short order (a matter of seconds), and this short time frame does not allow time for conversion of xanthophylls (one of the "˜safety valves' in photosynthesis).""

That research, being published in 2007 was based off of a study that dates to a publish date of 1999. so research was probably done in 1998...

The advances of par technology and ballast effeiciency in the last 10 years has been ten fold. If you take that same iwasaki bulb that he tested off an old probably magnetic ballast in 1998 and put that bulb in a new fixture with electronic ballast and a true 95% reflective aluminum not the "polished aluminum" that was used in 1999 I would almost guarantee an increase of 50% in par and lux woud be more if not doubled.....

Technology changes but PAR values dont...The clam was tested under a Iasaki 400w halide which produced PAR of 600 continious and ONLY the rapid light curve with a whopping PAR of 1900 is whats referred to as to be "viewed with caution". Whatever the case they tested plenty of SPS and NONE could untilize as much light as clams. Technology is not going to change the fact that a PAR of 600 is strong lighting and cant saturate most clams..

 

[ruprecht]

Bottom line is the most popular clams can utilize more light than even the most demanding sps so in no way should they be generally categorized as medium light.

While I do think the chart should be solely used as a guideline, I must disagree. I have seen clams, as happy as clams, in depths of ~10 meters. The light field at that depth could be categorized as medium.

 

[stanlalee]

While I do think the chart should be solely used as a guideline, I must disagree. I have seen clams, as happy as clams, in depths of ~10 meters. The light field at that depth could be categorized as medium.

acro's can be found at twice that depth and other sps even deeper so by that criteria why are sps categorized in three different light categories on the chart and clams in just one? I'm not arguing they cant be perfectly happy/healthy in medium light (lets hope so as my crocea, the most light needy of all clams is at the bottom of my tank lit with only 150w phoenix bulbs), thats missing the whole point. most sessile inverts can obviously tolerate a wide range of conditions and do well else this hobby would suck.
My point is this chart is not doing any newb (the only people who would use such a chart) any favors for configuring a set up. If one decided to build a clam tank using the chart as a guideline they'd assume medium lighting would be ideal when they should be using the same type of lighting they would for an sps tank. If one were building a zooanthid dominated tank sure they could follow the chart using low light and have zooanthid that looked and did fine while taking two life times for frags to spread and thrive throughout the tank when they could have used medium lighting and got 10x better results.

I guess I'm the only one who finds it odd that within the chart someone found it neccessary that sps should span three different lighting categories with quantifying words like "some" and "very few" to distinquish the vast range between sps yet found it perfectly acceptable to lump clams into a "general" category of medium as if there's no difference between a crocea's and squamosa's lighting needs, nevermind that crocea's and maximas are by far the most popular and desired of tridacna clams.

 

[bmiller1234]

Maybe you should talk to MACNA and set up your own presentation?

Without knowing what the speaker used that slide for then their really is know way to know why and what it was for. The slide is true as a GENERAL GUIDELINE. we tend to forget about the people that walk into a pet store and walk out with a a 30 long, a bucket of salt and some damsels... that still happens. If someone has given that slide if they asked about what corals they could keep, you could easily remove the PAR values and replace them with the following.

PC
VHO
T5HO
Halide

This GENERAL GUIDELINE is for people that havent read and researched and studied the hobby. Its for the guy that bought a nano with a screw in PC bulb and wants to know if he can get a clam.

This GENERAL GUIDELINE slide is correct. Those broad GENERALIZED statements are correct that you can keep those types of corals in those par ranges and they will live and be healthy. We all know that theres people that have their Clam or LPS sitting 2 inches below water line with 400 halides and they do great, and they have triggers in their reef and 8 tangs in a 55 with no problems so far...... That comes with experience in knowing what you can do in this hobby and to your tank. People that don't know need a guide with some general info to tell them they are nuts for thinking that a 50/50 bulb in a perfecto hood will support acros.....

 

[divewsharks]

Without knowing what the speaker used that slide for then their really is know way to know why and what it was for.

So if you don't have that info, doesn't that make the slide useless as guideline??
How would one know what SPS the speaker is talking about in any of the 3 categories?
And what happens if someone pays $50/polyp for some p/z and its color fades to nothing because its in too low light?
The best option is to research the specific corals that they purchased; as mentioned, there are many variable that contribute to success -- lighting is only one of them...