Rittori and Haddoni under T5??

[OrionN]

It is likely that in PC lights, because the two tube right next to each other, the photons that give off in the direction of the other tube just get wasted as heat and cannot be capture for the tank. I estimate that is at least 25% of the total light give off. I think that can explain the decrease in efficiency.
NO and VHO just have too large of a tube to have good reflectors.

 

[elegance coral]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9937234#post9937234 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Slakker
Could it be that H. Magnifica are a relatively mobile species of anemone in the wild, and that's why they don't like to stay put in our tanks?

(Just tossing out ideas...The proven path has been presented, and sounds like all of those successfully keeping Magnifica's have the same formula. Not something I can argue with.)

I read an article years ago where they were doing a study of these anemones in the wild. One of the problems they were having is that they would study one of the large anemones for a while Then one day it would be gone. Others would show up where before there were none. They believed that in the wild they would let go of the reef and float in the currents before settling again. They didn't know if this was a defence mechanism or why this was happening. These were the very large ones that seemed to live lower on the reef. Just thought I would throw this out there.

 

[phender]

I saw a study of mortality and reproduction in H. magnifica that someone had posted here about a week ago.
The study was over several years and most of the anemones didn't move more than a meter from where they were place. However, moving a meter in the wild is basically staying in the same place. Moving a meter in your aquarium is "moving all over the place".

 

[55semireef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9937082#post9937082 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by delphinus
As long as it "believes" that it's sitting in a spot where it will get most light, and then combine that with the proper flow conditions, appropriate feedings, the proper habitat and appropriate tank size; the anemone will have no need to wander the tank, and thus (hopefully) won't.

Thank you delphinus, I now understand the whole concept "Heteractis Magnifica needs MH lighting" now. It finally clicked in my mind after I read this last sentence.

Basically, a H. Magnifica will continue to wonder in a tank lit by T5s not because the lights are not intense enough, because they are just trying to find a better spot. I guess H. Mags are greedy with light in that sense. Since the light is evenly distributed throughout the tank with T5s, the H. Magnfica is confused and continues to wonder around trying to find that one spot that provides more light. However, MH provides point source lighting which allows the H. Mag to pick the best spot possible, right under the lamp. The causes the H. Magnifica to "believe" (like delphinus said) that it has the most desirable spot and therefore it will not wonder anymore.

OrionN, actually you're missing the point. T5s and MH both have intense lighting and it all depends on what type of unit you have. There are some MH that are more efficient than T5s while there are some T5s that are more efficient than MH. Both are intense lighting units. H. Mags do need MH not because of the intensity but because of the point source. T5s are just as intense as MH generally speaking so why would H. Mags wonder in a tank lit by T5s? Because the light is evenly spread out and there is no point source for the H. Mag to settle under. They need point source lighting, not the MH intensity. T5s have just as much.

 

[GSMguy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9937744#post9937744 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by OrionN
It is likely that in PC lights, because the two tube right next to each other, the photons that give off in the direction of the other tube just get wasted as heat and cannot be capture for the tank. I estimate that is at least 25% of the total light give off. I think that can explain the decrease in efficiency.
NO and VHO just have too large of a tube to have good reflectors.

the difference goes far beyond shape. the decrease in efficency comes from many factors

 

[OrionN]

Under MH the light is very intense, if the arrangement is make such that the anemone get its light requirement and current it needed, plus the fact that inorder to move away from this spot, the anemone will get less light, it will stay where it is.
While T5 may produce as much light per watt as MH, it cannot have the intense light per surface are as MH like right under the MH light, due to the point source of the MH. The most important fact here is that T5 cannot produce the light intensity like that at about 12-18 inches below a 400W or 250W MH.
I am sure that if the light is bright enough, even distributed light will be fine, which is what natural sunlight is. The light is so bright and the Sun is so far away, that the light is essentially uniform at various point.
Point sorce is not needed for the heath of the anemone, but the light intensity is. I know that my H. magnifica does verywell right under my 400W MH barely 6-8 inches under the water surface.
I hope GSMguy and 55semireef understand my point above.

 

[Slakker]

The reality is, OrionN, that T5's can provide the same or more light than MH, even directly under the MH fixture.

 

[OrionN]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9940716#post9940716 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Slakker
The reality is, OrionN, that T5's can provide the same or more light than MH, even directly under the MH fixture.

Let take this to the extreem.
Let says for 400 W total, about howmany light bulb is needed for 400 W T5, and the surface area neede to fit these bulbs in? Can you give an estimate, say 200 square inches(?20 X 10 inches or 200 square inches)
If the amout of light produce by a 400 W T5 is about the same as 400 W MH, the area that produced all this light is about 1 square inch. that is near the bulb, there is no way t5 can produce the light intensity like that of of MH.
This is it for me on this topic.

 

[Slakker]

Not inch for inch of bulb, no...I guess you're right.

 

[55semireef]

Intensity is measured by PAR. If T5s are putting more PAR to the sandbed than some MH units do at the surface, the cold hard fact is that the T5s are more intense.

 

[GSMguy]

halide or t5 dosnt make a difference to the par meter

 

[55semireef]

Yes exactly.

 

[awrieger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9934411#post9934411 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 55semireef
If the T5s still have more PAR over MH even at the sandbed, then why is point source such a big deal? They are getting just as or more intense light from T5s than MH but the light is just more spread out.

Hi, I'm a complete newbie doing some initial research on setting up my first marine tank (always wanted one, but kept putting it into the 'too many gadgets needed' basket). Coming from the planted freshwater tank arena, this discussion thread on lights and anemones is extremely interesting. Especially so as my initial interest was to start with a pair of clownfish and an anemone (which as I have already read, anemones are not for those who don't know what they are doing).

What I do know about plants, from the lowliest algae up to the highest order plant) is that they do not have an 'off' switch, or any regulation if you will. All other things being in abundance or at ideal levels (nutrients, CO2, temperature etc), a plant cannot stop increasing its production and growth the more light you give it. There is no internal limiting mechanism, as in "that's enough light for me, I'm full, the rest of the light can go to waste". They will use whatever light you give them and keep converting it into more and more energy until one or more nutrient it requires is depleted. This is the basis of 'too much light' for planted tanks - the nutrients will be exhausted very quickly and need replacing or the plant will die as quickly as it was previously growing. Basically, more light speeds the production line up, and there's no self-regulating off-switch as I mentioned.

So if I am to understand correctly that anemones derive much of their energy from the phytoplankton within them, then it stands to reason that the more light it can give to them, the more energy it can consume from them. So it will always seek out the most light possible to maximise its energy production. Basically, it will slave-drive the poor phytoplanktons to their maximum limits.

So if a bank of T5s offer exactly the same PAR as an MH, but spread out evenly over the entire tank, then the anemone is wandering because there is no boundary to the T5 lights and will keep looking for a 'brighter spot' to slave-drive them even more, whereas it will stay within the spotlight boundary of the MH because it has found that is the brightest spot to maximise the light getting to its internal agricutural community.

In theory then, a wandering anemone under T5s should be producing just as much energy (minus what it is expending in movement) as does a static one under an MH spotlight. A MH then serves the purpose of purely restricting it to one location and has no other benefit over a bank of T5s. Does this sound logical?

The idea of a having a moving plant colony is fascinating. But I can also see the benefits of having it stay in one place in an aquarium.

 

[cook]

I was reading this so I went and checked my gigantea. Not the same anemone but close in light req. He is directly under the light output of my 400 watt.

 

[awrieger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9937744#post9937744 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by OrionN
It is likely that in PC lights, because the two tube right next to each other, the photons that give off in the direction of the other tube just get wasted as heat and cannot be capture for the tank. I estimate that is at least 25% of the total light give off. I think that can explain the decrease in efficiency.
NO and VHO just have too large of a tube to have good reflectors.

Very true. Plus a lot of the bounced light off the reflector as well also hits the wider/double PC and NO tubes and is blocked/reabsorbed and so that percentage is even higher. The small single diameter of a T5 tube allows far more reflected light to reach the tank without interference. The light bouncing off a decent parabolic single reflector can account for more than 50% of the actual light directed into the water.

Unfortunately here in Australia, there are no such affordable T5 parabolic reflector fixtures available. All multi-tube T5 fixtures currently sold are all double T5 tubes side by side per each (inefficient) square reflector, which defeats the whole purpose and advantage of T5s over PCs. A lot of the light from one T5 tube is just hitting its neighbour instead of going into the tank and is wasted.

 

[55semireef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9967070#post9967070 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by awrieger

What I do know about plants, from the lowliest algae up to the highest order plant) is that they do not have an 'off' switch, or any regulation if you will. All other things being in abundance or at ideal levels (nutrients, CO2, temperature etc), a plant cannot stop increasing its production and growth the more light you give it. There is no internal limiting mechanism, as in "that's enough light for me, I'm full, the rest of the light can go to waste". They will use whatever light you give them and keep converting it into more and more energy until one or more nutrient it requires is depleted. This is the basis of 'too much light' for planted tanks - the nutrients will be exhausted very quickly and need replacing or the plant will die as quickly as it was previously growing. Basically, more light speeds the production line up, and there's no self-regulating off-switch as I mentioned.

So if I am to understand correctly that anemones derive much of their energy from the phytoplankton within them, then it stands to reason that the more light it can give to them, the more energy it can consume from them. So it will always seek out the most light possible to maximise its energy production. Basically, it will slave-drive the poor phytoplanktons to their maximum limits.

So if a bank of T5s offer exactly the same PAR as an MH, but spread out evenly over the entire tank, then the anemone is wandering because there is no boundary to the T5 lights and will keep looking for a 'brighter spot' to slave-drive them even more, whereas it will stay within the spotlight boundary of the MH because it has found that is the brightest spot to maximise the light getting to its internal agricutural community.

I think you mean zooxanthellae algae, not phytoplankton.

 

[awrieger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9968820#post9968820 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 55semireef
I think you mean zooxanthellae algae, not phytoplankton.

Yep, so much to learn. Shows how much of a newbie I am to this scene.

 

[Slakker]

Welcome to Reef Central, awrieger.

Nicely put, by the way.

 

[Amphiprion]

Plants can be exposed to too much light at once. I have seen oxidative "burn" and even a "bleaching" appearance, especially for more shade tolerant species. Keep in mind, though, this is in terrestrial plants--I haven't observed the same in aquaria.

 

[garygb]

Was just reading this old thread and wanted to add my observations. I recently made some changes and put the magnificas that I wanted to retain under a 6-bulb, individual reflector fixture with ATI bulbs (with known high PAR values) that are well under 1 year of age (i.e., high quality t-5 setup). My magnificas haven't moved any at all. The magnificas actually look better than they did under XM 1000K MN.

In the early part of this thread there was speculation that H. magnifica requires a "point source" light to remain stationary. In the month or so that I've had the anemones under this light, my guess is that they would have at least moved a cm or so if that supposition were founded.

Granted, this thread was started back in 2007 and now we've seen multiple threads of folks successfully keeping gigantea, etc. under t-5s. I just want to say, based on my observations so far, there is no reason to expect that using high quality t-5 equipment H. magnifica cannot thrive just as S. gigantea, clams, and other light demanding species do.

Also, for what it's worth, my 9 year old magnifica was originally directly under PCs for a few years and never wandered. It stayed perched on it's large piece of liverock and was a model citizen. Granted, there was no shield between the bulb and the water surface, the bulb was literally 2 or 3 inches above the water and the magnifica was within inches of the surface. The 2 PCs were 96-watt quads in the 6700k and 10000k range.

I believe proper husbandry (nitrates, temp. sg. etc.), good quality equipment (including changing bulbs before too significant a shift occurs) and water flow, are the necessary ingredients to having a healthy, happy mag that remains stationary.