Faded Zoathid
- Thread starter pixelpixi
- Start date
sfsuphysics
Supporting Member
how much light is "quite a bit of light" it might be too much as well.
pixelpixi
Guest
[quote author=sfsuphysics link=topic=4232.msg50942#msg50942 date=1217875044]
how much light is "quite a bit of light" it might be too much as well.
[/quote]
I have it in orbit around a red dwarf. Maybe it's the color temp. Should I try a white dwarf instead? :-D
Seriously, though, it's about 8" under the light, which is a 96w quad power compact. (dual 10k/dual actinic)
I could try moving them into a partly shaded spot and see if they like that better. Hmm.
how much light is "quite a bit of light" it might be too much as well.
[/quote]
I have it in orbit around a red dwarf. Maybe it's the color temp. Should I try a white dwarf instead? :-D
Seriously, though, it's about 8" under the light, which is a 96w quad power compact. (dual 10k/dual actinic)
I could try moving them into a partly shaded spot and see if they like that better. Hmm.
Roc
Guest
Another thing to think about is your running what seems like a lot of light to you but if I am correct he runs MH so even if you put your zoa frags in the light fixture they wouldn't get as much or as useful light as his get no matter where they are in his tank. It's just the nature of PC VS. MH
pixelpixi
Guest
[quote author=Roc link=topic=4232.msg50948#msg50948 date=1217882240]
Another thing to think about is your running what seems like a lot of light to you but if I am correct he runs MH so even if you put your zoa frags in the light fixture they wouldn't get as much or as useful light as his get no matter where they are in his tank. It's just the nature of PC VS. MH
[/quote]
I disagree with that. There's no magical aspect of MH light that makes it more "useful" than light from a PC lamp. MH lamps are slightly more efficient, but not by very much.
The reason why MH lamps produce more light is because they are available at higher wattages. It's true that my 96 watt PC bulb doesn't produce as much light as a 150 watt MH, but it produces more than a 75 watt MH would.
I'm not saying that insufficient lighting isn't the problem here. Maybe it is. I'm just saying that if it is, then the problem is that 96 watts isn't enough, not that the 96 watts is from a PC bulb.
Another thing to think about is your running what seems like a lot of light to you but if I am correct he runs MH so even if you put your zoa frags in the light fixture they wouldn't get as much or as useful light as his get no matter where they are in his tank. It's just the nature of PC VS. MH
[/quote]
I disagree with that. There's no magical aspect of MH light that makes it more "useful" than light from a PC lamp. MH lamps are slightly more efficient, but not by very much.
The reason why MH lamps produce more light is because they are available at higher wattages. It's true that my 96 watt PC bulb doesn't produce as much light as a 150 watt MH, but it produces more than a 75 watt MH would.
I'm not saying that insufficient lighting isn't the problem here. Maybe it is. I'm just saying that if it is, then the problem is that 96 watts isn't enough, not that the 96 watts is from a PC bulb.
Roc
Guest
[quote author=pixelpixi link=topic=4232.msg50951#msg50951 date=1217883733]
I disagree with that. There's no magical aspect of MH light that makes it more "useful" than light from a PC lamp. MH lamps are slightly more efficient, but not by very much.
The reason why MH lamps produce more light is because they are available at higher wattages. It's true that my 96 watt PC bulb doesn't produce as much light as a 150 watt MH, but it produces more than a 75 watt MH would.
I'm not saying that insufficient lighting isn't the problem here. Maybe it is. I'm just saying that if it is, then the problem is that 96 watts isn't enough, not that the 96 watts is from a PC bulb.
[/quote]
This is after all the great reef debate however I will tell you my experence and will leave it at that.
I had a 20 gal tank with a 2 x 65watt CF fixture, 1 10000k bulb and 1 true Actinic for a total of 130 watts. This was on my tank for about 6 months and although I was able to keep most corals alive non were really thriving.
I bought a 4 x 24 HO T5 fixture, 2 x 10000k bulbs 2 x 420 actinic bulbs for a total of 96 watts. My corals went mad and started growing so fast that within 3 months I literly ran outta room (thus th move to a 120 tank).
Many ppl told me that becasue the T5 fixture I had didn't have indevual reflectors that it wasn't going to even be as effective as the CF light, however they were wrong (at least in my case).
There is lots of data out there that talks about the way different lighting is cast into your tank. I just happen to think HO T5 and MH do a lot better job of reefs then CF
I disagree with that. There's no magical aspect of MH light that makes it more "useful" than light from a PC lamp. MH lamps are slightly more efficient, but not by very much.
The reason why MH lamps produce more light is because they are available at higher wattages. It's true that my 96 watt PC bulb doesn't produce as much light as a 150 watt MH, but it produces more than a 75 watt MH would.
I'm not saying that insufficient lighting isn't the problem here. Maybe it is. I'm just saying that if it is, then the problem is that 96 watts isn't enough, not that the 96 watts is from a PC bulb.
[/quote]
This is after all the great reef debate however I will tell you my experence and will leave it at that.
I had a 20 gal tank with a 2 x 65watt CF fixture, 1 10000k bulb and 1 true Actinic for a total of 130 watts. This was on my tank for about 6 months and although I was able to keep most corals alive non were really thriving.
I bought a 4 x 24 HO T5 fixture, 2 x 10000k bulbs 2 x 420 actinic bulbs for a total of 96 watts. My corals went mad and started growing so fast that within 3 months I literly ran outta room (thus th move to a 120 tank).
Many ppl told me that becasue the T5 fixture I had didn't have indevual reflectors that it wasn't going to even be as effective as the CF light, however they were wrong (at least in my case).
There is lots of data out there that talks about the way different lighting is cast into your tank. I just happen to think HO T5 and MH do a lot better job of reefs then CF
tuberider
Guest
[quote author=pixelpixi link=topic=4232.msg50951#msg50951 date=1217883733]
I disagree with that. There's no magical aspect of MH light that makes it more "useful" than light from a PC lamp. MH lamps are slightly more efficient, but not by very much.
The reason why MH lamps produce more light is because they are available at higher wattages. It's true that my 96 watt PC bulb doesn't produce as much light as a 150 watt MH, but it produces more than a 75 watt MH would.
[/quote]
Not so true from many aspects, first off MH is point source lighting, with a stronger concentration of photons emanating from a small area, that allows you to get penetration into deeper tanks, and focus stronger light onto corals that demand high lighting.
The envelope on a MH bulb is smaller than the area of a CF, allowing you to use more efficient reflectors to maximize light production. With CF lighting look how much light must be reflected back into the bulb thus reducing efficiency.
I can't speak to the problem in question though, the only time I've had bleaching issues with zoas or Palys, it was from overskimming, or too much light.
I disagree with that. There's no magical aspect of MH light that makes it more "useful" than light from a PC lamp. MH lamps are slightly more efficient, but not by very much.
The reason why MH lamps produce more light is because they are available at higher wattages. It's true that my 96 watt PC bulb doesn't produce as much light as a 150 watt MH, but it produces more than a 75 watt MH would.
[/quote]
Not so true from many aspects, first off MH is point source lighting, with a stronger concentration of photons emanating from a small area, that allows you to get penetration into deeper tanks, and focus stronger light onto corals that demand high lighting.
The envelope on a MH bulb is smaller than the area of a CF, allowing you to use more efficient reflectors to maximize light production. With CF lighting look how much light must be reflected back into the bulb thus reducing efficiency.
I can't speak to the problem in question though, the only time I've had bleaching issues with zoas or Palys, it was from overskimming, or too much light.
pixelpixi
Guest
[quote author=tuberider link=topic=4232.msg50989#msg50989 date=1217895915]
BTW, I have those same zoas encrusted on the bottom of my tank, they are completely shaded and receive no direct MH light.
[/quote]
Interesting. Are they doing well there? I'll be curious to see how the colony I moved into the shade does.
Lack of nutrients could be a problem. I have a big skimmer and am feeding pretty lightly. Nuisance algae is more or less gone now and the chaeto isn't growing much, so it seems probable that nutrients are low. Hmm.
BTW, I have those same zoas encrusted on the bottom of my tank, they are completely shaded and receive no direct MH light.
[/quote]
Interesting. Are they doing well there? I'll be curious to see how the colony I moved into the shade does.
Lack of nutrients could be a problem. I have a big skimmer and am feeding pretty lightly. Nuisance algae is more or less gone now and the chaeto isn't growing much, so it seems probable that nutrients are low. Hmm.
tuberider
Guest
I look at it this way with those little guys, if it's a low nutrient setup they need lower light because they cannot get enough food to satisfy the zooxanthellaes demand in order to produce the sugars. In a high nutrient tank you can have them under higher light, I service a tank that has a 4'X2' footprint, it has 500 watts of halide (DE) so more like 600w, plus over 300w of CF. The tank is way overfed, and underskimmed. The total volume of the setup is 200g I have to change 30g of water a week to keep the nitrates down, in that tank Palys, and zoas grow like crazy. In my own tank, which has a 3'X18" footprint and is lit with 250w of halide, and 78w of T5, zoas bleach and shrivel up into nothing.
I think you will find that skimmerless, or underskimmed tanks work well for propping zoas.
Also, the zoas that are shaded in my tank grow under the rocks, and not out into the light, and are very dark and healthy. I cannot say the same for the ones that are the same type and are near the top, they are tiny, and a little pale, the centers are silver instead of green too.
I think you will find that skimmerless, or underskimmed tanks work well for propping zoas.
Also, the zoas that are shaded in my tank grow under the rocks, and not out into the light, and are very dark and healthy. I cannot say the same for the ones that are the same type and are near the top, they are tiny, and a little pale, the centers are silver instead of green too.
pixelpixi
Guest
The correlation between lighting requirements and nutrient requirements is really interesting. I wouldn't have thought of that. From what I've read about most animals, the opposite is true. (if they don't have enough light their nutrient requirements can sometimes be met with food instead)
Hopefully the shaded colony shapes up quickly. If they do, I'll just move the other colony somewhere darker too.
Thanks a lot for the advice, guys!
Hopefully the shaded colony shapes up quickly. If they do, I'll just move the other colony somewhere darker too.
Thanks a lot for the advice, guys!
MontanaBay
Guest
nutrient rich usually means a shift toward heterothropic and a darkening or "browning" of the coral (from increase in zoox). Nutrient poor, high light means a shift towards autotrophic, lighter color, but better pigmentation (less zoox, but more pigments is better for photosynthesis).
does anyone know the physiological role the skirt plays? Intuitively one might think it improves heterothopic function of the coral, increasing surface area and allowing it to capture/absorb more food.
I'm wondering because I've never seen a zoa tha pale and still open and at the same time with skirt extension that pronounced.
Cheers,
Josh
does anyone know the physiological role the skirt plays? Intuitively one might think it improves heterothopic function of the coral, increasing surface area and allowing it to capture/absorb more food.
I'm wondering because I've never seen a zoa tha pale and still open and at the same time with skirt extension that pronounced.
Cheers,
Josh