Accelerated coral growth tricks.

[ScottR]

Going out to get amazon parrot, I've always wanted one. I have fishes and corals, dogs, and need a bird to complete the trifecta!

But no cats!?!? You can’t have a parrot and a dog without a cat.

 

[JayKim]

But no cats!?!? You can’t have a parrot and a dog without a cat.

I cat sit for friends when they go out of town. It scratches me.

 

[Brew12]

Can you provide links to back your heresy. LOL
Don't forget you started the thread.

You really shouldn't call something heresy without doing some basic research. Especially when it is based on science.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/209/17/3413

For a 24 hour cycle to be important to a coral it would need a circadian rhythm which it has been proven some corals don't have, such as in this study. At that point it becomes a matter of determining the maximum and minimum beneficial light/dark cycles. Plenty of work out there shows peak lighting cycles lasting more than 6 hours have little benefit. The coral can transition from light to dark in under 20 minutes. I haven't seen any studies showing the necessary dark cycle for a coral but it seems likely that 6 hours of dark is enough to be ready for the next light cycle. This is why for some species of coral having 2 x 6 hour lighting periods a day causes maximum growth.

 

[Tjakes680]

I have been keeping tanks reefs mostly since the 80 s i owned 2 LFS in Brooklyn NY that have closed only because I retired and have so much experience in this hobby and all I say is dont knock someone for relaying info especially someone who had the guts to try said info I have seen many things work that as reefers we thought no way and are using regularly now Imagine the look when people forst started saying put Vodka in your tank it works wonders I read a article and everyone in Europe does this My point is this stuff is nature there are no rules at all so great post ReeferB28

 

[rogersb]

I don't know where I heard it, but I recall hearing at one point that ORA runs their halides for 5 hours a day. I don't know if they still run halides, but at that time that is what I heard. That's all I run my halides and I get incredible growth from my zoas. I could believe it that 4 on 8 off might be beneficial to their growth.

Sitting here thinking about it though, I am wondering if the room has to be controlled for ambient light. My living room gets the first rays of sun in the morning and has sky lights so it stays bright most of the day. Maybe a frag tank under the display would be the best place to try it? It would be interesting to have coral in the same system but getting a different light cycle to see if the growth was enhanced. If I was farming I think it would be worth a try.

 

[ScottR]

You really shouldn't call something heresy without doing some basic research. Especially when it is based on science.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/209/17/3413

For a 24 hour cycle to be important to a coral it would need a circadian rhythm which it has been proven some corals don't have, such as in this study. At that point it becomes a matter of determining the maximum and minimum beneficial light/dark cycles. Plenty of work out there shows peak lighting cycles lasting more than 6 hours have little benefit. The coral can transition from light to dark in under 20 minutes. I haven't seen any studies showing the necessary dark cycle for a coral but it seems likely that 6 hours of dark is enough to be ready for the next light cycle. This is why for some species of coral having 2 x 6 hour lighting periods a day causes maximum growth.

I read the study, seems that they found that lighting has little to do with circadian rhythm. Also, the study focused solely on calcification via photosynthesis. But they found that they weren’t able to determine how this factored in to lighting as there were too many other factors to access. I’d say, it’s not really helping to prove any particular point that has been debated in this thread.

 

[Brew12]

I read the study, seems that they found that lighting has little to do with circadian rhythm.

This is the key significant finding showing why 2 light cycles per day could be beneficial.

Also, the study focused solely on calcification via photosynthesis.

Calcification is the growth mechanism for coral skeletons. I would call it more significant than photosynthesis for growth rates.

 

[Butuz]

“Yes, please go ahead and try this dual light cycle in the middle of the night to promote coral growth” - said every divorce lawyer in the country.

 

[Roid Reefs]

You really shouldn't call something heresy without doing some basic research. Especially when it is based on science.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/209/17/3413

For a 24 hour cycle to be important to a coral it would need a circadian rhythm which it has been proven some corals don't have, such as in this study. At that point it becomes a matter of determining the maximum and minimum beneficial light/dark cycles. Plenty of work out there shows peak lighting cycles lasting more than 6 hours have little benefit. The coral can transition from light to dark in under 20 minutes. I haven't seen any studies showing the necessary dark cycle for a coral but it seems likely that 6 hours of dark is enough to be ready for the next light cycle. This is why for some species of coral having 2 x 6 hour lighting periods a day causes maximum growth.

I believe @Jomama was more playfully jesting with the poster than being serious.

But two 6 hour lighting period. so an hour ramp up, hour ramp down, during the down time should this be completely dark? or could moonlights be run? Havent had time to go look at the research if its in there or not, will do some reading in my down time.

I saw someone mentioned lighting and fish, does it affect them any? anyone know of any research on that point? if not I will try to find some. How about stomatopods?

Quite interested in this study. This would give me some good viewing times before/after work, with down time while I'm gone on the DT, but thinking about trying it on a frag tank.

Thanks for the post!

 

[Brew12]

But two 6 hour lighting period. so an hour ramp up, hour ramp down, during the down time should this be completely dark? or could moonlights be run? Havent had time to go look at the research if its in there or not, will do some reading in my down time.

I'm not sure how dark it needs to be. Lots more research would need to be done. I know quite a hobby level coral farmers used to swear by this for raising zoas and mushrooms. Not sure why it isn't brought up more. It's far from a new concept.

I saw someone mentioned lighting and fish, does it affect them any? anyone know of any research on that point? if not I will try to find some. How about stomatopods?

I mentioned fish and I don't think it has been studied at all. Only that some people who have tried this on their DT's got improved coral growth but their fish acted highly stressed. Which makes sense... fish have a circadian rhythm so they depend on a 24 hour cycle. Since studies have shown that at least species of corals don't have circadian rhythms there is no need to stick to a 24 hour cycle. I would never try it on anything other than a frag tank.

No idea if shrimp do or not.

 

[ScottR]

This is the key significant finding showing why 2 light cycles per day could be beneficial.


Calcification is the growth mechanism for coral skeletons. I would call it more significant than photosynthesis for growth rates.

The point being is that they made no correlation with reduced lighting and accelerated growth as per the premise of the OP.

 

[FO_Reef]

I believe @Jomama did mean to say heresy. It means “controversial opinion” basically.

Good call, my bad.

 

[Brew12]

The point being is that they made no correlation with reduced lighting and accelerated growth as per the premise of the OP.

No, but they made the more important correlation that the coral isn't tied to a 24 hour light cycle.

Plenty of other work shows that coral don't benefit from a peak continuous 12 hour light cycle. I can find some of Dana's work to link on that if you aren't familiar with it.

I don't think anyone would suggest that reduced lighting would accelerate growth. The argument is that coral can better utilize two separate 6 hour peak lighting cycles separated by a period of dark than they can from a single 6 to 12 hour lighting cycle every 24 hours.

 

[ScottR]

No, but they made the more important correlation that the coral isn't tied to a 24 hour light cycle.

Plenty of other work shows that coral don't benefit from a peak continuous 12 hour light cycle. I can find some of Dana's work to link on that if you aren't familiar with it.

I don't think anyone would suggest that reduced lighting would accelerate growth. The argument is that coral can better utilize two separate 6 hour peak lighting cycles separated by a period of dark than they can from a single 6 to 12 hour lighting cycle every 24 hours.

The study focused on birds nest (SPS) growth. Birds nest being one of the fastest growing in SPS. OP had mentioned zoa growth (soft). The article focused on calcification which SPS use to branch out. Not sure how much calcification happens in softies, but I don’t see how this study correlates to softie growth and photosynthesis. I know softies require lower PAR but would like to see more studies before I would even consider introducing regime change in my lighting.

 

[Brew12]

The study focused on birds nest (SPS) growth. Birds nest being one of the fastest growing in SPS. OP had mentioned zoa growth (soft). The article focused on calcification which SPS use to branch out. Not sure how much calcification happens in softies, but I don’t see how this study correlates to softie growth and photosynthesis. I know softies require lower PAR but would like to see more studies before I would even consider introducing regime change in my lighting.

An earlier link was provided showing that soft corals also do not have a circadian rhythm.
From that link
"This study examined the effect of light regime on rhythmicity of motility in the symbiotic dinoflagellate Symbiodinium sp., freshly isolated from the soft coral Heteroxenia fuscescens (Ehrenberg). Freshly isolated algal cells, placed under a 12-h L:12-h D cycle, exhibited motility with a diel rhythm. This motility occurred only during the period of illumination and lasted 8–9 h, with a peak at 2.5–4 h after lights on. Algal cells placed in an inverted light regime inverted their motility pattern. The response to the L/D regime was very precise, and even a 1-h shift backward or forward affected initiation of motility and time of its maximal peak. When placed in either constant light or dark, algal motility ceased until the L/D cycle was restored. These findings suggest that the rhythm is entrained by light cues and is not due to an endogenous circadian rhythm."

 

[Acrofiend]

Great post! I’m not here to bash it but how come when I switched to a 10 hour peak photoperiod my acropora started to actually show signs of growth?

 

[ScottR]

An earlier link was provided showing that soft corals also do not have a circadian rhythm.
From that link
"This study examined the effect of light regime on rhythmicity of motility in the symbiotic dinoflagellate Symbiodinium sp., freshly isolated from the soft coral Heteroxenia fuscescens (Ehrenberg). Freshly isolated algal cells, placed under a 12-h L:12-h D cycle, exhibited motility with a diel rhythm. This motility occurred only during the period of illumination and lasted 8–9 h, with a peak at 2.5–4 h after lights on. Algal cells placed in an inverted light regime inverted their motility pattern. The response to the L/D regime was very precise, and even a 1-h shift backward or forward affected initiation of motility and time of its maximal peak. When placed in either constant light or dark, algal motility ceased until the L/D cycle was restored. These findings suggest that the rhythm is entrained by light cues and is not due to an endogenous circadian rhythm."

But back to the premise of the OP, does cutting lighting enhance growth?

 

[ScottR]

@Brew12 - I hope I’m not coming off as combatant. I’m just trying to learn more.

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

I d

You really shouldn't call something heresy without doing some basic research. Especially when it is based on science.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/209/17/3413

For a 24 hour cycle to be important to a coral it would need a circadian rhythm which it has been proven some corals don't have, such as in this study. At that point it becomes a matter of determining the maximum and minimum beneficial light/dark cycles. Plenty of work out there shows peak lighting cycles lasting more than 6 hours have little benefit. The coral can transition from light to dark in under 20 minutes. I haven't seen any studies showing the necessary dark cycle for a coral but it seems likely that 6 hours of dark is enough to be ready for the next light cycle. This is why for some species of coral having 2 x 6 hour lighting periods a day causes maximum growth.

I didnt see links on OP. But it's really interesting and true. Only concern is quality of specimens. Will they be healthy and vibrant colors?

 

[Brew12]

Great post! I’m not here to bash it but how come when I switched to a 10 hour peak photoperiod my acropora started to actually show signs of growth?

There are many reasons that could be the case. Most likely is that you have lower levels of PAR than the coral can utilize.
https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2004/7/aafeature
https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/3/aafeature1
Here are two great articles by Dana that help explore stuff like this.