calling all anemone experts!

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2002

okay, so i have a sebae anemone that hosts both a sebae clown and anemone crab. when my anemone is fully expanded he measures about 8" in diameter.

when i woke up early yesterday morning, i noticed he had shrunken down to about 4". i came to the board, did some searches and found that many anemones do this when they are refreshing their systems with "new" H2O.

by last night he was getting pretty big again. this morning he is about 6 1/2" - still not at 8" yet.

my question is this: does it take awhile for them to refill themselves because i noticed that he still has a few shriveled tentacles.

tank specs:

40gal, 4" DSB, 75lbs LR
1 CBS, 1 cleaner shrimp
1 4" feather duster
scooter blenny
sebae clown
anemone crab
sebae anemone (in question)
5 hermits
5 snails

tests:

ammonia 0
nitrate 0
nitrite 0
pH 8.2
salinity 1.022 ppt
temp 79

i would appreciate any info, thanx.

jamesw · Feb 19, 2002

You didn't say what your lighting system is or how long you have had the anemone.

Cheers
James

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2002

*cringe*

i have 6 alternating 36" fluorescents which are mounted in a canopy about 4" above the water level -
3 coralife 50/50 6000K/actinic
3 coralife 10,000K high intensity super daylight

and i've only had my anemone for a week. is it my lighting? should i be bound and whipped for subjecting my anemone to such mediocre standards? honestly, i thought my lighting was adequate considering my coralline algae growth. perhaps i was jumping the gun. my tank is so small i figured i was safe.

<preparing to dodge virtual rotten fruit...>

jamesw · Feb 19, 2002

I'll bet you didn't post that information the first time around because you KNEW in your heart of hearts that it's not "up to snuff" for the anemone in question.

When I was walking the back reef flat in Fiji, I saw sebae anemones in like 3' of water getting full direct natural sunlight. That's about LITERALLY 10x the lighting you have.

Another thing you should consider is that there are many many species of corraline algae - most of which will grow better in dim light conditions. So, corraline growth can actually mean that you have WEAK lighting.

Anyhow, on to answering your question:

Your anemone has just barely "settled in" in a week. It is still in shock from shipping and being ripped off it's rock/home. Based on your setup, you will need to feed the hell out of this anemone, but that might be a problem in a tank as small as a 40g. Do you see where I am going with this?

Please let us know what you do w/ your anemone or how it does.

Cheers
James Wiseman

Anemone · Feb 19, 2002

Well, first of all, anemones "inflate" to different sizes in response to differing stimuli - ie, lighting, current, feeding, expulsion of waste, etc. So, it's almost impossible to say whether your anemone is healthy or unhealthy based on the fact that is only 85% inflated today versus pre-shrinking.

That being said, your lighting is, um, on the "light" side for a clownfish host anemone. Your six bulbs spreads your light out quite a bit, and on top of that, Normal Output(NO) fluorescent bulbs don't have the oomph (<==technical term) to penetrate water very deeply. So, if your anemone is one of the ones that likes to nestle in the sand, it may have to give up its preferred habitat (crawl up on the rocks) to get even mediocre light in your 40 gallon tank.

I would suggest that you try feeding small pieces of various sea flesh (krill, silversides, squid) until you find what your anemone will take, then feed a small piece or two twice a week to make up for any energy deficiency created by your lighting.

Kevin

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2002

i feel rotten.

now i don't know what i should do. i mean, i know the obvious is to do some serious upgrading on my lighting but my budget will not allow for at least another month. soooo, should i take the poor thing back to the LFS? or will i only be subjecting it to more stress?

what about the higher output compact fluorecents? i was looking at some today, a set of 2x96 watts. or do i need to avoid fluorescents altogether? maybe i should just keep this little tank a FOWLR until i can upgrade to a larger tank/better lighting...

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2002

^

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2002

First off, I'm not very familiar with the sebae anemone.

Second, 6 x 30 = 180. 180/40 = 4.5 So you've got 4.5 watts per gallon and your lights (I'm guessing) are about 20-22 inches from your tank bottom. I think the lighting freaks raked you over the coals to feed their own egos. Using two 96 watt PC lights would increase your light by like 12%.

Third, if you're going to upgrade your lights in a month or so, I think the stress would be greater if your returned the dude than if you just let him wait it out. The rainy season hits the ocean, too you know.

Fourth, full sunlight is 1000 Watts/Meter^2 at absolute max. Keep that and the power rating & bulb efficiency in mind if you get more lights.

Finally, good luck. If it looks like it's trying to get more light or current, it may need more it.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: benjemon ]

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2002

thanks, benjemon. i now have hope again.

rayjay · Feb 19, 2002

FWIW!
It's my experience that my Sebae doesn't need high lighting to live. It was the first thing I bought when my 30g first cycled 8 yrs ago. If I'd had a computer back then, I'd probably have panicked and spent a lot of money upgrading and then figured I had done what was needed.
However, my 30g was lit with 3 GE Daylight 40w lamps and one actinic, all about five inches above the water. Back then I used to feed the anemone, more for the entertainment of seeing it feed I think, but for many years now, I haven't fed it directly. I do however feed my tank very heavily. I moved the anemone to it's present 90g tank about 6+ yrs ago and had 6 NO's over that, eventually going to 8 NO's. The NO's aren't even all on all the time. Four timers allow varied cycles, one on 15 hrs, others at 12, 6, and 3 hrs. If I think more light is needed for something in my tank, I have a lot of leeway to increase the on time of 3 sets of the lamps.
Dr Shimek, I believe, has stated that lack of light won't doom the anemone if one feeds it enough. Mine apparently has enough light/food combination to stay alive without sophisticated lighting or direct feeding.

rayjay · Feb 19, 2002

I should have mentioned that originally I kept my tanks at 1.024, but now at 1.026. Your tank at 1.022 may be a little low compared to what the anemone experience in the ocean.

Anonymous · Feb 20, 2002

update:

thanks to everyone for all your input, advice, criticisms... i appreciate all of it.

i checked on my baby (anemone) this morning and he actually looks better. i did a little rearranging with my LR yesterday because he didn't have much substrate to nestle in and he moved right out in the "open" sand. seems to like it better.

i checked my SG this morning as well and it read 1.023 - still a little low. i plan to do a partial H2O change today since i'm due anyway, so with that i should be able to raise the SG a bit.

i plan to try the PC lighting as my checkbook won't allow for MH lighting just yet (i checked into yesterday, lights, fixtures, chiller (?),new hood, fans, electric bill - yikes!).

i may in fact be getting a great deal on a 100gal soon and i plan to do everything right with that one (slowly, mind you).

again, thanks to all of you. i will keep you guys posted if you're interested.

cheers!

Anonymous · Feb 20, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>quote:
Hmmm, I don't think I particularly raked anyone over any coals, and my ego does quite fine without my feeding it by offering others advice.
<hr></blockquote>

Hey, if you feel like that was directed to you, then maybe the shoe fits.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>
If you like the watts/gal "rule," more power to you - personally, I think it's pretty much useless. 180 watts of NO fluorescent lighting does not equal 180 watts of metal halide lighting (or even come close to 175 watts of MH). I'm not being a lighting snob here - I use NO, VHO, PC, and MH lighting over different setups depending upon what I'm trying to accomplish. As I said above, NO lighting, as a diffuse light source, does not provide the intensity to adequately penetrate water (beyond about 12 inches).
<hr></blockquote>

I use watts/gallon for convenience. Seeing as very few people are comfortable discussing foot candles, a concession must be made somewhere to allow for discussion. Moreover, exact lumen output isn't always available for a given bulb, but you can ballpark a 250W MH at 23000 lumens, and given that many aquariums are between 16 and 24 deep across standard sizes, then if you know the aquarium size watts/gallon can be roughly converted to foot candles.

I think the efficiency of PC over MH over NO/HO/VHO has been discussed to death already.

 <blockquote>quote:<hr>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by benjemon:
Fourth, full sunlight is 1000 Watts/Meter^2 at absolute max. Keep that and the power rating & bulb efficiency in mind if you get more lights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting. What are you using as a source for this? Most measurements of light strength over reefs that I'm aware of deal with lumens. I'm not aware of any correlation among the various bulbs between wattage and lumen output.
<hr></blockquote>

It is very interesting. If you look up the total output of the Sun in watts, distribute that across the surface of the sphere whose origin is the center of the Sun and radius is the mean distance from the center of the Sun to the point on the Earth's surface closest to the Sun, and disregard wavelengths not between 200 and 900 nM, then you'll get an amount ~1 kW / M^2. That's how I got that. I chose a range broader than that of human vision because a great number of marine species are sensitive to wavelengths outside our vision range, but 200-900 nM should well encompass those extra wavelengths.

As I mentioned above there is no exact correlation between bulb type and power versus lumen output, but after looking at several bulbs of a given type and wattage and ball park the output of an unknown bulb of the same type and wattage. Furthermore, all of the energy that goes into the bulb must come out of the bulb. Lumen output is only a measure of the energy that comes out as visible light, hence actinics have low lumen ratings. If you take a gander at spectral output graphs you'll see that the vast majority of the energy is coming out in the 200-900 nM range. The next major loss is heat.

As for the penetration of NO, I've got a BTA that hides foot and tentacles under an overhang 12" from 45 watts of NO.

Personally, I think the biggest problem in aquarium lighting is a combination of intensity and geometry.

Anemone · Feb 20, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
I use watts/gallon for convenience...I think the efficiency of PC over MH over NO/HO/VHO has been discussed to death already. <hr></blockquote>

True, it has been discussed, but a statement that "X" amount of watts/gal is "enough" without regard to type of lighting or tank depth makes "X" meaningless....

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
It is very interesting. If you look up the total output of the Sun in watts, distribute that across the surface of the sphere whose origin is the center of the Sun and radius is the mean distance from the center of the Sun to the point on the Earth's surface closest to the Sun, and disregard wavelengths not between 200 and 900 nM, then you'll get an amount ~1 kW / M^2. That's how I got that. I chose a range broader than that of human vision because a great number of marine species are sensitive to wavelengths outside our vision range, but 200-900 nM should well encompass those extra wavelengths. <hr></blockquote>

An interesting calculation - how did you account for atmospheric absorption and reflection of light?

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
As for the penetration of NO, I've got a BTA that hides foot and tentacles under an overhang 12" from 45 watts of NO.<hr></blockquote>

Not suprising, since BTAs usually place their foot in a crevice or beneath a rock overhang...and I notice you are within the approximate 12" range I mentioned for NO light penetration. The lack of intensity of the light reaching 18-24" beneath NO bulbs was what I was addressing in my post.

Kevin

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Anemone ]

Anonymous · Feb 20, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Anemone:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by benjemon:
I use watts/gallon for convenience...I think the efficiency of PC over MH over NO/HO/VHO has been discussed to death already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, it has been discussed, but a statement that "X" amount of watts/gal is "enough" without regard to type of lighting or tank depth makes "X" meaningless....
<hr></blockquote>

Right. And you'll remember the type of lighting was known and I referenced the distance from light bulb to bottom glass. He also has a sandbed.

 <blockquote>quote:<hr>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by benjemon:
It is very interesting. If you look up the total output of the Sun in watts, distribute that across the surface of the sphere whose origin is the center of the Sun and radius is the mean distance from the center of the Sun to the point on the Earth's surface closest to the Sun, and disregard wavelengths not between 200 and 900 nM, then you'll get an amount ~1 kW / M^2. That's how I got that. I chose a range broader than that of human vision because a great number of marine species are sensitive to wavelengths outside our vision range, but 200-900 nM should well encompass those extra wavelengths.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting calculation - how did you account for atmospheric absorption and reflection of light?
<hr></blockquote>

I didn't. That's why I said at max we're talking about 1 kW/M^2. But as a side note, the ground/water reflect 99% of the light that is seen striking the earth from space.

<blockquote>quote:<hr>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by benjemon:
As for the penetration of NO, I've got a BTA that hides foot and tentacles under an overhang 12" from 45 watts of NO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not suprising, since BTAs usually place their foot in a crevice or beneath a rock overhang...and I notice you are within the approximate 12" range I mentioned for NO light penetration. The lack of intensity of the light reaching 18-24" beneath NO bulbs was what I was addressing in my post.
<hr></blockquote>

I think you misunderstood. The overhang is 12" from the lights. The entire bta is well under the lip and is completely in the shade. Either way, assuming you're using reflectors and neglecting loss through the viewing glass, X lumens is X lumens. I do understand the penetration arguement; I just disagree with it.

jamesw · Feb 20, 2002

Mouse:

Please tell us you are joking about the ritteri anemone in a 25g tank with 30w NO of lighting. That would in fact be the exact textbook response to "What would be the worst tank that you could put a ritteri anemone into."

I am enjoying the discussion about the amount of light energy at the water surface in the tropics. It is in fact VERY close to 1000 watts/square meter. That is equivalent to about 1000 watts of light energy over a 9 square foot area. A 9 square foot area is ROUGHLY equivalent to a 5'x2' reeftank.

Unfortunately, because lamps are not 100% (let's say 75% for MH) efficient, that is equivalent to putting ~1,300 of MH lighting over a 5'x2' aquarium.

So, to replicate the natural environment of that Sebae anemone that I saw in Fiji, you would need roughly 3 - 400w MH over a 4 or 5 foot tank. That is IN ADDITION to any food (fish, shellfish, etc.) that the anemone might catch.

Now, some reefkeepers actually have that, and these are the types of people that I would ENCOURAGE to "experiment" with hard to keep animals. After all, if you are going to experiment w/ a live animal, you damn well better try to replicate its natural environment, right?

Of course, this post may sound a little critical, but it's not meant to be...I'm just explaining the reality of the situation. If you are not prepared to meet an animal's needs, then you probably shouldn't buy it.

This is all just my opinion,
Cheers
James Wiseman

Anemone · Feb 20, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
I do understand the penetration arguement; I just disagree with it.<hr></blockquote>

Aha!!

!! There we have it. You believe 4.5 watts/gal of NO light is sufficient at 20-22" of depth. I don't

. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

A very good discussion (other than some initial "freaken" name calling

)

Kevin

Just read James' post (he's gotta stop posting while I'm writing

) - looks like your math exercise was on the button, Benjamin -

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Anemone ]

Anonymous · Feb 20, 2002

Let's just suppose that the MHs are 75% efficient and that on the 5'x2' tank that means 1300 watts worth. The catch is that is peak noon-day light. Ideally, you'd use about 1300 one watt bulbs to perfectly control color and intensity. Disregarding color, you'd want to ramp up from 0 to 1300 and then down to zero again in 6-7 hour shots. And I applaud the folks using 6-8 separate lights to accomplish this task.

The next best thing would be to determine some breakpoint means and increase/decrease your lighting stepwise. The simplest thing would be to run at 50% all day.

[digress]
There are several ways to go about performing photosynthesis. However, in all but the highest plants, photosynthetic capacity is maxed out around 20-30% of available sunlight. So our PS livestock could probably hang around just fine and dandy with about 400 watts all day long.

Many animals spawn and metamorphasize according to the phases of the moon and the change in day length. These guys would benefit much more from a moonlight and annual timer.

Assuming infinite funds, high wattage lights and computer controlled timers are available. But for overall tank health on less than NFL salaries, aren't the extra special timers a little more important than the extra unused 400 watts?
[/digress]

Anyway, I wonder if anyone has a graph of sunlight intensity versus time across a whole clear day?

Anonymous · Feb 20, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Anemone:

A very good discussion (other than some initial "freaken" name calling

)
<hr></blockquote>

Heh, actually, I wrote fetishists first, but thought that was a little extreme.

fet·ish also fet·ich Pronunciation Key (ftsh, ftsh)
n. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.

Anonymous · Feb 20, 2002

jamesw

<blockquote>quote

I am enjoying the discussion about the amount of light energy at the water surface in the tropics. It is in fact VERY close to 1000 watts/square meter. That is equivalent to about 1000 watts of light energy over a 9 square foot area. A 9 square foot area is ROUGHLY equivalent to a 5'x2' reeftank.

An insignificant correction. A meter is longer than a yard, and a square meter is closer to 10 square feet than 9 square feet. So a 5'x2' is probably closer to a square meter than you realize.

<blockquote>quote

Fourth, full sunlight is 1000 Watts/Meter^2 at absolute max. Keep that and the power rating & bulb efficiency in mind if you get more lights.

Sunlight at 1000W/m^2, assuming that is correct when the sun is directly overhead, is going to be lower at different times of the year. Between the tropic of Cancer and the tropic of Capricorn, there is a 47 degree variance. (The equator, only 23.5 degrees one way or the other) So within the tropic zone, the 1000W is spread over 1.466 m^2 during the winter on each tropic, which brings the intensity down to 680W/m^2. This of course drops further farther north or south in the respective winters. (Down to 0W past 66.5 degrees north or south latitude)

Another variation. The light from the sun that reflects on the surface of the water bounces back into space completely. How much may seem irrelevant since it will also bounce off the water in the aquarium. But if the lighting in the aquarium is backed by reflective material, then some of this light reflected by the surface of the water may be further reflected back a second time to the aquarium surface, improving the efficiency of the lights, although the fact that the wattage of the lights is split over every direction if there is no reflective surface is a hinderance. Also, no surface is completely reflectant, so a little gets absorbed here too.

What does this prove? I'm not sure. I just thought I'd pipe in with some information on the subject.

calling all anemone experts!

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Advanced Reefer

Advanced Reefer

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Sponsor Reefs