calling all anemone experts!

[plankton123]

CoralShrimp,

You asked for advice and are sure getting it!
I noticed that you posted several specific gravity levels over the last few posts. I would strongly recommend that you SLOWLY change the physical and chemical levels in your change to minimize the stress on your inverts. Many inverts and especially deep water ones like most anemone respond poorly to 'big' changes in salinity, etc. For example, a specific gravity change of 1.023 to 1.025 (or visa versa) could easily trigger the anemone to close. If you haven't done so already I'd invest in some kind of dosing system for your 'small' tank to replace the water all tanks lose to evaporation. Most folks use RO/DI or Kalkwasser made with RO/DI water.

Good luck.

Scott

 

[Anemone]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
<strong>Anyway, I wonder if anyone has a graph of sunlight intensity versus time across a whole clear day?</strong><hr></blockquote>


Shoot! I just read an article that addressed how rapidly "full illumination" occurs on the reef. The gist was that we don't need long dawn/dusk simulations as sunlight reaches full illumination quickly. I got to the article from a link in a thread either here or at RC, but now can't find it (naturally

). Anyone know the thread that was in, or know the article?

Kevin

 

[Anemone]

Aha! Found it:

http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1999/july/features/2/default.asp

Kevin

 

[Anemone]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
<strong> 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. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Benjemon,

Where are you gathering your info that photosynthetic corals ability to photosynthesize is "maxed out" at 20-30% of available sunlight?

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
<strong> 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.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Ouch

. That sounds painful - those bulbs get hot!

Kevin

 

[Leslie]

I gotta know - what DO you guys do for a living? Are you like, scientists for GE? How do you know all this about lumens and watts and....well, I'm lost already. But what fun. I learned too. That's the good thing.

 

[BCReefer]

I read somewhere that there is a studying going on or has been done in the past how corals/anemones actually spend a great deal of the energy fighting off the high intensity of the sun. In other words we might be supplying too much light for to long. i.e. Instead of 8 hours of high intensity we only 2 hours.

This was a very interesting post but I have not been able to find anything on it again. Anyone else?

 

[Anonymous]

Anemone, that's straight out of my old (circa 1999) botany text. All PS is performed by bacteria and the text had a few pages on nonbotanical PS. Now unless the corals are manipulating the metabolism of the bacteria in similar fashion as the grasses, which are far more advanced evolutionarily, then the bacteria in corals will also be saturated somewhere in that 20-30% range. As far as I know, there haven't been reports to the effect that bacteria are being manipulated in that fashion. But to be honest, I haven't looked that hard for it. Although, "The study found that a sunny day generated sufficient energy to meet the needs of all three corals, but a cloudy day left P. damicornis and P. lobata in an energy-deficient state" suggests that some other mechanism is at work in atleast these two corals. Now I'm curious as to how one would measure the radiation from a round or even just a very large bulb, ie flourescent.

Leslie, no I'm not a GE techie. Just a nerd with a BS in biology, studying nuclear propulsion for the Navy. And yes, I do read the labels and instructions on the back of almost every product I consider buying.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: benjemon ]</p>

 

[Anemone]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
<strong>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%.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

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. 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).

You might also notice that I suggested feeding the anemone to make up for any lighting-related energy deficiency (and yes, I believe that within a certain range, one can substitute appropriate feeding for lighting intensity).

James (who posted while I was writing my response, so I did not see his second post) also indicated that feeding might be an option. His concern for overfeeding the tank is genuine - I addressed this in my post by indicating small experimental initial feedings to determine an appropriate food, then feeding twice a week.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by benjemon:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>

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.

Finally, as rayjay said (and I missed the first time around), coralshrimp's SG is low for anemones - it should be slowly raised to 1.025-1.026.


Good luck,
Kevin

PS - IMO, PC lighting has sufficient intensity for a 40 gallon tank to provide adequate lighting at the substrate. I have a 2x96 watt system on a 40 gallon acrylic tank and can keep most corals, including some acroporas, even on the bottom of the tank.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Anemone ]</p>

 

[Mouse]

Woa, whats with the lighting. I think thats fine, provided the anemonie is well fed. I had a Ritteri in a 25 gallon tank with 4 30W NO flourecents for over a year, i had to give it away eventually because it got too big. Ok so im just about 5W/gallon, but the ritteri was fine. Didn't even climb up the back, just stayed on the rocks. Just my expirience.

 

[newreefman1]

I am an advocate on strong lighting only for anemones but have seen many kept in what I would consider "low lighting" tanks. Regardless, as anemone mentions...I think you could be Ok with what you have although I w*ould always err in the side with more light

As for salinity..I keep mine at 1.025 constantly and always have..my haddoni has been with me for a little over 3 years now

GL

j

 

[neurotech]

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Neurotech ]</p>

 

[Anonymous]

hey dears,

looks like i may have to give up my sebae.

i *thought* he had found his happy place but i was wrong. anyway, he justs keeps floating around aimlessly. soooooo, i've decided to give him to my uncle (he has a 200g reef and 125g FOWLR) who has all the right lighting and plenty of room. i really don't want to contribute any further to his current fate (if he stays with me) so i will be responsible and give him to a better home (though the ocean was probably where he should have stayed). at least he'll still be in the family.

i just want to thank you guys for all your advice. if i had known then what i know now...

i shall leave the anemones be!

 

[EmilyB]

FWIW, mine is healthy under 3 X 250 MH and feedings every other day or so besides what it gets from the fish feedings. I've moved a bubbletip to NO for temporary housing....and I won't say more except to say lighting is noticeable

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: EmilyB ]</p>