Chit Chat Lurker

[ian]

this is just a quote from Clive over on the Barr report (he's a repected presence in the planted world)

Full spectrum is irrelevant and is not even true. No bulb is full spectrum because no bulb can approximate the spectral curve of the sun.At best a so-called full spectrum bulb has energy peaks in more than one frequency and that's it. Even if it were possible to simulate the solar spectrum it wouldn't matter because very few plants in tropical rain forests have access to full spectrum lighting, especially if they are in water which attenuates many wavelengths. Possibly, open grasslands or the very top leaves in the canopy trees of the rain forest have access to full spectrum lighting. 300 feet below the canopy in a stream stained with tannic runoff aquatic plants grow fine without ever seeing full spectrum or 6500K light bulbs their entire lives. As a result plants have developed the ability to utilize whatever visible light is available in the environment.

Freshwater does not attenuate the red, green and yellow wavelengths as strongly as salt water. As a result, freshwater appears as many different colors while marine water normally appears blue or blue/green. Blue light is a higher energy radiation and so is not affected as easily by the water. This is why it penetrates. Red light is the lowest energy visible radiation so it is the first victim upon entering seawater. The zooplankton, corals and other species living at certain depths have had to adjust to the spectral quality reaching them at that depth.

Photosynthesis requires photons within the visible spectrum. Lumens are not relevant because it's a measure of how humans perceive the brightness of light. Chlorophyll and auxiliary pigments such as carotene molecules are sensitive to and eject electrons when struck by photons in the visible spectrum. Each chlorophyll type is optimized around a certain spectral band, however there are enough different pigment types to cover the entire spectrum. The plant assesses what wavelengths are available in the environment via photoreceptors and manufactures pigments to match what is available. The photon energy is then converted and passed on to the chlorophyll for electron conversion. If the spectral quality of the light changes the plant adapts and manufactures a different pigment type to match the new ambient conditions. Although Chlorophyll a and b are the dominant pigment types other pigment are always present. You can see these pigments inherent in the leaves during the Autumn when the green chlorophyll is withdrawn leaving the other pigment types behind. These pigment are responsible for the fall colors but they are not just there for our viewing pleasure. They are there to take advantage of whatever wavelength light is available during the growing period.

Therefore it does not matter what color light is used, the plants will adapt to match.

 

[ian]

just to add again

this was grown under a osram 840

This is A reinikii (supposedly a difficult plant) and P. stelleta grown under the T5 version of common household/office building type bulb (Osram 840) in the yellow/green range. The advantage? They are 3X-5X cheaper. The result? They grow just fine. The disadvantage? The yellow cast of the tank is garish an absolutely awful. Everything looks like hamster vomit. You can see that the Althernathera which is supposed to be a red plant has a sickly orange color under these lights while the green stelleta behind doesn't look too bad.


have a read here regarding the K ratings and how it makes you tan look nice

http/www.theplantedtank.co.uk/lighting.htm

 

[SaTiVa1984]

just to add again

this was grown under a osram 840

This is A reinikii (supposedly a difficult plant) and P. stelleta grown under the T5 version of common household/office building type bulb (Osram 840) in the yellow/green range. The advantage? They are 3X-5X cheaper. The result? They grow just fine. The disadvantage? The yellow cast of the tank is garish an absolutely awful. Everything looks like hamster vomit. You can see that the Althernathera which is supposed to be a red plant has a sickly orange color under these lights while the green stelleta behind doesn't look too bad.


have a read here regarding the K ratings and how it makes you tan look nice

http/www.theplantedtank.co.uk/lighting.htm

Thanks for your time and info

 

[Mcbenthy]

this is just a quote from Clive over on the Barr report (he's a repected presence in the planted world)

Full spectrum is irrelevant and is not even true. No bulb is full spectrum because no bulb can approximate the spectral curve of the sun.At best a so-called full spectrum bulb has energy peaks in more than one frequency and that's it. Even if it were possible to simulate the solar spectrum it wouldn't matter because very few plants in tropical rain forests have access to full spectrum lighting, especially if they are in water which attenuates many wavelengths. Possibly, open grasslands or the very top leaves in the canopy trees of the rain forest have access to full spectrum lighting. 300 feet below the canopy in a stream stained with tannic runoff aquatic plants grow fine without ever seeing full spectrum or 6500K light bulbs their entire lives. As a result plants have developed the ability to utilize whatever visible light is available in the environment.

Freshwater does not attenuate the red, green and yellow wavelengths as strongly as salt water. As a result, freshwater appears as many different colors while marine water normally appears blue or blue/green. Blue light is a higher energy radiation and so is not affected as easily by the water. This is why it penetrates. Red light is the lowest energy visible radiation so it is the first victim upon entering seawater. The zooplankton, corals and other species living at certain depths have had to adjust to the spectral quality reaching them at that depth.

Photosynthesis requires photons within the visible spectrum. Lumens are not relevant because it's a measure of how humans perceive the brightness of light. Chlorophyll and auxiliary pigments such as carotene molecules are sensitive to and eject electrons when struck by photons in the visible spectrum. Each chlorophyll type is optimized around a certain spectral band, however there are enough different pigment types to cover the entire spectrum. The plant assesses what wavelengths are available in the environment via photoreceptors and manufactures pigments to match what is available. The photon energy is then converted and passed on to the chlorophyll for electron conversion. If the spectral quality of the light changes the plant adapts and manufactures a different pigment type to match the new ambient conditions. Although Chlorophyll a and b are the dominant pigment types other pigment are always present. You can see these pigments inherent in the leaves during the Autumn when the green chlorophyll is withdrawn leaving the other pigment types behind. These pigment are responsible for the fall colors but they are not just there for our viewing pleasure. They are there to take advantage of whatever wavelength light is available during the growing period.

Therefore it does not matter what color light is used, the plants will adapt to match.

just to add again

this was grown under a osram 840

This is A reinikii (supposedly a difficult plant) and P. stelleta grown under the T5 version of common household/office building type bulb (Osram 840) in the yellow/green range. The advantage? They are 3X-5X cheaper. The result? They grow just fine. The disadvantage? The yellow cast of the tank is garish an absolutely awful. Everything looks like hamster vomit. You can see that the Althernathera which is supposed to be a red plant has a sickly orange color under these lights while the green stelleta behind doesn't look too bad.


have a read here regarding the K ratings and how it makes you tan look nice

http/www.theplantedtank.co.uk/lighting.htm

Ian, I have a lot of respect for your experience in this field, and you are a far more experienced fish-keeper than myself, and I admire many of your set ups.

I'm concerned you have misunderstood what I was saying. It is true that aquatics companies exaggerate the benefits of their different full spectrum blah blah blah, however, it is based on solid science. The graphs I was showing you are just basic, suitable spectra for mathematically calculated physical effects.

What I was saying is that more of the photons generated by the lighting unit with a suitable kelvin rating are of an appropriate wavelength (and therefore energy) to initiate the catalytic center in chlorophyll than those that are of a less appropriate kelvin rating. ergo, you can use less energy to get the same growth (or less WPG/making the numbers more relatable to WPG).

Also, regarding cost of bulbs: http/www.thelightbulb.co.uk/product-12949/T5-Tubes-16mm/13watt-21in-Colour-54-Daylight-T5 6500K bulb, 21" T5 tube. I did not say that he has to buy expensive bulbs to get a decent growing light.

Also, to the above poster, 7500K is great

 

[ian]

i agree on many of your points in the post and back you up fully on most. As for the graphs, yes, i agree, sorry i meant most of the graphs found on the side of light tubes. That is purely marketing blurb, just to get Joe Public to buy a 'plant tube' for a million pounds.

I was just pointing out that we shouldn't get to hung up on K ratings when growing plants. I have just found a great little scape using only 2700k, growing some quite difficult plants again IME.

http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=19911

again, i know it's purely anecdotal, but it's there.

BTW i was also reading on the matter about most of the wavelengths were actually tested on terrestrial plants and not aquatic plants. There is a whole load of difference as i'm sure you're aware.

 

[Steve H.]

just to add again

this was grown under a osram 840

This is A reinikii (supposedly a difficult plant) and P. stelleta grown under the T5 version of common household/office building type bulb (Osram 840) in the yellow/green range. The advantage? They are 3X-5X cheaper. The result? They grow just fine. The disadvantage? The yellow cast of the tank is garish an absolutely awful. Everything looks like hamster vomit. You can see that the Althernathera which is supposed to be a red plant has a sickly orange color under these lights while the green stelleta behind doesn't look too bad.


have a read here regarding the K ratings and how it makes you tan look nice

http/www.theplantedtank.co.uk/lighting.htm

Thanks Ian! LOL! Of course the noob is alone in liking the lower spectrum.
But after checking out that site you do really see a dramatic difference between spectrums.
I just need to have a good plan and start gaining some skills and experience. Hopefully that leads to a small taste of success!

.Thanks again! And now off to research low tech plants...

 

[ian]

Also, just remember there no such plant as low tech. They just grow slower under lower light.

 

[Steve H.]

Thanks Ian...I should have said "easy" growing.

It's nice to know that I'm not as limited as I thought.

I can set up a nice mix of fast growing to slow growing plants in the tank. Hopefully gain an edge against algae growth while I am learning.
I read a thread by George Farmer about alleopathy...kind of using his suggestions to model my low light set up.
Not that I want to drag this topic on any farther because I have got the answer I was looking for a long time ago, but in that thread he does suggest ay heavily planted tank with a low light spectrum(2700k) to prevent algae in the tank.

 

[ian]

have you got that article regarding alleopathy??

 

[Steve H.]

have you got that article regarding alleopathy??

I found it in the "beginners resource center" in the "your new freshwater tank" room. Click on the thread called "algae eaters". Within that thread after the author rattles off all the fish there is a link to another pinned thread called "algae in the planted tank".

I am on my phone and not computer, but I will see if I can copy it and post it here for you.

 

[ian]

ooops i should know that lol.

I'm sure this is an old article and things may have changed. I'm gonna have a look for it...if i don't report back, will you link the thread. I'm on my phone too. Thanks Steve

ps, make sure you start a journal for your tank.

edit found it Steve...that article is 7 years old now. I'm hopefully seeing George in a couple of weekends time and will ask him what his take on this is now.