• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

When to have lights on

dw1305 said:
I like a <"12 hour day">, but I'm not too bothered whether that is 10 or 14 hours.
Click to expand...
I am a believer in long photoperiods as well. Most of our plants comes from around the equator where they get about 12 hours of light. My light ramps up around 11:30am (30 minutes ramp) and ramps down at midnight. My tanks only get a tiny amount of ambient light in the room where they are located. If the long photoperiods wouldn't work, I would have a hard time enjoying my tanks. I like to pop in and enjoy the tanks throughout the day and the evening.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
6 hour intense lighting is fine. I have seen one poster whose meticulous high tech nature tanks get only 6 hour photo period and he claimed it is a trick to keep algae out of healthy plants. Dennis Wong cited that photosynthesis is most intense in the first 4 hours and diminishes thereafter, so 6 hours is more than enough. Trying to replicate 12 hour natural cycle in nature tanks is unnecessary as nature tanks are unnatural to begin with. A number of popular aquatic plants are not from the tropic, such as Ludwigia and Sagittaria species from North America, and many stream bank tropicals don't get 12 hour sun due to moving tree canopy shade. However, 6 hour viewing time is too short for my enjoyment, so my lighting schedule is 4.5 hour in the morning and 4.5 hour in the evening. If Dennis Wong's claim is true, then I am providing daily double optimizing photo periods, and siesta period is good for both low and high tech tanks.
 
tiger15 said:
However, 6 hour viewing time is too short for my enjoyment, so my lighting schedule is 4.5 hour in the morning and 4.5 hour in the evening. If Dennis Wong's claim is true, then I am providing daily double optimizing photo periods, and siesta period is good for both low and high tech tanks.
Click to expand...
Viewing time is my greatest concern as well. My viewing is fairly sporadic throughout the day, so the siesta period probably wouldn't work, but I do like the idea and potential benefits (I'll have to read up on what Mr. Wong is saying). As said, 6 hours just seems like an extremely short and unnatural photoperiod. Also, one need to consider a proper balance between photoperiod and light intensity. I don't think I could pull off the +12 hours in both my low-tech tanks if I had intense light.

tiger15 said:
A number of popular aquatic plants are not from the tropic, such as Ludwigia and Sagittaria species from North America
Click to expand...
True. Some popular species (some introduced) are widely found outside the tropical zone such as the lower part of North America (where daylight varies between 10.5h to 13.5h depending on the season).

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
6 hours seem short because the average photo period is between 8 to 10 hours. But if it is 6 hour full intensity light with no CO2 dial down, it's not that short. Dennis Wong suggests turning on CO2 1 to 2 hour before light on and off CO2 1 to 2 hour before light off, but for photo period 6 hour and under, he suggests no CO2 dial down.

Siesta works best for me for viewing as I feed my fish first thing in the morning before sun rise, and again in the evening after sun set when I am home all night. I can still see my fish during the siesta period under low ambient light.
 
Last edited:
I think this in part what I was eluding to here
Post in thread 'A reflection - putting it all into one scape'
A reflection - putting it all into one scape

Perhaps since the functionality of rubisco increases with pH (and decreases with lower pH), it may need longer periods of light in co2 is supplemented at large rates (low ph) for the entire photoperiod. However, if we ease off/cut off the gas a few hours before the end, perhaps allowing the pH to swing up will allow the stored co2 in the plant to be use up via a more effective rubisco?

Rubisco only functions in the light and if we provide low pH the whole time, it won’t function at its “ finest” and maybe the plant won’t be able to make enough sugar to keep up with metabolism?

It would make a whole lot of sense (lol maybe?) @22802 if they’re pearling more with longer photoperiods since there is more time for them to use RubisCo and make more sugar —- I reckon the increased pearling didn’t happen day 1, but a few days or even a week after? It’s possible that the extra sugar that they made gave them a “boost”, then they decided that they can really do something with this much light and then bam start going full on?!

Now that sounds crazy - just saying. Did they pearl instantly?

Edit: getting their fill of co2 doesn’t necessarily mean getting their fill of sugar - does it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just curious! Can I ask what is the RubisCo relationship with Ph if anyone knows. I have read somewhere that it pretty much ceases function at a ph lower than 6 or higher than 10 but I’m not sure on exactly where the curve lies (or even if that is accurate)

If the above supposition is correct then comparing a tank that sits at 6.6ph after a full 1ph drop due to Co2, and one that starts at 6.6ph before Co2 kicks in you would have very different results.

The high Ph tank would effectively sit in a sweeter spot throughout its entire photoperiod than a low Ph tank could achieve, even if fully de-gassed, and taking a tank close to or below 6ph via the use of Co2 could in fact be actively detrimental.

Also it begs the question of how much Co2 will the plant store and how much extra sugar would the plant produce as a result of higher Ph/RubisCo benefit at the end of a photoperiod. Would this be significant? Perhaps the lower your Ph, the more benefit you would see from this method as well as from longer photoperiod. 🤔
 
Count me as another adherent to the twelve-hour photoperiod philosophy. To be honest, I'm less concerned with optimal conditions, I just like to be able to observe my tank when I'm working from home and into the evenings. Any extra algae grown as a result is just more food for my appreciative ramshorn and bladder snails.
 
Libba said:
Count me as another adherent to the twelve-hour photoperiod philosophy. To be honest, I'm less concerned with optimal conditions, I just like to be able to observe my tank when I'm working from home and into the evenings. Any extra algae grown as a result is just more food for my appreciative ramshorn and bladder snails.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I think any algae issues are much more about stability, proper maintaince and light intensity rather than the long hours of light by itself... as said, I have zero algae to speak of and run my lights for +12 hours in both my tanks.

Cheers,
Michael
 
i never had success with high tech tank with more than 7 hours of light, it always end up with algae, in low tech i go up to 16 without problems, high tech is another world

I run ~300+ PAR for 6 hours
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top