Aqueon colormax O.K. for Anabias?

[Narwhal72]

The Colormax lamps (both Aqueon and Coralife) have a very high red component to them. This makes them pinkish and dimmer to the human eye. However this also makes them very good for growing plants. Plants utilize light in the red and blue spectrums only and most of what they need is found in the red spectrum. You should have no problem growing Anubias or many other plants under a Colormax.

Andy

 

[Byron Amazonas]

If I may, I'd like to expand a bit on this colour issue and plant growth. It is true that aquatic plants require primarily red and blue light for photosynthesis; which is to say that these two wavelengths promote photosynthesis. The problem is that red does not penetrate water very well; blue does (hence its wide use in marine setups for corals). But the red has to be stronger in order to penetrate. Low light plants such as Anubias can manage under less intense light as several of us have mentioned, so the so-called "plant" or "aquarium" tubes that are primarily red and blue work. They give a purplish hue to the aquarium, which some like to see, though I do not. The colours of the fish and plants are not natural under this light; reds and blues are highlighted, yes, but the actual colours of the fish and plants are not rendered true. Again, this is a visual thing for the aquarist.

The problem arises when other more light-demanding plants are attempted under this light. Scientifically-controlled studies have shown that aquarium plants grew best under a mix of red, blue and green light. This intrigued the testers, since we all know that green plants reflect green light, and red and blue are essential for photosynthesis. Diana Walstad surmised that the improved plant response to the red/blue/green mix was probably due to the brighter intensity, and that seems to have been the answer. Comparing for example the Hagen "Glo" tubes, the Aqua-Glo is primarily red and blue, while the Life-Glo is red, blue and green. The light emitted by the Life-Glo is almost double in intensity by comparison. This is indicated on the labels in lumens, and while some will say this doesn't apply to the perception of light by plants, clearly it does.

I ran tests for over a year on my 29g tank, using these various tubes. The plants in the tank were chain swords, crypts, Jave Fern and Java Moss, and floating Water Sprite. The tank thrived for several months under a Life-Glo. I replaced it with the weaker tube, an Aqueon primarily red/blue, and the plants began to fail; I left this for five months, and the swords died, the crypts died, and the others struggled, even the floating plants right under the light. No other changes (fish stock, feeding, fertilizing, duration) were made. I added a new Life-Glo and within a few weeks I could see better growth from the remaining plants. These tubes were the same size, a single 24-inch T8 in all cases. There can be no doubt that the Life-Glo was more intense light.

Kelvin is one way to find the best light; in the afore-mentioned study, it was found that light with a Kelvin in the 6000K to 7000K range had the best response from the plants. The tubes with 6500K suit this well. They also render true colours, and not surprisingly are closer to the true colour of sunlight.

Byron.

 

[Narwhal72]

Byron,

I wanted to make some comments about your test.

The Life Glo is a very good lamp. It is a European made triphosphor lamp which has peaks in the red, blue, and green spectrums. Aqueon Full spectrum lamps come in two versions. The earlier triphosphor 8000K lamp and the later and current halophosphor 4000K lamp. The halophosphor version is very heavy in the green/yellow spectrum and is similar to the Hagen Sunglo (another halophosphor lamp). If the Aqueon lamp package does not say 8000K on it you have the halophosphor lamp.

There are many different ways to measure light output but it's important to remember that all 17 watt lamps produce basically the same amount of energy. So if you were to compare two 17 watt lamps of different spectrums but equal quality the "intensity" or amount of light energy produced would be the same.

Now although they may be producing the same amount of energy the intensity to the eye will change. A halophosphor lamp with a lot of green and yellow energy will also have a high lumen value as the lumen scale is weighted towards the wavelengths that the human eye perceives the most which are greens and yellows. A lamp with a lot of blue and red wavelengths will not have as high a lumen value as the human eye does not perceive these wavelengths as well.

The LifeGlo lamp can have a higher lumen value than the AquaGlo but it is not producing more light energy than the AquaGlo. It is just taking light from the red and blue wavelengths and transferring to the green wavelengths. Making it brighter to the eye but taking away from the wavelengths that plants can use.

It's also important to keep in mind that freshwater aquatic plants occur very near the surface compared to marine corals. Freshwater plants use primarily red energy as a result. In fact, if you provide more energy than the plant requires the plant leaves will turn pink. This is to reflect the excess red light back. You don't ever see plants turn blue from getting too much blue light.

Kelvin rating or CCT is only good for giving a basic reference of what the color of a light looks like. You can achieve the same CCT from blending wavelengths together in many different ways. It is not a good reference of determining whether a lamp is good for growing plants or not.

The halophosphor Aqueon lamp is a 4000K lamp and is not very good for growing plants. The Aqueon Colormax lamp which is a 3000K triphosphor lamp with a lot of red in it is much better for growing plants. Natural Sunlight at the equator at noon has a CCT of around 5000K. So although the Colormax is further away from natural sunlight than the 4000K lamp it is the better lamp for growing plants.

If you look at modern LED hydroponic lights they are almost entirely red lights with smaller amounts of blue. The coloration is not natural (that refers to CRI, a whole other subject) but it is the way to grow plants most efficiently.

Andy

 

[Byron Amazonas]

Some of this I agree wit6h, but there are a couple points that I believe are incorrect.

There are many different ways to measure light output but it's important to remember that all 17 watt lamps produce basically the same amount of energy. So if you were to compare two 17 watt lamps of different spectrums but equal quality the "intensity" or amount of light energy produced would be the same.

With respect, this is not correct. Intensity or brightness varies according to the design/construction of the tube, not the watts. Watts is only the measurement of how much energy the tube uses to produce the light, but it is not an indication of how much light energy/intensity is being produced. The Life-Glo is a better tube and it produces more light intensity than another tube might. I also compared a GE Daylight with Life-Glo; both have much the same spectrum (GE is 6500K, LG is 6700K) and both use 17 watts. But the Life-Glo emits considerably more intensity. In my test over the same tank with these, the same result occurred.

The LifeGlo lamp can have a higher lumen value than the AquaGlo but it is not producing more light energy than the AquaGlo. It is just taking light from the red and blue wavelengths and transferring to the green wavelengths. Making it brighter to the eye but taking away from the wavelengths that plants can use.

This follows from the afore-mentioned; the Life-Glo is producing more light intensity.

Byron.

 

[Narwhal72]

With respect, this is not correct. Intensity or brightness varies according to the design/construction of the tube, not the watts

Sorry but you are only partially correct. If you were comparing two differently designed tubes (T5 vs T8 or Compact Fluorescent) then yes the tube design will factor into the light output. However we are not doing that here. We are comparing two nearly identically contstructed T8 tubes. The wattage is the amount of "work" done by the lamp. In a lamp this "work" is split between the amount of light and the amount of heat produced by the lamps. This is the first law of thermodynamics.

Both T8 tubes have the same dimensions, and same diameter glass. There might be differences in the amount of mercury or filament thickness between brands but if you were to compare the AquaGlo to the LifeGlo (both lamps made in the same factory from the same components) they would be the same. If you were to measure the amount of heat produced by both lamps it would be nearly identical since the heat loss is caused by the resistance of the filament (which would be the same in both lamps).

The difference between the two lamps is the phosphor blend which affects the wavelengths of light emitted by the lamp.

In your measurement of "intensity" what scale were you using? Lumens or lux, footcandles, PAR, Microwatts? What meter did you use to measure the intensity?

If you were just eyeballing it then your closest scale would be lumens or lux which as mentioned before is weighted towards the human eye. Since plants do not have eyes, this scale is meaningless to them. The light they need is nearly entirely different to what our eyes respond to.

If you have PAR meter data for the LifeGlo and Aquaglo or GE lamp I would be interested in seeing it. I am betting that they would be nearly identical since PAR represents a measurement of light that is not weighted.

Andy

 

[Byron Amazonas]

In your measurement of "intensity" what scale were you using? Lumens or lux, footcandles, PAR, Microwatts? What meter did you use to measure the intensity?

If you were just eyeballing it then your closest scale would be lumens or lux which as mentioned before is weighted towards the human eye. Since plants do not have eyes, this scale is meaningless to them. The light they need is nearly entirely different to what our eyes respond to.

I do not have the equipment to measure this myself. I simply use the data from my research. However, my own tests seem to support it. The same tank with a Life-Glo tube of 24 inches, T8, 17w, was thriving. This tube became weak with age, and at 18 months I decided it should be replaced. The replacement was a 24-inch GE Daylight 6500K. I could clearly see this tube was no where near as bright as the LG, but I left in to see what might occur. Everything else (duration, ferts, etc) remained as before. The plants began to deteriorate within just a couple of weeks. I let this go on for about 4-5 months, closer to five I think, and by then the swords were dead, the crypts had no leaves, and the floating Water Sprite was dying back so rapidly that I was basically replacing the floating plants at every weekly water change. I bought a new LG and within a few weeks the plants showed improvement. The swords never came back, nor the crypts, but the floating did, and new substrate plants thrived again. The attached photo is of this tank prior to the experiment when most of what you see died off.

I don't think one can draw any other conclusion from this, except that the GE tube was less intense light. It appeared that way to me, and the plants must have felt it too, and weakened or died because of it. I also saw algae issues under the GE, which is often the case when light intensity is insufficient for the plants; algae takes advantage.

There were some discussions with graphs and such on some plant forums, but I can't seem to get them now. AquaBotanic it says is gone (?), and the links in a thread on TFH go nowhere.

I mentioned Walstad earlier on the better plant response with green light in the mix with red and blue. Apparently Takashi Amano advocates green light as preferable to red and blue. Interesting.

Byron.

 

[screech]

Thanks for the replies. I now have a better handle on what all those lighting terms mean. Here is a picture of the 30 gallon tank I'm talking about. It has an under gravel filter so I'm limited to tying the Anubias to driftwood but I like the Anubias much better than fake plants.
Dan

 

[Byron Amazonas]

Thanks for the replies. I now have a better handle on what all those lighting terms mean. Here is a picture of the 30 gallon tank I'm talking about. It has an under gravel filter so I'm limited to tying the Anubias to driftwood but I like the Anubias much better than fake plants.
Dan

Those plants look very healthy. And they should not be planted in the substrate anyway; if the rhizome is buried, it may rot and kill the plant. Attached to wood (or rock) is normal cultivation, and the fine true roots will usually extend down into the substrate if close.

In time, you can expect that tank to be completely filled by these plants. I had a stock of Anubias that was on a chunk of rock in my 90g tank, and I happened to ignore the plants for a couple of years. When I finally tore the tank down to reset it, the Anubias rhizome was over two feet in length, and thick with leaves.

An UG filter is usually not recommended with substrate plants, but the fact is that you can grow them. I had good results with Vallisneria in a livebearer tank with UG many years ago. I wouldn't recommend UG today, as it has its issues, but it can still work.

Byron.

 

[screech]

Byron, is that Water Sprite I see floating on the surface of your tank? Is that something I could grow with my lighting (25 watt Colormax)? I think it would give my tank a more natural look.
I think about some day pitching that under gravel filter but my tank seems to do pretty well. Crystal clear water and my fish usually live a long time. I would like to get more plants but I'm not sure I want to get into a heavily planted set up where I have to add co2. Might be over my head.
Thanks,
Dan

 

[Byron Amazonas]

Byron, is that Water Sprite I see floating on the surface of your tank? Is that something I could grow with my lighting (25 watt Colormax)? I think it would give my tank a more natural look.
I think about some day pitching that under gravel filter but my tank seems to do pretty well. Crystal clear water and my fish usually live a long time. I would like to get more plants but I'm not sure I want to get into a heavily planted set up where I have to add co2. Might be over my head.
Thanks,
Dan

Yes, that is Water Sprite, the floating species which is Ceratopteris cornuta. I bought one plant back in the mid 1990's, and I toss out plants every week from one or another tank. I love this plant. You should be OK with most any floating plant light-wise, so give it a try.

That was my big plus with UG filters, crystal clear water. As long as you can get the detritus out from under the filter plate, which I did by pushing the hose down the return stem to the tank bottom. I now have play sand in all but one tank, and sand is not an option with UG.

One can have heavily-planted tanks without diffused CO2, and certianly without those liquid chemical concoctions. I have never added CO2. You simply balance the light with nutrient fertilization for the plant species, and select those plants that use low and moderate lighting; it is the high light plants that usually (but not always) require CO2 in order to maintain the balance between light and nutrients. The avatar under my name is my present 90g, which is one planting option, and attached is my present 70g flooded Amazon forest tank.