Is lighting the ultimate algae control? - Algae

Laith · 10-30-2005, 01:59 AM

Curious to know what people think...

Given that all your other plant nutrients (including CO2) are available to your plants in adequate (or more than adequate) amounts for your level of lighting, what lighting changes will have a positive impact on the reduction of algae?

Assume that you have let's say 3-4wpg.

niko · 10-30-2005, 04:23 AM

To me the control of nutrients in the water is the ultimate approach in algae control.

But I chooze the "noon light burst" as most efficient if we talk about the light.

--Nikolay

Edward · 10-30-2005, 05:50 AM

The answer would be Reduce lighting period.
In my sunroom some aquariums are receiving strong direct sunlight. Interestingly, only the aquariums with additional artificial lighting increasing the lighting period are developing GW green water.

Extra long lighting periods makes plants weak and less resistant to algae. The old saying that plants need sleep time is true.

Edward

RTR · 10-30-2005, 05:56 AM

False premise? Lighting, nutrients (including bioavailable carbon), and plant mass must all balance. Changing one requires sampensating changes in the others.

trenac · 10-30-2005, 06:53 AM

I voted for reduction of lighting period and intensity. But I also agree with RTR, change one aspect you have to change another.

ja__ · 10-30-2005, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trenac

I voted for reduction of lighting period and intensity. But I also agree with RTR, change one aspect you have to change another.

reduction will also promote algea off you are not talking about massive reduction

Laith · 10-30-2005, 10:49 AM

I can understand the comments re balance.

However, are your tanks *that* delicately balanced that a "fine tuning" of the lights will throw everything off? I don't think so. If so, then you're constantly walking a tightrope and that can't be too much fun!

Remember, I'm talking about fine tuning here; not massive changes...

RTR · 10-30-2005, 03:07 PM

That is exactly why I quit running high light fast growth tanks. I had more algae issues. Lower and slower has a wider safety zone.

Laith · 10-30-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTR

That is exactly why I quit running high light fast growth tanks. I had more algae issues. Lower and slower has a wider safety zone.

I couldn't agree with you more!

But many people are still convinced that high light plants means that they need 5+wpg. At that high of lighting if you fall behind on ferts it's an algae disaster waiting to happen. That is definitely a tight rope...

I still hear comments about how 2 to 2.5wpg will only let you grow low to medium light plants.

More opinions please! 82 views and 8 votes?

... speak up!

MatPat · 10-30-2005, 07:40 PM

I've said this before, but I grew some of my nicest Rotala macrandra and Pogostemon stellatus with 136 of T-8 (96w, 9325K) and T-12 (40w, 5500K? Nutrigrow) lighting. I did have pressurized CO2 which was a big help. Algae was practically non existent and P. stellatus rarely if ever stunted. The plants grew much slower with that amount of light, but so did the algae.

Why is it that such high light levels are recommended and do we really need it for most plants?