Yes Photoperiod question again. 6 Hour High Light vs 10 Hour Low Light.

[snowballs99]

20 gallon breeder seems to have algae issues whenever I go above 10 watts of light in the tank. Co2 Injected.
I'm currently on a 10 hour photoperiod.

I was wondering If I would get better results in color plant robustness if I just did a short but intense burst of light for shorter instead of slow but longer?

Tank is mostly just buces + some eriocaulons. I've noticed better buce color in higher light, which is why I'm asking.

So.
6 Hours (30 Watts) Vs 10 Hours (10 Watts).

My best guess for par values would be 100-150 par (30 watts) 30-50 par (10 watts).

 

[Naturescapes_Rocco]

I always prefer a short (6-7 hour) photoperiod with strong lighting to a longer (10 hour) with medium lighting.

 

[JayP]

I always prefer a short (6-7 hour) photoperiod with strong lighting to a longer (10 hour) with medium lighting.

Agreed. None of my tanks get more than 6.5 per day including ramp up and ramp down.

 

[Aquajack]

I'm similar and my tank seems to run more efficient and easier to control since I shortened the photo period. I have 7 hours including a half hour ramp up and down.

 

[Pepere]

I prefer higher intensity shorter photo period.

I find I can increase photo intensity by 10% every few weeks to increase the plants accetance..

 

[Yugang]

I am a little surprised seeing this thread, that may suggest that around 6 hours is fine.
Not all tanks are same, and perhaps we don't understand all factors at play, but I have had a 6 months period where I checked and double checked all parameters in my tank, until I found that my 6 hours photoperiod was the root cause of my issues with plants. The tank was ok, but not great, until I brought lighting to 8 and then 10 hours.
I guess 6 hours could work based on what I read here, but I believe a safe starting point would be 7 hours or more. How other parameters influence how short the photoperiod can be squeezed, I just don't know.

 

[hamfist]

I am a little surprised seeing this thread, that may suggest that around 6 hours is fine.
Not all tanks are same, and perhaps we don't understand all factors at play, but I have had a 6 months period where I checked and double checked all parameters in my tank, until I found that my 6 hours photoperiod was the root cause of my issues with plants. The tank was ok, but not great, until I brought lighting to 8 and then 10 hours.
I guess 6 hours could work based on what I read here, but I believe a safe starting point would be 7 hours or more. How other parameters influence how short the photoperiod can be squeezed, I just don't know.

It makes sense, considering what occurs in nature etc, and the average day length that virtually all plants should be ideally evolved for.

 

[snowballs99]

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I've been running it at 6 hours for a few days now, with 50 watts instead of 10.

So 5x whatever it normally gets. So far no algae and I'll need at least another week to see how the plants react.

It's mostly buces so everything happens very slowly.

 

[Pepere]

I am a little surprised seeing this thread, that may suggest that around 6 hours is fine.

I agree. All things consideredcaI prefere more light intensity for shorter photo period, ut I run 8 hours aday at full intensity with additional half hour ramp at either end, so, I give a bit more than 8 and a half hoyrs of significant light…

 

[Scaper26]

I've never really done short periods like 6 hours unless I have had horrible GDA outbreaks. When it comes to plant colouration and growth form, I think 7-8 hours, with a 1-hour ramp, is good enough. IME the 7-8 hour period at max intensity is the sweet spot, as I have done 10-12 hour photoperiods in the past, and the only difference it made was that it led to a higher final plant mass at the end of the week, which translates to more trimming and maintenance.
Also, a lot of plants will close up after 8-9 hours of lighting; it's essentially them putting up the "shop closed" sign, so there's no point in having your photoperiod past that.