😃😃Epic photograph!
Up until this point, the rhizosphere has been a cartoony diagram and a abstract concept with immense power —- When I took the photo I had a hunch it was the rhizosphere but had never “seen one”.Where plant roots interact with soil and microbes we call the rhizosphere.
Stages of microbial growth ?! Is possible that if. I had paid more attention, the black and white group could have “been similar in visual to the orange section”.The "blue and green" patches appear to be abiotic microbial colonies forming in two separate soil horizons and looks like they are consuming organic molecules from the soil itself.
The long vertical root in your photograph is a bit more interesting. It has a reasonably well-defined root microbiome and three associated microbial colonies are easily visible: The top root section is more mature and has a "black" ectotrophic sheath. This is surrounded by a "white" microbial horizon that is fairly passive in association. Further down the root there is an "orange" colony that starts on the epidermis of the root. It widens into a horizon offset from younger root tissue, so it fairly facultative in association and displays evidence for a root zone with chemical inhibition.
😍Generally speaking, roots are surprising capable of modifying their root microbiome. If we look at the zone displaying inhibition of the "orange" microbial community, then you can see from the diagram below that this could be due to chemical root exudates like hormones (ethylene, salicylic acid etc.) or metabolites (phytoalexins, triterpenes, benzoxazinoids etc.) that are limiting it's spread, but equally, the roots could be stimulating beneficial microbes to either defend-against or outcompete the "orange" colony. Trichoderma harzianum is a classic example of an endotrophic fungi that defends plants from undesirable and pathogenic microbes. Trichoderma will often grow within the plant from the point when it starts life as a seed, migrating downwards into the root and providing a chemical (antimicrobial) barrier that stops the infestation of other microorganisms and pathogens. Interestingly, Trichoderma is equally capable of preventing mildew in leaves, and we can therefore say that this symbiont provides systemic plant defence.
Is Bacter 100 by ADA - the substrate additive - a “potential way that ADA attempted to do this”?The thing that <always strikes me> when we get posts talking about "melting" in-vitro plants is that people are overlooking the most obvious causes; that being - immunity to defend against opportunistic pathogens. Personally I would like to see more products that establish aquatic root microbiomes, especially biological inoculants (symbionts) that could actually prevent Bucephalandra melt.
Personally I would like to see more products that establish aquatic root microbiomes, especially biological inoculants (symbionts) that could actually prevent Bucephalandra melt.
I suspect not. Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus subtilis are arguably the two most common biological control agents (BCAs) used in terrestrial horticulture/agriculture. They are both symbionts that function to protect plants from infection. They are endotrophic microbes that migrate within plant tissue or sporulate in the air. If ADA had similar strains of BCAs in Bacter-100, they would want to ensure that they were suited to submersion. Plant tissue is relatively well oxygenated and often has air pockets, so many of these spores should be fine once they have inoculated themselves within aquarium plants. But this assumes that they can both survive and penetrate into plants while they are submerged in the aquarium soil. A better option would be to foliar spray these BCAs directly onto plant leaves, or introduce during the in-vitro stage of cultivation, or even better, use them during an aquarium dry-start. That should all work well, but might not be absolutely essential. It's just that lots of things could consume or damage these BCAs before they even get the chance to inoculate aquarium plants, so I would prefer to take the short-cut.Is Bacter 100 by ADA - the substrate additive - a “potential way that ADA attempted to do this”?
Endomycorrhiza: Glomus aggregatum – 83 props per gramGlomus intraradices – 83 props per gram Glomus mosseae – 83 props per gram Glomus etunicatum – 83 props per gram Glomus clarum – 11 props per gram Glomus monosporum – 11 props per gram Paraglomus brazilianum – 11 props per gram Glomus deserticola – 11 props per gram Gigaspora margarita – 11 props per gram | Ectomycorrhiza: Pisolithus tinctorious – 187,875 propagules per gram Rhizopogon luteolus – 5,219 props per gram Rhizopogon fulvigleba – 5,219 props per gram Rhizopogon villosullus – 5,219 props per gram Rhizopogon amylopogon – 5,219 props per gram Scleroderma citrinum – 5,219 props per gram Scleroderma cepa – 5,219 props per gram | Bacteria: Azotobacter chroococcum – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Bacillus subtilis – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Bacillus licheniformis – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Bacillus azotoformans – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Bacillus megaterium – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Bacillus coagulans – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Bacillus pumilus – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Bacillus amyloliquefaciens – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Paenibacillus durum – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Paenibacillus polymyxa – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Saccharomyces cerevisiae – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Pseudomonas aureofaciens – 525,000 CFU’s per gram Pseudomonas fluorescens – 525,000 CFU’s per gram | Fungi: Trichoderma koningii-187,875 CFU’s per gram Trichoderma harzianum-125,250 CFU’s per gram |
The "black" group looks like an ectotrophic microbial colony to me (possibly fungal), and probably living on older plant roots that are not exuding growth inhibitors. It could be obtaining nutrients from dead cells on the surface of the root, penetrating and infecting the root to draw nutrients, or simply colonising the surface opportunistically. This "black" group looks fairly natural and facultative, like it has done well to establish a colony and exploit this ecological niche. In your photograph, the black sheath (mantle) looks quite confined. Usually people just suppose that their roots were stained by the soil, whereas in fact this is more-often than not, a distinct microbial community. It is both a different species and a separate colony than the "orange" group.Stages of microbial growth ?! Is possible that if. I had paid more attention, the black and white group could have “been similar in visual to the orange section”.
Technically I shall refer to your tank from now on as the UKAPS unofficial rhizotron 😀I had a hunch it was the rhizosphere but had never “seen one”.
I' m pretty sure the orange zone, around the root, is a zone of iron (Fe) III oxide. These zones form because of a combination of root exudates and bacteria in the rhizosphere.What are all these crazy colours!?
An example would be from <here> <open source (uncorrected version)>:I' m pretty sure the orange zone, around the root, is a zone of iron (Fe) III oxide
That is some serious substrate thickness! Planning to grow a pine tree?For reference:
![]()
I don’t know what I’m growing!!! 😂That is some serious substrate thickness! Planning to grow a pine tree?
Iron sulfide?Minor update - all of the orange turned black … 🙂.
Nice idea — any thoughts about the “nature” of these bacteria?Iron sulfide?
Minor update - all of the orange turned black …
Same as @Simon Cole for me.When iron (Fe) III oxide reduces chemically (perhaps due to lower oxygen levels), you tend to see iron (Fe) II oxide which has that distinct black colour.
My guess is that these orange bands were formed due to roots carrying oxygen down from the emergent stems, which subsequently changed colour when the roots died and the source of oxygen ran out.
I still suspect that you had some sort of microbial associations going on. I am now fairly convinced that you had iron-oxidising bacteria present. The fact remains that there was an orange inhibited zone around some of your roots in your first photograph, and no orange staining on the roots. If it was mineral root horizons, then I would expect to see something rather different. So I still think that this is due to facultative bacteria in association with your plants. If it was iron-oxidising bacteria, then remember that although they are deriving energy from the iron oxides (in the same way that we respire with oxygen), that they will be obtaining the bulk of their organic molecules from the root exudates provided by your plants, or the soil itself.
<"and again">.It is clear that this practice provides massive amounts of oxygen to the root zone.
cheers DarrelThe uncertainty about what is happening in the sediment was one of the reasons for mainly talking about what might be happening in the <"rhizosphere"> the zone of fluctuating REDOX values, where exudates from the root will be altering the physical, chemical and microbial composition of the substrate.
In the <"Influence of submerged macrophytes, temperature, and nutrient loading on the development of redox potential around the sediment–water interface in lakes"> it mentions that their experimental plants didn't have much radial oxygen loss.
I'd guess that if they had used Cyperus spp, <"Phragmites australis">, Nelumbo sp. or an <"Amazon Sword"> (Echinodorus spp) etc. that their findings may have been slightly different.