Tweet
Greetings All !
Blackwell-Synergy is a dangerous website ...
... 
...
As someone disturbingly fascinated by the behavior of bacterial guilds within our captive ecosystems, I'm always on the lookout for abstracts/articles which present potentially relevant information.
For example ...
Hmmm ... "... We conclude that Trichodesmium can obtain significant quantities of N through uptake of nitrate and does so in preference to N2 fixation when sufficient NO3 is available." Kind of makes you wonder about who else might by processing NO3 in our systems besides Nitrosomonas ... and the conditions under which such processing takes place, doesn't it?
Not that this stuff is particularly new ... indeed, it's not. Borneman posted these (extracts) as long ago as 1998 ...
... and ...
Kind of makes you wonder if the overall "role" cyanobacteria might be a lot less "bad" than is commonly acknowledged in reefkeeping-cyberspace, doesn't it?
No ... I'm not suggesting that "cyano outbreaks" are a good thing ...
...
... clearly, such an out of control growth pattern indicates a system dysfunction which needs ...
... correction :destroy:.
But, when viewed from a "broader" perpective, you've just got to love micro-beasties who, "... can take up combined nitrogen (nitrate, ammonium, amino acids, dissolved organic nitrogen) from solution" ...
... don't you? ...
While the fascination with the effect of the ZEOvit methodology on SPS coloration is entirely understandable, I've always more interested in the potential effect(s) of the ZEOvit system on the behavior of bacterial guilds ...
... strange, huh? ... ... 
I always found it particularly odd that some people seemed to object to the concept of calculated, periodic bacterial inoculation (... along with a carbon source and other bacterial "food" ...), and "mulm" generation, as "useful things" in terms of generating an oligotrophic environment, and in terms of increasing coral growth rates, respectively. "Odd" because bacterial guilds underly the very foundation of our captive ecosystems ... consider ...
... and ...
Just trying to fill in the data set ...
... hehe ...
Blackwell-Synergy is a dangerous website ...
... ...As someone disturbingly fascinated by the behavior of bacterial guilds within our captive ecosystems, I'm always on the lookout for abstracts/articles which present potentially relevant information.
For example ...
INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NITRATE UPTAKE AND NITROGEN FIXATION IN CONTINUOUS CULTURES OF THE MARINE DIAZOTROPH TRICHODESMIUM (CYANOBACTERIA)
Carolyn M. Holla2 and Joseph P. Montoyaa
Diazotrophic cyanobacteria can take up combined nitrogen (nitrate, ammonium, amino acids, dissolved organic nitrogen) from solution, but the interaction between N2 fixation and uptake of combined nitrogen is not well understood. We studied the effects of combined nitrogen NO3 additions on N2 fixation rates in the cyanobacterium Trichodesmium erythraeum (IMS-101) maintained in continuous culture in an N-free medium (YBCII) and a 12:12-h light:dark cycle. We measured acetylene reduction rates, nutrient concentrations, and biomass throughout the 12 h of illumination after the addition of nitrate (0.5–20 μM) at the start of the light period. Compared with unamended controls, Trichodesmium showed strong inhibition of acetylene reduction (up to 70%) in the presence of NO3, with apparent saturation of the inhibition effect at an initial NO3 concentration of approximately 10 μM. The inhibition of acetylene reduction persisted through much of the light period as concentration in the culture vessel decreased. Recovery of N2 fixation was observed late in the light period in cultures amended with low concentrations of NO3 (<5 μM) when ambient NO3 concentrations had decreased to 0.3–0.4 μM in the culture vessel. Nitrate uptake accounted for as much as 86% of total N uptake and, at the higher treatment concentrations, more than made up for the observed decrease in N2 fixation rates. We conclude that Trichodesmium can obtain significant quantities of N through uptake of nitrate and does so in preference to N2 fixation when sufficient NO3 is available.
Journal of Phycology
Volume 41 Page 1178 - December 2005
doi:10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.00146.x
Volume 41 Issue 6
Abstract Source
Carolyn M. Holla2 and Joseph P. Montoyaa
Diazotrophic cyanobacteria can take up combined nitrogen (nitrate, ammonium, amino acids, dissolved organic nitrogen) from solution, but the interaction between N2 fixation and uptake of combined nitrogen is not well understood. We studied the effects of combined nitrogen NO3 additions on N2 fixation rates in the cyanobacterium Trichodesmium erythraeum (IMS-101) maintained in continuous culture in an N-free medium (YBCII) and a 12:12-h light:dark cycle. We measured acetylene reduction rates, nutrient concentrations, and biomass throughout the 12 h of illumination after the addition of nitrate (0.5–20 μM) at the start of the light period. Compared with unamended controls, Trichodesmium showed strong inhibition of acetylene reduction (up to 70%) in the presence of NO3, with apparent saturation of the inhibition effect at an initial NO3 concentration of approximately 10 μM. The inhibition of acetylene reduction persisted through much of the light period as concentration in the culture vessel decreased. Recovery of N2 fixation was observed late in the light period in cultures amended with low concentrations of NO3 (<5 μM) when ambient NO3 concentrations had decreased to 0.3–0.4 μM in the culture vessel. Nitrate uptake accounted for as much as 86% of total N uptake and, at the higher treatment concentrations, more than made up for the observed decrease in N2 fixation rates. We conclude that Trichodesmium can obtain significant quantities of N through uptake of nitrate and does so in preference to N2 fixation when sufficient NO3 is available.
Journal of Phycology
Volume 41 Page 1178 - December 2005
doi:10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.00146.x
Volume 41 Issue 6
Abstract Source
Not that this stuff is particularly new ... indeed, it's not. Borneman posted these (extracts) as long ago as 1998 ...
Would it surprise anyone to know that in analysis of marine lagoonal sediments that:
-eighty different strains of denitrifying bacteria were isolated in sea grass
rhizomes alone, much less the sediments?
- some bacteria actually denitrify *aerobically* in the sediments?
-the majority of the "good" denitrifiers are often the "bad" Psuedomonas,
and also include "bad" Vibrios?
Might it be surprising to learn that in multiple analyses of healthy coral mucus that:
-more than 100 strains of bacteria have been isolated in single samples?
-corals actively culture bacteria in their mucus?
-the majority of bacteria normally present are "bad" Vibrios?
Extracted From:
Eric Borneman
Bacteria and Corals: Good or Bad?
May 10, 1998 on #reefs
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog...an_051098.html
-eighty different strains of denitrifying bacteria were isolated in sea grass
rhizomes alone, much less the sediments?
- some bacteria actually denitrify *aerobically* in the sediments?
-the majority of the "good" denitrifiers are often the "bad" Psuedomonas,
and also include "bad" Vibrios?
Might it be surprising to learn that in multiple analyses of healthy coral mucus that:
-more than 100 strains of bacteria have been isolated in single samples?
-corals actively culture bacteria in their mucus?
-the majority of bacteria normally present are "bad" Vibrios?
Extracted From:
Eric Borneman
Bacteria and Corals: Good or Bad?
May 10, 1998 on #reefs
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog...an_051098.html
... bacterial action and productivity is absolutely essential to the reef environment, and provides, arguably, the largest role in its success. Still, the primary nutrient which limits the bacterial populations is carbon. Adequate sources of carbon are largely provided by the success of the coral community. Once again, these two groups are wholely dependent on each other, and are inextricably woven together. The denser the coral growth, the more abundant the microbial growth. The denser the microbial growth, the more abundant the corals.
Extracted From:
Eric Borneman
Bacteria and Corals: Good or Bad?
May 10, 1998 on #reefs
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog...an_051098.html
Extracted From:
Eric Borneman
Bacteria and Corals: Good or Bad?
May 10, 1998 on #reefs
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog...an_051098.html
No ... I'm not suggesting that "cyano outbreaks" are a good thing ...
... ... clearly, such an out of control growth pattern indicates a system dysfunction which needs ...
... correction :destroy:.
But, when viewed from a "broader" perpective, you've just got to love micro-beasties who, "... can take up combined nitrogen (nitrate, ammonium, amino acids, dissolved organic nitrogen) from solution" ...
... don't you? ...
While the fascination with the effect of the ZEOvit methodology on SPS coloration is entirely understandable, I've always more interested in the potential effect(s) of the ZEOvit system on the behavior of bacterial guilds ...
... strange, huh? ...
... I always found it particularly odd that some people seemed to object to the concept of calculated, periodic bacterial inoculation (... along with a carbon source and other bacterial "food" ...), and "mulm" generation, as "useful things" in terms of generating an oligotrophic environment, and in terms of increasing coral growth rates, respectively. "Odd" because bacterial guilds underly the very foundation of our captive ecosystems ... consider ...
The “microbial loop” in the waters above and around a coral reef revolves around bacteria, organic matter, and the bacteriovores. This micro-food web is not only important in and of itself, but is also crucial in the maintenance of the phytoplankton populations. Because of the productivity of the reef organisms, there is a level of microbial substate produced by the flora and fauna that allows for bacterial productivity in the water column above the reef to be magnitudes of order above that in oceanic waters. As such, they may be responsible for 40% of picoplankton production and 25% of microplankton production. In other words, even in the water column, bacteria are the beginning and end of the plankton that feeds the coral reef. We can now see that the reef depends largely on the bacteria in the water column, and also that the water column bacteria and plankton depend largely on the reef.
Extracted From:
Eric Borneman
Bacteria and Corals: Good or Bad?
May 10, 1998 on #reefs
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog...an_051098.html
Extracted From:
Eric Borneman
Bacteria and Corals: Good or Bad?
May 10, 1998 on #reefs
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog...an_051098.html
Bacteria comprise an very important trophic role in the heterotrophic needs of corals. Not only have we seen how they are common to the water column in which corals are bathed, but the mucus of corals happens to be an extremely good medium for bacteria growth. The level of bacterial productivity on coral mucus is at least one order greater than in the surrounding water. Paul (1986) even found levels on the coral surface to be seven times higher!
Mucus provides a nutrient broth of lipids, amino acids, sugars and other compounds that, in turn, provide abundant sources of carbon and nitrogen for microbes. Branching corals maintain higher bacterial counts in the spaces between branches. It has been hypothesized that these levels are controlled by the coral to some degree. There are many reasons why corals would prefer to maintain high bacterial levels that are not simply basd on their use as a mucus trapped food source. The bacteria present can work on particulate matter, dissolved organic matter, and even the mucus itself to potentially change some of the substances into forms more usable by the coral. Furthermore, the large number of bacteria may act as a “lure,” attracting zooplankton that can then by captured by the coral. One step further, the larger zooplankton populations then provide corals with waste material from themselves and from the animals that come to feed on them. Protozoan grazers of the bacteria (who also get a bad ‘rep', but actually provide another important food resource to corals) actually help to maintain high levels of bacteria in the mucus through their grazing activities. Finally, bacteria secrete a number of antibacterial agents which may provide a level of immunity to the corals. This is commonly known among us humans as “probiotic.” In fact, of 491 isolated strains of marine bacteria, both free living and animal associated, 126 produced antimicrobial compounds. The potential ability of corals to control the amount and composition of their mucus, and also to have it controlled by external factors, obviously has interesting implications in terms of coral immunity and health.
Indeed, corals do actively feed on bacteria in the mucus, in the water, and attached to particulate matter. They typically utilize them for 5% of their diet, by weight. This is on an efficiency level on par with many of the specialized filter feeders and sponges. Sorokin found that, in general, bacterioplankton ingestion alone can provide from 8-25% of the coral’s respiratory demands. This amount is the equivlent of 1-10% of the animals total biomass per day...from bacterioplankton!! Its assimilation index by nutritional content is the equivalent to the nutrition acquired by the capture of small crustaceans (which are by weight, much greater and a greater energy expenditure to capture). Phosphorus, a normally limiting resource in coral reefs, is found in the cell walls of bacteria. Coral consumption of bacterioplankton provides them with a more easily assimilated source of phosphorous than from the uptake of inorganic phosphate contained in the water.
Extracted From:
Eric Borneman
Bacteria and Corals: Good or Bad?
May 10, 1998 on #reefs
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog...an_051098.html
Mucus provides a nutrient broth of lipids, amino acids, sugars and other compounds that, in turn, provide abundant sources of carbon and nitrogen for microbes. Branching corals maintain higher bacterial counts in the spaces between branches. It has been hypothesized that these levels are controlled by the coral to some degree. There are many reasons why corals would prefer to maintain high bacterial levels that are not simply basd on their use as a mucus trapped food source. The bacteria present can work on particulate matter, dissolved organic matter, and even the mucus itself to potentially change some of the substances into forms more usable by the coral. Furthermore, the large number of bacteria may act as a “lure,” attracting zooplankton that can then by captured by the coral. One step further, the larger zooplankton populations then provide corals with waste material from themselves and from the animals that come to feed on them. Protozoan grazers of the bacteria (who also get a bad ‘rep', but actually provide another important food resource to corals) actually help to maintain high levels of bacteria in the mucus through their grazing activities. Finally, bacteria secrete a number of antibacterial agents which may provide a level of immunity to the corals. This is commonly known among us humans as “probiotic.” In fact, of 491 isolated strains of marine bacteria, both free living and animal associated, 126 produced antimicrobial compounds. The potential ability of corals to control the amount and composition of their mucus, and also to have it controlled by external factors, obviously has interesting implications in terms of coral immunity and health.
Indeed, corals do actively feed on bacteria in the mucus, in the water, and attached to particulate matter. They typically utilize them for 5% of their diet, by weight. This is on an efficiency level on par with many of the specialized filter feeders and sponges. Sorokin found that, in general, bacterioplankton ingestion alone can provide from 8-25% of the coral’s respiratory demands. This amount is the equivlent of 1-10% of the animals total biomass per day...from bacterioplankton!! Its assimilation index by nutritional content is the equivalent to the nutrition acquired by the capture of small crustaceans (which are by weight, much greater and a greater energy expenditure to capture). Phosphorus, a normally limiting resource in coral reefs, is found in the cell walls of bacteria. Coral consumption of bacterioplankton provides them with a more easily assimilated source of phosphorous than from the uptake of inorganic phosphate contained in the water.
Extracted From:
Eric Borneman
Bacteria and Corals: Good or Bad?
May 10, 1998 on #reefs
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog...an_051098.html
Just trying to fill in the data set ...
... hehe ...
Comment