Actinobacteria.

[MrFista]

This thread is an offshoot where actinobacteria came into the conversation.

I proposed that although cannabis has no N fixing symbionts actinobacteria might fix nitrogen in the soil and this elevates the overall N content of the environment.

I was partially right. Certain members of actinobacteria species do form symbiotic partnerships with plant orders Fagales, Rosales and Cucurbitales. Rosales includes cannabis.

Normand 2007. Genome Research 17 p 7-15. Genome characteristics of facultatively symbiotic frankia strains reflect host range and host plant biogeography.

NICE! But, I do get excited early... Cannabaceae are not included in known frankia spp symbiosis. This does not mean it does not occur. It warrants looking into.

 

[spurr]

Interesting.

However, that paper states "facultatively symbiotic", not obligate. And quoting from that paper: "Actinobacteria from the genus Frankia are facultative symbionts that form N2-fixing root nodules on diverse and globally distributed angiosperms in the “actinorhizal” symbioses."

In other words they would act like N-2 fixing bacteria in root nodules of legumes, but AFAIK cannabis does not have root nodules, so I would hazard a guess that actinobacteria do not form symbiotic relationships with cannabis (i.e. Cannabis spp. is not a "actinorhizal" genus). I think this would be evident for those who use compost in the media because high quality mature compost is usually rich in actinobacteria; they are organisms that create much of the humus in compost (by breaking down lignin, a main source of humus) and give compost an smell earthy (citation). I add wheat bran to compost post-peak heating phase to induce actinobacteria in compost during 2nd mesophilic stage (maturing compost). What I mean is that I think we would notice root nodules on cannabis roots in media comprised of compost rich in actinobacteria. That is only my assumption about visually noticeable root nodules, and I could be wrong, but I have not seen such a thing before. Has anyone else?


A good on topic paper referenced in your OP paper:

"Actinorhizal symbioses: diversity and biogeography"
David R. Benson, Brian D. Vanden Heuvel and Daniel Potter
Plant Microbiology, Michael Gillings and Andrew Holmes, © 2004 Garland Science/BIOS Scientific Publishers, Oxford
http://web.uconn.edu/mcbstaff/benson/BensonHome/BensonetalProof copy.pdf

For those who want the full text of the paper MrFista referenced here ya go: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5cx8v80b.pdf

 

[spurr]

I proposed that although cannabis has no N fixing symbionts actinobacteria might fix nitrogen in the soil and this elevates the overall N content of the environment.

That seems possible, I don't think actinobacteria needs to be in symbiotic relationship to fix N-2, but I am not sure. I don't know much about N-2 fixing abilities of actinobacteria. This is the first time I have looked into it.

Nice thread BTW

 

[MrFista]

Hi spurr just previewing this post and saw you'd found me. If I go a bit basic just trying to spell out some stuff for folks new to all this. Thanks for the description of actinobacteria, I think it is from Dr Ingham, or Dr Higa.

Actinobacteria are the bane of researchers trying to lower the N content of effluent ponds. They can obviously live in some nasty situations. They are a member of the bacterial consortium we know as EM.

I add EM to my soil between grows. The plants get cut but the rootballs remain for the EM in conjunction with the existing microherd to feast upon - I really should throw a handful of worms in there too like MM does/did. Are the actinobacteria in this concoction fixing N as they move through the soil?

My recent experiment in which I found ammonia nitrite and nitrate in my soil 6 1/2 months after the last application of blood and bone (in which I used only 1/2 cup per cubic foot); suggests there might be more at play when it comes to the nitrogen content in my soil than throwing fertiliser at it.

The amount of variables to consider in a garden can be daunting. My variables which make my plot a bit different, are 3 year old biochar, volume (16 cubic feet), EM between grows, and recent switch to no till and mulches. I haven't added any mulches to encourage N, I don't need it. 95% of the mulch is browns I have dried dandelion alfalfa and more on standby if needed.

The study I reference in my first post quotes "Host plant isolation favours genome contraction... diversification favours expansion."

This is in the context of the genome entire of the frankia species under study. It seems diversification of genes (and thus diversity of functions) of symbiotic bacteria that inhabit our soil directly correlates to the diversity of plant hosts in the environment. Makes perfect sense really.

I really must find some symbiotic plants for my beds. In the meantime, are the non symbiotic actinobacteria fixing N?

If the effluent pond actinobacteria are not symbiotic with the algae I say we have an N source. If they are, well, we may have algal actinobacterial symbiosis in the soil...

The plot thickens. Cheers for the links and participation.

 

[MrFista]

"Although similar in outcome, the symbiosis differs markedly from the rhizobium–legume symbiosis. The overall nodule architecture more closely resembles a foreshortened lateral root rather than a unique plant organ" - Introduction of Actinorhizal symbiosis.

"Furthermore, the two families in which symbiotic relationships with Rhizobium and related bacteria occur, Fabaceae (containing the legumes) and Cannabaceae (in which only members of the genus Parasponia engage in symbiotic nitrogen fixation with rhizobia), are also included in this Clade."

So, no symbiosis directly. Now, do the non symbionts fix N.

"Group 2 Frankia strains are limited to infecting members of the Coriariaceae, Datiscaceae, Rosaceae and Ceanothus of the Rhamnaceae. These strains have not been isolated in pure culture despite many attempts to do so by several investigators and may therefore be obligate symbionts."

Hmmm.

"The Frankia strains that infect these various groups of plants co-exist with the plants and some apparently have an independent life in the soil without the plant."

"The explanation for their abundance in exotic environments such as New Zealand may lie in their ability to grow as saprophytes in the absence of actinorhizal hosts, although their rapid spread once introduced cannot be ruled out."

 

[spurr]

Hi spurr just previewing this post and saw you'd found me. If I go a bit basic just trying to spell out some stuff for folks new to all this. Thanks for the description of actinobacteria, I think it is from Dr Ingham, or Dr Higa.

I have less than stellar opinion about Dr. Ingham and do my best to never cite her, AFAIK she still clings to calling actinobacteria the old name of actinomycetes. The same goes for Dr. Higa, while he is much better IMO than Dr. Ingham. I think he relies too much upon hyperbole and un-proven science in terms of EM (re: nuclear energy, etc). What I wrote about actinobacteria comes from peer-reviewed papers and what I cited from Cornell Dept. of Compost Science and Engineering. There is a large body of study upon actinobacteria and composting, esp. in terms mushroom compost for mycology because many saprophytic fungi perfecti use actinobacteria (and bacteria) for a chitin source to build the fungal cell walls, also use bacteria for N sources.

I add EM to my soil between grows. The plants get cut but the rootballs remain for the EM in conjunction with the existing microherd to feast upon - I really should throw a handful of worms in there too like MM does/did. Are the actinobacteria in this concoction fixing N as they move through the soil?

I am not sure, possibly. The level of N-2 in media without living plants would be lower than N-2 in soil with living plants to my understanding. Actinobacteria can break down lignocellulosic material (ex. cell walls of plants) which is why they are good at creating humus in compost.

My recent experiment in which I found ammonia nitrite and nitrate in my soil 6 1/2 months after the last application of blood and bone (in which I used only 1/2 cup per cubic foot); suggests there might be more at play when it comes to the nitrogen content in my soil than throwing fertiliser at it.

Very true, and it's great to see you experimenting! Many fungi are good at ammonification and many bacteria are good at nitrification. The microbial loop means levels of NH3+ (ammonia), NH4+ (ammonium), NO2- (nitrite) and NO3- (nitrate) would be present in various amounts, MM has written about this on his website I think. Application of organic matter like blood and bone meal can increase levels of NH3+ and NH4+ due to mineralization by microbes, many of which are fungi. This is one reason those items can 'burn' plants; this happens when roots take in more ammonicial N than they are able to convert due to inability to move enough sugar into roots to facilitate the conversion.

Plants use ammonicial N (such as NH3+ and NH4+) more readily than NO3- due to a few reasons. One big reason is plants can't self-limit uptake of ammonicial N as they can/do with NO3- via. levels of amino acids in the phloem.

I know someone who looked at levels of NH4+ and NO3- before and after in hydro when growing cannabis, and the NH4+ always was used faster and in greater amounts than NO3-, this is due to plants absorbing ammonicial N faster than NO3- and because plants can't self-limit uptake of ammonicial N like they can/do with NO3-. Also, ammonicial N will hinder plant uptake of NO3- after a few hours due to (I assume) increased levels of amino acids (from conversion of ammonicial N in roots into amino acids) which triggers the plant to reduce uptake of NO3-.

That said, it could be that free living actinobacteria are fixing N-2, however, when a non-symbiont bacteria (i.e. free living) fixes N-2 they don't fix it as the ions NH3+/NO3- in the soil solution. AFAIK, they hold onto most of the fixed N-2 within their bodies, which is released into the soil solution (and rhizosphere) via. the microbial loop (ex. bacterial predation by meso and micro fauna).

The amount of variables to consider in a garden can be daunting. My variables which make my plot a bit different, are 3 year old biochar, volume (16 cubic feet), EM between grows, and recent switch to no till and mulches. I haven't added any mulches to encourage N, I don't need it. 95% of the mulch is browns I have dried dandelion alfalfa and more on standby if needed.

That is very true. But fwiw, media with higher degrees of anaerobic areas (like no till media without use of cover crops) can mean higher levels of ammonicial N due to greater presence of anaerobic bacteria and fungi. Root respiration of Co2 helps move O2 into the media which helps populations of aerobic microbes (which also emit lots of Co2).

The study I reference in my first post quotes "Host plant isolation favours genome contraction... diversification favours expansion."

This is in the context of the genome entire of the frankia species under study. It seems diversification of genes (and thus diversity of functions) of symbiotic bacteria that inhabit our soil directly correlates to the diversity of plant hosts in the environment. Makes perfect sense really.

Sure if it's a 1-for-1 ratio, but I for one highly doubt cannabis is symbiont to actinobacteria. The diversification of symbiotic bacteria shouldn't effect the diversification of non-symbiotic plants (i.e. plants that are not hosts). What I mean is if a plant needs a symbiotic relationship to bacteria, AM fungi, actinobacteria, etc. to thrive you are correct, it does make sense; but I dobut this is the case with cannabis.

I really must find some symbiotic plants for my beds. In the meantime, are the non symbiotic actinobacteria fixing N?

I am not sure, that is what I meant with my last post: possibly. I wouldn't be surprised if there are free living N-2 fixing actinobacteria because there are free living N-2 fixing bacteria.

If the effluent pond actinobacteria are not symbiotic with the algae I say we have an N source. If they are, well, we may have algal actinobacterial symbiosis in the soil...

I am not sure making that connection is sound, e.g. that could fall under the fallacy of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'. I doubt actinobacteria are symbiont to algae, and I agree it is very possible for actinobacteria to act like free living N-2 fixing bacteria; in that both of those types of organisms could fix N-2 without being in symbiotic relationship with a host plant. However, usually it's the predation by meso and micro fauna that releases the fixed N-2 (ex. from bacterial bodies) into the rhizosphere and soil solution. I don't think it's as simple as actinobacteria fix N-2 meaning more ionic (soluble) NH3+/NO2- is automatically placed in the soil solution...but I could be wrong.

 

[spurr]

"Although similar in outcome, the symbiosis differs markedly from the rhizobium–legume symbiosis. The overall nodule architecture more closely resembles a foreshortened lateral root rather than a unique plant organ" - Introduction of Actinorhizal symbiosis.

"Furthermore, the two families in which symbiotic relationships with Rhizobium and related bacteria occur, Fabaceae (containing the legumes) and Cannabaceae (in which only members of the genus Parasponia engage in symbiotic nitrogen fixation with rhizobia), are also included in this Clade."

So, no symbiosis directly. Now, do the non symbionts fix N.

"Group 2 Frankia strains are limited to infecting members of the Coriariaceae, Datiscaceae, Rosaceae and Ceanothus of the Rhamnaceae. These strains have not been isolated in pure culture despite many attempts to do so by several investigators and may therefore be obligate symbionts."

Hmmm.

"The Frankia strains that infect these various groups of plants co-exist with the plants and some apparently have an independent life in the soil without the plant."

"The explanation for their abundance in exotic environments such as New Zealand may lie in their ability to grow as saprophytes in the absence of actinorhizal hosts, although their rapid spread once introduced cannot be ruled out."

Those quotes seem to say that some strains of actinobacteria (Frankia) can be free living and N-2 fixing. The fact many researchers haven't been able to isolate a monoculture in vitro doesn't mean those studied strains are obligate. This reminds of AM fungi and other endomycorrhizal fungi that researchers for a long time were not able to germinate as monoculture without presence of host roots or it's exudates. I would bet dollars to donuts at least some types of actionbacteria (like strains genetically identified as Frankia) are free living and N-2 fixing, and can be symbiont too, i.e. facultative symbiont.

Anther question is if they are free living and N-2 fixing, how much N to they contribute to the overall N pools in media? And is the contribution of N from microbial loop or direct via. N-2 fixation?

 

[Microbeman]

Dr. Ingham, as I recall, spoke of actinobacteria as a great negative. I cannot remember what her validation was. Spurr...? I like seeing them and yes what a wonderful aroma. In forest soil they form large 'mycelia' [sic] which are visible to the naked eye.

I've not observed nodules on cannabis roots but I've not looked for them nor do I know exactly what they would look like.

Here's some photos


http://www.nih.go.jp/saj/Atlas/subwin.cgi?section=8&fig=1

http://www.nih.go.jp/saj/Atlas/subwin.cgi?section=F&fig=2

http://www.nih.go.jp/saj/Atlas/subwin.cgi?section=8&fig=3B

http://www.nih.go.jp/saj/Atlas/subwin.cgi?section=8&fig=3A

 

[Microbeman]

I would bet dollars to donuts at least some types of actionbacteria (like strains genetically identified as Frankia) are free living and N-2 fixing, and can be symbiont too, i.e. facultative symbiont.

I agree but I would bet dimes to carrots.

 

[spurr]

Dr. Ingham, as I recall, spoke of actinobacteria as a great negative. I cannot remember what her validation was. Spurr...?

I believe because they are part of the great evil: (facultative) anaerobes! GASP!!! She loves to see it as black and white: aerobic = good, anaerobic = bad. All the while ignoring the many benefits of some anaerobes and the fact there are various types of anaerobes (and aerobes) like you have written about; facultative, obligate, etc. I guess business sense trumps scientific sense for her...

I like seeing them and yes what a wonderful aroma. In forest soil they form large 'mycelia' [sic] which are visible to the naked eye.

I agree, and they look cool when covering compost. Fire fang is very highly regarded in mushroom compost and non-mushroom compost alike. She must be unaware that she is probably providing actinobacteria to her plants via. compost inputs. However, they way she makes her so-called 'hot compost' could mean low levels of actinobacteria.

I've not observed nodules on cannabis roots but I've not looked for them nor do I know exactly what they would look like.

Good point, me either. I was assuming they would look similar to nodules of N-2 fixing bacteria of legumes but I could be wrong. From the quotes MrFista posted it seems like nodules of actinobacteria do not look like nodules from legumes.

Here's some photos


http://www.nih.go.jp/saj/Atlas/subwin.cgi?section=8&fig=1

http://www.nih.go.jp/saj/Atlas/subwin.cgi?section=F&fig=2

http://www.nih.go.jp/saj/Atlas/subwin.cgi?section=8&fig=3B

http://www.nih.go.jp/saj/Atlas/subwin.cgi?section=8&fig=3A

Very cool, thanks. I like how they stained some of those pics.

 

[spurr]

I would bet dollars to donuts at least some types of actionbacteria (like strains genetically identified as Frankia) are free living and N-2 fixing, and can be symbiont too, i.e. facultative symbiont.

I agree but I would bet dimes to carrots.

Dangit! You're not only more financially sound than I am but you're more healthy too!

 

[MrFista]

Don't discount the good Dr's for being wrong on some counts, possibly eccentric, or translated in a bumbling manner, we all have our foibles, but we all have our strengths as well. Added together it becomes far more than the parts, or their peculiarities.

I could be accused of being dismissive myself, a lecturer starts on GE, I switch off them.

I figure free living N fixers would be accumulating N as biomass and then being predated but in the larger picture they are adding N to the system. Via what route is irrelevant to me. What I'm looking for is possible N fixation in the system.

Nice info on the ammonia/nitrate. My ammonia was low ~ 4ppm I think. Nitrite < 0.5 ppm. Nitrate > 160ppm. That's just the ionic forms from all that predation going on in the soil. The N in the biomass would be considerably higher.

Actinobacteria are composters, and good at it. In a situation like mine where the additions are compostables (mulch) and carbon and organic matter are high (loads of compost, worm castings, 5% char) it provides a place for actinobacteria to reside to some degree surely. Where them N fixers at? Seeded in the char and coming out to be predated by fungi perhaps? (more nice info btw).

I don't know that I agree with you when it comes to soil without cover crops promoting anaerobic conditions. Without mulch and cover crops yes....

Adding mulch provides material for earthworms to pull into their burrows, they do this all the time, the material is then broken down by bacteria and fungi (and actinobacteria) till a tasty biofilm is made and then the worms consume this matter to shit out more goodness in the media. Soil is being built not depleted. Plants come and go, the root systems remain to breakdown and make pathways of wormy goodness throughout the soil.

Actinobacteria might be symbiotic with algae, not saying they are, but it could explain their persistence despite efforts to eradicate them, that they can shelter in a host. A possibility, no more.

I will bet good money vs pimp bling free living strains of N2 fixing actinobacteria exist, microbial diversity is profound as y'all know.

 

[Yankee Grower]

You can obtain N fixing bacteria from seawater and a benefit of some seawater based products. Could not put my finger quickly on the strains/info but have been used recently in agriculture with success.

 

[spurr]

Don't discount the good Dr's for being wrong on some counts, possibly eccentric, or translated in a bumbling manner, we all have our foibles, but we all have our strengths as well. Added together it becomes far more than the parts, or their peculiarities.

Good point, I def. have better opinion of Dr. Higa from all his work I have read than what I think about Dr. Ingham whom I show no quarter. I agree translation from Dr. Higa could be part of the problem.

I could be accused of being dismissive myself, a lecturer starts on GE, I switch off them.

I'm curious what GE stands for?

I figure free living N fixers would be accumulating N as biomass and then being predated but in the larger picture they are adding N to the system. Via what route is irrelevant to me. What I'm looking for is possible N fixation in the system.

Good point here too, I tend to focus on minute details before focusing upon the larger picture; sometimes that is not a great trait of mine. I still think a good question is to what degree N they would add to the N pools in media.

Nice info on the ammonia/nitrate. My ammonia was low ~ 4ppm I think. Nitrite < 0.5 ppm. Nitrate > 160ppm. That's just the ionic forms from all that predation going on in the soil. The N in the biomass would be considerably higher.

How did you test the media? I ask because 160 ppm is petty high, is it acid extract? I agree there is more N locked up in organic matter and in microbes, also N is found as DON (Dissolved Organic Nitrogen) such as amino acids and some organic acids. Many plants can use DON directly as N without needing microbes to convert it to ions first; and microbes also convert DON into ions. Plants and microbes compete for DON as 'food' sources.

A good method to test potential N (and other elements) sequestered in organic matter is using the carbonic acid media assay. That media assay method uses carbonic acids to breakdown organic matter to test for sequestered elements. This is a old method but IMO much better than strong acid extracts because use of carbonic acid much better mimics what would happen in nature due to carbonic acid from roots and microbes vs. strong acid extracts of media.
.

I don't know that I agree with you when it comes to soil without cover crops promoting anaerobic conditions. Without mulch and cover crops yes....

Adding mulch provides material for earthworms to pull into their burrows, they do this all the time, the material is then broken down by bacteria and fungi (and actinobacteria) till a tasty biofilm is made and then the worms consume this matter to shit out more goodness in the media. Soil is being built not depleted. Plants come and go, the root systems remain to breakdown and make pathways of wormy goodness throughout the soil.

Very true, but I thought you wrote you are not adding worms post harvest? Maybe I misread your post.

I will bet good money vs pimp bling free living strains of N2 fixing actinobacteria exist, microbial diversity is profound as y'all know.

I think all three of us will be rich!

 

[spurr]

GE = Genetic Engineering?

 

[MrFista]

We might be rich but you might notice I arranged to get all the bling. OOOMPH OOOMPH <= that's my stereo.

GE = genetic engineering yes. Which on the surface does seem incredible in it's potential. But in the context of fluid genomes we know so very little of, it is sheer arrogance imo. Research yes, regulations YES, in the field - fuck sakes! in corporate hands - fuck NO!


Earthworms live in my bed. Composting worms post harvest was MM's method. Then food trap them back out a few weeks later. I put a bunch of composters and earthworms in when I made the bed, occasionally (bout once a month) I'll drop a banana skin or something fruity under the soil at an edge of the bed. The food isn't there a few weeks later so I guess I don't really need the composting worms either. I forget shit... The earthworms leave telltale burrows and tea leaves just vanish. My earthworms outdoors are ~ 6 x the numbers in 4 months since adding mulch on a spot out there. Not as great as adding char, but bloody good considering I didn't have to dig anything. Powdered char on the surface is taken into the soil by worm activity anyways, like the mulch, it's great grit for their gizzards, which is good news.

Bacillus subtilus spores are resistant to worm's digestive systems, spores, encystment, bet a lot of microbial species have methods to survive worm digestion and thus get transferred through the soil system. Actinobacteria sporulate, perhaps these spores are the hard ones to kill. Worms travel 'worlds away' on a microbial scale. A facultative organism might fare well overall in such an environment establishing in new microhabitats as resources are depleted in others (typically many species encyst or sporulate as conditions deteriorate). Worms would actively pursue fresher organic matter and the decay (food) it brings. Thus transporting the composting microbes to fresh material.

So the actinobacteria, composting the browns right, acting all fungi like and confusing poor scientists for decades.

Cos if they fix N, why would they want the greens. Some of that compost research might be in order.

 

[Albertine]

This article may be old news and off topic, but my coffee buzz says to post it anyway -


ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily

Science News
Share Blog Cite
Print Email Bookmark
Fungi's Role in the Cycle of Life Discovered

ScienceDaily (July 18, 2010) — The nitrogen cycle is the natural process that makes nitrogen available to all organisms on earth. Scientists at the University of York have discovered that one of the world's most common and ecologically important groups of fungi plays an unsuspected role in this key natural cycle.
See Also:
Plants & Animals

* Fungus
* Organic
* Endangered Plants

Earth & Climate

* Geochemistry
* Sustainability
* Air Pollution

Reference

* Soil life
* Plant cell
* Chytridiomycota
* Soil

Almost all plants form symbiosis with fungi in their roots, know as mycorrhizas. The commonest type of mycorrhiza is called the arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) and involves two-thirds of plant species. Unlike most fungi, the AM fungi get their supply of sugars for energy and growth from their plant partner and not from the decomposition of organic matter. . Surprisingly, the researchers found that AM fungi thrive on decomposing organic matter and obtain large amounts of nitrogen from it. The fungus itself is much richer in N than plant roots, and calculations suggest that there is as much nitrogen in AM fungi globally as in roots. Since fungal hyphae (the threads of which the fungus is composed) are much shorter-lived than roots, this finding has implications for the speed with which nitrogen cycles in ecosystems,

The research, by Dr Angela Hodge and Professor Alastair Fitter in the Department of Biology at York was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, is published in the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Because these fungi cannot be grown in pure culture, the researchers created microcosms to isolate the fungi from plant roots and to allow them access to a patch of organic matter, and used stable isotopes to track the movement of nitrogen and carbon. Fungi that exploited decomposing organic matter were also better able to colonize a new plant. In addition, reducing the carbon supply to the fungus by shading the host plant did not diminish he fungal growth in the organic matter. Dr Hodge said: "We have known for a long time that these fungi play a central role in the phosphorus cycle; now it seems that they are equally important in the nitrogen cycle, opening the possibility of exploiting them in the development of more sustainable forms of agriculture. "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100715130159.htm

 

[MrFista]

That's a great article and on topic as I/we are looking at potential alternative sources of N...

Though the fungi are using existing N in the media, they are still an important part of the N cycling which is great to learn about. - thanks.

The earlier mention by MM that fungi contribute arginine to flowering plants stacks up. It takes some time for mycorrhizal connections - months - and so the benefits of fungal nutrition are often only seen in the latter stages of indoor grows. Outdoors over a long season fungi may play a far larger role having time to establish before flowering even begins.

I'm gonna cut back on web activity for about 5 weeks got exams looming. I'll be about, and answering, but no research till the A's are secured.

 

[spurr]

We might be rich but you might notice I arranged to get all the bling. OOOMPH OOOMPH <= that's my stereo.

Bacillus subtilus spores are resistant to worm's digestive systems, spores, encystment, bet a lot of microbial species have methods to survive worm digestion and thus get transferred through the soil system. Actinobacteria sporulate, perhaps these spores are the hard ones to kill.

B.spp. form endospores, which can withstand heat well over 100'c for many hours, and it's even suggested they can withstand outer-space. It's mostly bacteria that form endospores. Encysting (cyst forming) bacteria are much less hardly than endospores. Cycts will be killed in an autoclave but endospores will not be killed in an autoclave. I am pretty sure actinobacteria do not form endospores[1] which is a response of some bacteria to harsh environments like heat, drought, deficient nutrients, etc. B.subtilis are mesophiles but they can withstand thermophile temps up to about 160-170'F (i.e. "thermotolerant"), so they should not form endospores in media we use to grow cannabis or in worm beds. It takes about 4-8 hours for endospores to form, and once the environment is sufficient for B.subtilis (ex. in media) growth the endospores will germinate.

I don't think B.subtilis forms endosproes in worm guts, but I could be wrong. Most B.subtilis (and most B.spp) should be active, not in endospore form within worm beds and media; that means worms should be 'eating' plenty of live B.subtilis.

Worms travel 'worlds away' on a microbial scale. A facultative organism might fare well overall in such an environment establishing in new microhabitats as resources are depleted in others (typically many species encyst or sporulate as conditions deteriorate). Worms would actively pursue fresher organic matter and the decay (food) it brings. Thus transporting the composting microbes to fresh material.

I think that would depend upon wither or not B.subtilis is an endsopore, which shouldn't be the case in worm beds and media. In terms of actinobacteria they too are mesophiles that are thermotolerant, so I doubt they will be going dormant in media we use or in worm beds. However, the actinobacteria would by themselves seek out feedstock in terms of usable organic matter. I am not sure what depth actinobacteria usually reside (i.e. soil horizon), for composting worms they tend to stay in the top foot or so of media/soil.

I fully agree if B.subtilis forms into endospores and if actinobacteria forms into cysts/spores then worms could transport them via. their gut depositing them in castings, however, if a worm is living then both B.subtilis and actinobacteria should also be living (i.e. in a non-dormant state). And considering worms don't' use organic matter for 'food', they use the bacteria/archaea, fungi and protozoans as 'food', I wonder how much live/active B.subtilis or actinobacteria would make it through the worm gut. Some bacteria like PnSB live in worm gut and are excreted in worm castings, but I don't think that is the case with Bacillus spp..

Sidebar: B.subtilis (and the genus B.spp) is a major composting bacterium, they are responsible for a major portion of compost heat and organic matter breakdown.

So the actinobacteria, composting the browns right, acting all fungi like and confusing poor scientists for decades.

Cos if they fix N, why would they want the greens. Some of that compost research might be in order.

Actinobacteria break down lignocellulosic material (lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose) which is a major component (cell walls) of both carbon matter (e.g. brown plant matter) and nitrogen matter (e.g. green plant matter). If they do fix N-2 they wouldn't be fixing it from organic matter because N-2 is gaseous (atmospheric) nitrogen. So it seems they could do both, break down organic matter (cell walls, etc., like lignin into humus) and fix gaseous N-2 which would not come directly from breaking down organic matter.


[1] "Do mycobacteria produce endospores?"
Bjorn A. Traaga, Adam Driksb, Patrick Stragierc, Wilbert Bitterd, Gregory Broussarde, Graham Hatfulle, Frances Chuf Kristin N. Adamsf, Lalita Ramakrishnanf, and Richard Losick
PNAS January 12, 2010 vol. 107 no. 2 878-881
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/878.full.pdf+html

"The Mycobacterium genus is a member of the high G+C group of Gram-positive bacteria (Actinobacteria) for which there are no prior claims of endospore formation. Certain members of the group, such as Streptomyces, do produce spores, but spores of a fundamentally different kind that are not produced inside a mother cell (7)."​

 

[spurr]

This article may be old news and off topic, but my coffee buzz says to post it anyway -


Almost all plants form symbiosis with fungi in their roots, know as mycorrhizas. The commonest type of mycorrhiza is called the arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) and involves two-thirds of plant species. Unlike most fungi, the AM fungi get their supply of sugars for energy and growth from their plant partner and not from the decomposition of organic matter. . Surprisingly, the researchers found that AM fungi thrive on decomposing organic matter and obtain large amounts of nitrogen from it. The fungus itself is much richer in N than plant roots, and calculations suggest that there is as much nitrogen in AM fungi globally as in roots. Since fungal hyphae (the threads of which the fungus is composed) are much shorter-lived than roots, this finding has implications for the speed with which nitrogen cycles in ecosystems,

The research, by Dr Angela Hodge and Professor Alastair Fitter in the Department of Biology at York was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, is published in the latest issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Because these fungi cannot be grown in pure culture, the researchers created microcosms to isolate the fungi from plant roots and to allow them access to a patch of organic matter, and used stable isotopes to track the movement of nitrogen and carbon. Fungi that exploited decomposing organic matter were also better able to colonize a new plant. In addition, reducing the carbon supply to the fungus by shading the host plant did not diminish he fungal growth in the organic matter. Dr Hodge said: "We have known for a long time that these fungi play a central role in the phosphorus cycle; now it seems that they are equally important in the nitrogen cycle, opening the possibility of exploiting them in the development of more sustainable forms of agriculture. "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100715130159.htm

FWIW, AM fungi carry out mineralization of not only P and N, but also K and other elements from organic matter. They provide those elements to plant roots, but they provide more P than other elements. Some AM fungi can be grown as monoculture in vitro (on agar) without host roots or root exudates using an obscure bacteria as 'food'. I assume that means they can get N from the bacteria kind of like how yeast extract is a source of N for agar broths in mycology and bacteriology.