[GpsFrontier]

Hello CAPT38,
Sorry for the late reply, but I have been working on quite a few things lately, and I just don't have much spare time these days. To quote specific parts, just highlight the part of the post you want to quote. Place the courser where you want to place it, then click the quote icon (4'th from the right on the bottom row) above where you type the text. Then paste the text in-between the quote html tags. Or paste the text where you want it, then highlight it, and click the quote icon.

No, thats is not the case beacause , I do really understand the definition of Biota there is a product called Biota max Biota Max™ Soil Probiotic, beneficial bacteria and fungi biota [bahy-oh-tuh] - noun - the complete collection of organisms in a soil, region, or period of time

This is why beveling in product propaganda is just plain wrong. Just giving a product a title, does NOT make the name a real scientific definition, or even make the product trustworthy. If you want a real definition look in a dictionary.

The definition of biota is:[/U]
biota /bi·o·ta/ (bi-ō´tah) all the living organisms of a particular area; the combined flora and fauna of a region.

This is the definition you posted, and I don't disagree with it at all, it mimics all the other dictionary's definitions I have read as well. But you are always reading something into it that doesn't exist. That is why I say you are misunderstanding the definition. Notice the phrase "all the living organisms of a particular area." Pathogens are "living organisms" too, pathogens are NOT DEAD ORGANISMS. The time and space where the organisms reside makes no bearing on the fact that they are living organisms. In order to EXCLUDE pathogens from this definition, you must conclude that pathogens are NOT LIVING ORGANISMS which is completely false. Every time you use the term biolta, your referring to any living organisms as well. However the difference and why I say you misunderstand the term is despite the clear definition ("all the living organisms"), every time you use the term, you make the unjustified assumption that they are only talking about beneficial organisms, and somehow cant be pathogenic. Despite the fact that the definition is clear and dose not make any definition in what type of living organism in that regard.

Plant species alter biota in ways that lead to either positive or negative plant

Absolutely, plants can alter the microorganisms living near their roots, as well as other things. But that still does NOT CHANGE in any way the DEFINITION of the term biota.

Biota is not just any living orginisim

Every definition you posted so far disagrees, as well as the video you posted, and every definition I found as well. Not one makes any distinction between beneficial living organisms, or pathogenic living organisms. Find me a creditable definition that specifies biota only refers to beneficial organisms. Case in point, the definition you posted clearly states "all the living organisms." that clearly includes all and any living organisms.

Because to much biota will smother your plant by consuming all the O2 in the water and when that happens all you benifical orginisims ( biota) will die then thats when the pathogens will destroy your plants

There is no such thing as too many beneficial microbes. Your thinking of algae (micro flora). Typically we think of algae as green, but it comes in many colors (brown, red, yellow etc.). And yes algae will consume dissolved oxygen from the water, but you need a massive amount to do any harm by depleting oxygen. However on the other hand algae can wind up being a food source for pathogens, especially dying algae.

A Dictionary of Earth Sciences | 1999 | AILSA ALLABY and MICHAEL ALLABY | Copyright

biota: The living organisms occupying a place together, e.g. marine biota, terrestrial biota.

Again, exactly my point. Where does it specify in this definition "You" posted where it makes any distinction between beneficial organisms verse pathogenic ones? It doesn't, the definition includes all "living organisms". The reference to the space in which they reside makes no difference unless you can exclude any pathogens from residing in that space as well. And that simply is not part of any definition of biota.

Pathogens are not life supporting organisms but life threatening, thats why the virus is next to the tree and not on the tree, the reasoning being it would kill the tree.

True that pathogens are life threatening organisms. But there are two problems with that statement. First while a virus is a living organism, their not the only type of living organisms. Second is that pathogens DO attack the root systems if they have a chance, as well as the plants foliage.

This is the difference in microbiota and pathogens:
First to define the two>
__________________________________________________ _______________
microbiota /mi·cro·bi·o·ta/ (-bi-ōt´ah) (microfauna, microflora) The smallest soil organisms, comprising bacteria, fungi, algae, and protozoa. the microscopic living organisms of a region. Called also microbial flora. <<< Life


__________________________________________________ ______________
path·o·gen
[path-uh-juhn, ‐jen]
any disease-producing agent, especially a virus, bacterium, or other microorganism. Pathogen, infectious agent is a biological agent that causes death, disease or illness to its host. (pathogen, opportunistic), an infectious agent that can only cause disease when the host's resistance is low. < death

These are two separate definitions, not a combined definition. Notice how in the biota definition, how it makes no distinction between beneficial or pathogenic life (but as I said you misunderstand it). However in the definition of pathogen it clearly makes the distinction (disease-producing) between beneficial and harmful? There is nothing in that definition of biota that excludes pathogens either (death). However you misinterpret the term biota as beneficial (life) organisms ONLY, when the true definition clearly states otherwise (life or death).

rhi·zo·sphere
The rhizosphere is the narrow region of soil that is directly influenced by root secretions and associated soil microorganisms.

The rhizosphere is just relating to the area which comes in direct contact with the roots. That has no bearing on weather a beneficial microbe, or a pathogenic microbe is within contact of the root. And does NOT change the definition of biota. It doesn't matter where the organism is (in contact with the root, or on top of your head) it's still either beneficial or pathogenic, and the definition of biota does NOT make a distinction between the two.