Talk:Food web/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Opening comment

I'm not sure itfn is an improvement to simply remove the food chain example, particularly since the article expands on that simplistic concept to describe food webs. Although perhaps not realistic in terms of what happens in nature, food chains are still used extensively to show relationships of animals and plants. - Marshman 19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

food chain members

As a secondary school student, i found it hard to research on food chain members, such as the producer, consumer, decomposers and scavenger. I found the topic 'food chains' played little help in my research. Please add this information, so future researchers such as myself can make references to this page. Thank you.

Food cycles

In the article, you read this about food chains:

They usually start with a primary producer and end with a top predator.

This is a common mistake today.

Even the primary producer must get carbon and nitrogen somewhere, and even the top predator contributes to the cycle start by excrements and by own body when dies...

The plancton probably reuses the biological wastes, flushed by water from continents, and/or airy carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Carbon dioxide is produced by all upper parts of the cycle, making a short-path to the beginning... The same is for plants and animal excrements, that naturally get rotten and re-supply the food chain, through ground bacteries, to new plants...

The plants use nitrogen/carbon output from bacteries, airy carbon dioxide, water (humidity), solar energy and produces biomass (celulose, sacharides, proteines...) Most rest of solar energy, that is not converted this way to biomass, is re-radiated as a heat...

Then it continues into upper levels, as described in the article, but all upper levels make some feedback into the starting levels (excrements, bodies, breath...).

We should call it the Food cycles instead .

The "matter" is (probably?) not created anywhere on the earth, all matter circulates...

May 05 2006, Semi == Headline text ==Sabrina JAe Waz Here XoxO

If food chain refers to the depiction of the community, rather than the reality of the community, then it is certainly correct to say that most food chains begin with producers and end with top predators. That is how they are drawn. You are certainly correct that this is an inaccurate depiction of reality, which is why many (most?) ecologists have shifted to thinking in terms of food webs. It may nonetheless be useful to describe food chains as they are generally depicted, and then to point out the shortcomings. Justinleif 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== Food Chain ==Bold text

Does any person know when the term 'food chain' begain to originate? Who first began to use the term 'food chain' and when did the term 'food chain' become widely recognised?

Who Cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.82.251 (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's important to document the history of various terminology. It helps to understand the development of the subject, and it can also be helpful in tracing different lines of thought as they develop in the literature. Cazort (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Returned Article to Previous State

It appears that about 2 weeks ago something happened and the article is now much lower on content. I have dug the old version out of the archives and replaced it. Much of the content is unchanged but it is added to. Cimex 16:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out a paper by Raymond L. Lindeman (can be found on Wiki) He wrote a paper called 'A trophic dynamic aspect of ecology', he looked at trophic levels and energy flows. He uses a food web diagram in this paper, not sure if it the first one used but will be good start to look at this. He used the 'ecosystem' concept coined by Tansley 1935 - Use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Another good place to look is a book called "Fundamentals of ecology', maybe helpful. Either way these two papers should probably be read if you haven't just for their importance in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.125.199 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotes should be deleted

Neither of the anecdotes included in this article have anything to do with food webs. I would vote to delete both of them. Justinleif 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote to delete them both too. The anecdotes seem to do nothing to supplement the article information and only confuse the reader as to what a "food chain" actually is. Cariosus 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard any opposition to deleting them, so I went ahead and did so. Justinleif 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Platypus?

I don't understand what the picture of the coin with a platypus has to do with food chains. Justinleif 21:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Example of food web

I want example of "FOOD WEB" and not "FOOD CHAIN". Please help . Anishgirdhar 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

           Thank you

Merge With Trophic Dynamics

Trophic dynamics, trophic levels, food webs, and food chains all seem to me to go together. There is a fair amount of overlap in these two pages. I realize that trophic dynamics is the study of food webs, but you can't really explain one without explaining the other as you go. Jmeppley 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I disagree. Although both share similar broad-topic ideas, the information in each are different. Bdodo1992 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I don't think that the pages should be merged because the trophic dynamics page is a complete mess. At present it is a jumble of vaguely related topics lumped together for no apparent reason. All of the topics covered on the trophic dynamics page are covered more thoroughly elsewhere. The food chain/web page needs a lot of work, but is at least coherent. I would vote to delete the trophic dynamic page and redirect trophic dynamics to the food chain page. Justinleif 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - no, those are different topics, though they are related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.180.104 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I oppose the merge because both Trophic dynamics (levels) and food chain are significant stand-alone subjects.--Svetovid (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If the merge is done, it's crucial that this page still be retrievable via the search term "trophic level." Kevin.cohen (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - NO two big letters mean a lot. the Food chain is RELATED but not part of trophic levels.

Oppose - No - Skysmith (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Redevelop - Yes, this is all a little messy. I would like to see food chain renamed "food web", emphasising the interconnected nature of the food chain, and that it really is more of a "web" or network than a "chain", and redeveloped, incorporating those aspects of trophic dynamics related to the functioning of the web. And I would like to see trophic dynamics renamed "tropic level" and redeveloped with a focus on the different ways in which an organism can be at one level or node in the web or network. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Description

I want a description of "Trophic Level" and "what eats it or what it eats" is not what I want. I want words that describe what you could catargorize these "predators/preys" into and I don't see any anywhere on the page - Guest 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Propose Rename/Re-redirect

Although food web, trophic network, and food chain are effectively synonyms, they conjure up different images. The concept of "web", even though it is not used quite as widely as food chain in educational literature, is more accurate at describing the actual structure of the ecosystem: the trophic relationships form a network, not a chain in the sense of a linear order. I propose renaming this page to food web, using this as the primary term, and having food chain redirect, in order to reflect the fact that food web is more accurate and descriptive terminology. Cazort (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be called food web, because we can think of food chain as a sub-topic, even though the term is better known among the general public.--Svetovid (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If this rename/merge/redirect is done, it's crucial that the article still be findable by searching on the term "trophic level." Kevin.cohen (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

JUST MERGE

YOU CAN JUST MAKE TOPIC LIKE THIS "FOOD CHAIN-TROPHIC DYNAMICS" AND DESCRIBE BOTH OF IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.172.205 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Food chain v. food web

In my mind, there is a significant difference between a food web and a chain. A chain seems to link the relationships of a given line of consumption, ie, grass eaten by rabbit, rabbit eaten by fox, fox eaten by human or something. A food web attempts to show a little bit more complexity in that it may introduce a few other elements - like a squirrel that eats grass, that can also be eaten by a fox, and a human that catches the rabbit for food, and perhaps other things such as the relationship between detrivores and the cycle, etc. I think this is worth adding into the article Gautam ^Discuss 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the most abysmal discussion page I've ever seen for a merger suggestion.

I doubt it will matter but I agree with the merger suggestion. Trophic dynamics is a part of food webs - it describes the way that energy passes between levels/nodes in a food web. I don't believe there is sufficient information to warrant trophic dynamic having its own page - simply adding a section to the food web page to cover trophic dynamics, with an appropriate redirect to food webs for any search for trophics, should be sufficient. If at some point the trophic systems section of the food web article swells to the point where it warrants an independent page it can always be split off, but I don't believe that will happen because trophics is inextricably a part of food web studies. CastorQuinn (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This really needs a thorough rewrite

It's repetitious and poorly written - I've improved it a bit, but it still needs a deal of work, and I haven't much spare time right now. Kay Dekker (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A food chain is the flow of energy from one organism to the next and to the next and to the next. Organisms in a food chain are grouped into trophic levels,based on how many links they are removed from the primary producers. Trophic levels may contain either a single species or a group of species that are presumed to share both predators and prey. They usually start with a plant and end with a carnivore. The diagram at right is a food chain from a Swedish lake. It can be described as follows: osprey feed on northern pike that feed on perch that eat bleak that feed on freshwater shrimp. Although they are not shown in this diagram, the primary producers of this food chain are probably autotrophic phytoplankton. Phytoplankton and algae form the base of most freshwater food chains. It is often the case that biomass of each trophic level decreases from the base of the chain to the top. This is because energy is lost to the environment with each transfer. On average, only 10% of the organism's energy is passed on to its predator. The other 90% is used for the organism's life processes or it is lost as heat to the environment. Graphic representations of the biomass or productivity at each tropic level are called trophic pyramids. In this food chain for example, the biomass of osprey is smaller than the biomass of pike, which is smaller than the biomass of perch. Some producers, especially phytoplankton, are so productive and have such a high turnover rate that they can actually support a larger biomass of grazers. This is called an inverted pyramid, and can occur when consumers live longer and grow more slowly than the organisms they consume. In this food chain, the productivity of phytoplankton is much greater than that of the zooplankton consuming them. The biomass of the phytoplankton, however, may actually be less than that of the copepods. Directly linked to this are pyramids of numbers, which show that as the chain is travelled along, the number of consumers at each level drops very significantly, so that a single top consumer (e.g. a Polar Bear) will be supported by literally millions of separate producers (e.g. Phytoplankton). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.237.41 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed "trophic social networks" because animals are not socializing, they are being eaten. I have yet to find any reliable source that uses this terminology. Until a source is provided, I'm going to remove it. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire article reads like someone copied their book report or paper and pasted it here. I made several changes but more is needed to make this article concise and to include additional references, of which there is currently only one. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sad, is it? Especially with the "trophic social networks". Such ridiculous terminology (see above), I find it annoying why many sites copied this misinformation. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, first thing a move to Food web might be appropriate. "Food chains" are really really really rare in nature, and at least among biologists considered rather obsolete as a term except if you really mean "food chain" (like in a cave where caterpillars eat bat guano, centipedes eat caterpillars, moths eat centipedes).

Google hits:

• Food web: 1,920,000,000 / 2,700,000 (Scholar) / 91,600 (Scholar: Recent)
• Trophic network: 50,300,000 / 45,400 (S) / 17,000 (S:R)
• Food chain: 40,500,000 / 3,100,000 (S) / 16,900 (S:R)
• Trophic web: 15,700,000 / 74,500 (S) / 20,500 (S:R)

According to that, "food chain" used to be the term du vogue among scholars, but is deprecated (by scholars and public). "Trophic network" appears to be vernacular compared to "trophic web", funny, who'd have thunk? But "Food web" is the favored modern term by an enormous margin.

Default source, as always: Begon et al. Ecology. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with "food chain" being an over-simplification. Models are simplifications, tools to focus on and examine characteristics of a complex system. In some cases food chain is appropriate, particularly for kids and inquisitive adults just starting to learn about energy flow through ecosystems. After readers consume the idea of a food chain they can progress to more complicated structures if their attention hasn't passed to something else. Like learning geometry, start first with a point, then a line, then two dimensions, then three dimensions, then n-dimensions and non-euclidean models. There may also be operational uses for the concept of food chains, for instance when looking for sources of chemical concentrations in a top-level predator.

The notion of food chain is out there in literature and the popular media, so it's only appropriate to covered in an encyclopedia aimed at a wide audience. My problem is the first sentence of this article, "Food chains and food webs are representations of the predator-prey relationships between species within an ecosystem or habitat." The first sentence in the current discussion is closer to the mark conceptually, "A food chain is the flow of energy from one organism to the next and to the next and to the next." The notion of a food chain doesn't only include predators and prey, it also includes primary producers and herbivores. Neither does it focus on species or organisms, rather on trophic levels (in a chain) or nodes (in a web), as a species or organism can appear on more than one level or node. Get in the idea of a hierachy of trophic levels, rather than individuals and organisms, rather than predators and prey, and we've nailed it.

If we stick with the topic of food chains, I would prefer to make food chains one topic, simple and focused. Remove food webs from the introductory sentence, take the food web picture out and put a food chain picture in, move food webs and the ancilliary information into its own topic, indicate the limitations of the model, put-cross references to food web. If we're going to discuss food webs & food chains together, which makes sense, then title the topic "food web" rather than "food chain", and display food web when a user enters food chain in the search box. A food chain would be a subtopic under food web, not the other way around. A food chain is the simple model, antecedent to a greater understanding of how energy flows through natural systems. Eugene P. Odum, on p 90 of his book "Our Endangered Life-Support System" (ISBN 0-87893-635-1), defines food chains rather well within a larger discussion of food webs: "Energy from the sun is transformed step by step by producers (plants), then primary consumers (plant eaters), then secondary consumers (animal eaters), and so forth. Each step in the chain is called a trophic level. This is an energy level, not a species level, because any given species may utilize more than one level." Catrachos (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, Page not moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Food chain → Food web — Per general agreement on talk page above. Epipelagic (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have no preference over the terms but the search result above seems flawed; those numbers were apparently obtained using terms unquoted and merely reflecting the fact "web" is more commonly used term than "chain" on the web. Using quoted terms, "food chain" outnumbers "food web" both with Google Web Search and with Google Scholar -- Google Web Search: "food chain" - 4,040,000, "food web" - 1,160,000; Google Scholar "food chain" - 234,000, "food web" - 183,000. --Kusunose 05:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN (Use Common Names). — AjaxSmack 01:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support "food web" is broader, and is often used. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What does "'food web' is broader" mean? — AjaxSmack 04:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.