# Talk:Keystone species

This material is so deficient as to be misleading.
Not even a stub, rather a stubbin.
Who can help?
It's important that certain ecosystem impacts of keystone species be addressed.  Maybe someone can speak to the ability of a keystone species to promote or ensure diversity within a given system.  Perhaps utilizing the classic starfish model.
169.231.32.113 00:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Samuel

I've removed domestic cats as being a key stone species/predator. I believe feral cats may be in some cases, but I know of none. Domestic cats are artificially high in abundance, due to their home food supply, than the environment would allow (e.g. number of bobcats in wild). This is along with their hunting habits allows for a much greater impact on the environment than their relative biomass. Their instinct to hunt for means other than food only harm other populations on animals, and does not benefit the ecosystem or local food web as a keystone predator would.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.173.54 (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 

Can "key species" redirect to "keystone species"? I think, that yes, but I have no evidence.--Snek01 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Article remains deficient to the point of maybe being misleading. Under examples, three types are listed, as though these are the only ways a species might function as an ecosystem keystone. Oysters, for example, fit into none of those categories. Rentstrike (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments but I would also suggest including the discussion on the issues with the Keystone Concept - A number of authors have distorted the definition.
I think the most important part missing is the idea the keystone species are context dependent eg. A species maybe a KS in an area, but if the same community assemblage is examined in a different environment that species may not be playing the KS role  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.97.231 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 

all in the title?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.178.102 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 

If the specific lake featured in the photo is named "Beaver Dam Lake," then all words in the caption must be capitalized. If "beaver dam [sic]" is the action being described, then it is "Beaver dams lake" if there is one beaver featured, and "Beavers dam lake" if there is more than one beaver. (In either case, only the first word in the caption is capitalized.) I'm going to make the change under the assumption that the caption describes an action. Please change accordingly if "Beaver Dam Lake" is a proper noun. Joeletaylor (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss Possible addition of present ongoing event involving Extant and Extinction of...
Fraxinus Ash classified as a "Keystone" species of the Riparian Elm-Ash-Cottonwood ecosystem, has been well documented through field studies observations succumbing to the invasive Emerald Ash borer before reaching seeding age of 10 when only 1" DBH in stem size. 333 individual species primarily utilizing Fraxinus are being directly shunted into finding lesser available resources, and 44 exclusive to only Ash will inevitably become co-extinct throughout its natural range. This directly involves Forty-three native Arthropods and the non native Emerald Ash borer which also becomes extinct locally once species food supply of living Ash trees (Untreated) are no longer available.CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Are apex predators considered keystone species?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keystone species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819031734/http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/prairiedogs.asp to http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/prairiedogs.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keystone species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110060757/http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1969g.html to http://www.washington.edu/research/pathbreakers/1969g.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Keystone species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110163932/http://www.prairiedogcoalition.org/pd-associated-species.php to http://www.prairiedogcoalition.org/pd-associated-species.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keystone species/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 22:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a closer look soon.
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Is that citation in the lead needed, and why isn't it used anywhere else in the article?
Moved to Definitions, where now used.
"In Press (X): XX." What is this supposed to signify? The article seems to have been published long ago.
Fixed.
"intertidal invertebrates" This could be explained.
Done.
", keystone predator can be even less" Predators?
Yes.
The quote after " the jaguar is a charismatic big cat" could be attributed in text.
Done.
Like you explain the results of eliminating wolves, could this be stated for the sea otter also? Now the section about the otter does not mention that humans have a hand in the lack of sea otters where urchins are abundant.
Rewritten.
On this note, I think it could be made clearer that humans are often the cause of disrupting the balance between keystone species and their prey.
Said so.
"it has been criticized for oversimplifying complex ecological systems." Only stated in intro, this should be covered in more detail in the article body, perhaps under history. Then it doesn't need a citation in the intro either.
Moved to 'Limitations' section and expanded.
You should add that wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone (as you mention in an image caption), and that this is how it is known what effect they had.
Done.
"Yellowstone's apex predator, the wolf" to "The wolf, Yellowstone's apex predator"? The other section titles have the keystone species' name first.
Done.
I think you could explain in the sea star section that Paine made his discoveries by removing sea stars from an area to see what would happen (at least that's how I remember it).
Done.
"the parrotfish on the Great Barrier Reef is the sole species" Parrot fish are a group of species, is any particular species meant, or is it the group as a whole?
The group.
It should probably be noted who has criticised the concept, especially since all the criticism is sourced to one article.
Done.
All looks good to me then, passed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the review and the helpful suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a great resource to use since it heavily details and explains Keystone species in different contexts. Mary Power's catfish aren't mentioned here (see Mary_Eleanor_Power)
--Genetics4good (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The gopher tortoise (gopherus polyphemus) is most definitely a keystone species, and likely belongs under the engineer sub-section. Gopher tortoise burrows are believed to support upwards of 200+ other species (a conservative number, Wikipedia suggests a higher number). I'm not going to make this change myself, but creating a talk section to raise awareness.
Cosmicray (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of "species x is a KS"; there are certainly many such species, and this is not a list of them. We should only choose to add an illustration in the form of a cited discussion of some species when it broadens the article, showing that something can be a keystone in a new and surprising way. What we emphatically do NOT want to say is "and species a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, and l are instances of similar keystone species". I hope this is clear. By the way, "raising awareness" sounds very much like a forum topic, which is expressly forbidden for Wikipedia talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Having seen the docu "Bewitched by the Moon" (see https://www.terramater.at/productions/islands-in-time/), I seem to think that besides red and yellow mangrove species and coral (none of which mentioned in article yet), tunnel making organisms such as sea snails are also a engineer keystone species. They provide a safe haven for small goby fish.
Not yet mentioned at this article.
Perhaps that moles are also engineering keystone species (I assume it provides shelter for rodents and such) ?
--Genetics4good (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

216.67.28.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made the edits in brackets. I reverted them because editor comments don't go in the article body, but it's good feedback if someone wants to take a stab at fixing this:

The removal of wolves had a direct effect on beaver populations, as their [wolves or beavers?] habitat became grazing territory. Increased browsing on willows and conifers [by what animal -- beavers, deer, etc.?] along Blacktail Creek due to a lack of predation caused channel incision [by beavers?] because the beavers helped slow the water down, [did wolves reduce beaver populations or allow them to increase if wolves were removed?] allowing soil to stay in place. Furthermore, predation keeps hydrological features such as creeks and streams in normal working order [how? -- connect the dots here]. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are any ants or worms (ever) keystone species? Can an ecosystem have more than one keystone species? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:6D8A:F597:5943:694A (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Ants definitely are, or at least, there is evidence they may be in RS: [1] [2] [3] I also read that there is more ant biomass than any other living things. Worms, not sure. There are so many different kinds of worms. The common earthworms in the USA are actually an invasive species. Not to mention those jumping worms. They are bad. See Invasive earthworms of North America. These articles [4][5][6] suggest that maybe the bacteria that live in earthworms are keystone taxa, ie the soil microbiota. Andre🚐 20:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I would consider this article to be strong and informative. The article has a complete set of information and is a great starting point for understanding keystone species. The strengths of this article is the flow of information and set of factual statements followed by examples and finally limitations. The weakness is that the understanding of conservation biology is constantly changing and I believe this article could be updated with some newer information and findings. Overall, I would say this article is well developed and complete. Rst12 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)