Talk:Predation/Archive 1

message: wtf?  I've seen fish nibbling the toes of waterbirds before but they're usually fighting for food.  The fish do take the youngsters though, but adults?!? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this:  Graft 01:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, but orcas move around a lot while Great Whites are highly territorial. Graft 14:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fish?

message: The section on "Motivation" for predation beings with the following sentence:
Contrary to conventional belief, predation is not typically an indiscriminate urge to kill other living beings.
I think the relevance (and accuracy) of this sentence is pretty questionable. I highly doubt that it is actually conventional belief that predation is a indiscriminate urge to kill other living beings. I would simply remove the sentence or, better yet, change it to segue properly into the next sentence without attributing this belief to the masses at large. But I don't know... What do you think? Any examples of where this belief is expressed?
--BadLeprechaun 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation and popular belief 

message: Hi,
It seems to me that this article contains 2 different definitions for "Apex Predator":
 A predator that is not eaten by other predators
A predator that plays a central role in its eco-system
It would be nice for the article to make clear which one is the definition of the term.
Cheers,
Rene
The definition (which comes from a peer-reviewed source) for marine environment is the "fourth or higher trophic level", which implies the second or higher predator. This implies a large variety of animals that might have predators upon them -- for example, loggerhead turtles that prey upon jellyfish that prey upon predatory fish. Loggerhead turtles are themselves prey for orcas and sharks, but the fourth trophic level allows a large number of animals that might be local (by marine standards) top predators. If the definition were the absolute top throughout the seas, then very few animals -- probably the orca and the sperm whale -- could be discussed as superpredators in marine environments. There might be animals in deep sea environments (abyssal plain and the deepest trenches) of whose ecological roles are nowlittle known. 
Where there are no orcas, such creatures that might be usual prey for an orca (sharks and any whales) are safe. Where the large predatory sharks as well as orcas are absent, then humans, the largest seals, dolphins, and sea turtles are safe from predation and are superpredators. Where sea turtles are absent, then pelagic jellyfish and similar organisms are top predators. Such hit-and-fly creatures as predatory birds that approach the sea for easy prey and then fly off to safe perches elsewhere might be local top predators.  The open oceans are no more  monolithic environments than is land. In view of the paucity of knowledge of deep-sea environments, one is wisely advised to say little. Lacustrine environments may fit the same definition -- but the definition in a peer-reviewed source does not address fresh-water environments.   
One definition is the one of the predatory animal at the top of the food chain. That usually applies to land biomes where food chains are very short. The fourth trophic level might not exist: the lion that preys upon wildebeest that eat grasses is the absolute top of the food chain on the African savanna, and it is "only" at the third trophic level. Most large land predators (bears, big cats, giant snakes, hyenas, large canids, and humans) are at the third trophic level. Much can be said about such hit-and-fly predators as raptor birds (example: the falcon that preys upon hares that eat grasses is at the third trophic level). Paradoxically, a small land predator -- a domestic cat -- may operate on the fourth trophic level by eating a small bird that preys upon grubs that eat vegetable material -- and might itself be prey for larger predators. Is the domestic cat better described as a supepredator than a lion because it is at a "higher" trophic level?
Comparatively few large land predators are 100% predatory. Hyenas, big cats, and large canids all scavenge. Some of the large predators are better described as omnivores -- dogs, humans, coyotes, chimpanzees, baboons,  and most bear species. (The polar bear is an almost strict carnivore for lack of vegetable foods in its environment; the panda is an ineffective hunter because of its lack of speed, but it eats meat if given the opportunity). All of the animals in this paragraph are difficult or dangerous prey at least as adults and are generally left alone even by other predators. Example: dogs are difficult to stalk due to their keen senses, and a pack of dogs can tree almost any other land predator that the pack cannot drive off. 
Much unlike the norm in oceanic environments, the food chains are well known on land environments and most non-polar fresh-water environments. Questions remain on whether one can decide whether an animal is itself a predator -- and that especially applies to humans, some of which are strict vegetarians. Likewise, is the raising of livestock or poultry for food predatory behavior? Such activity has greatly reshaped much of the world's land surface. That said, some humans have had to live lives best described as 100% predatory. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different definitions for Apex Predator 

message: There seem to by nultiple opinions as to the proper name of this page.   Last year the decision was made to keep it at Predator  instead of Predator (biology).  There seems to be a new idea that it move to Predator and prey.  This was done without any discussion (that I can find) and partially reverted (also without discussion).  I just tied up some loose ends of the revert (removing redirects to redirects) in the interest of keeping things clean.  Let's hear some discussion before doing anything major.
Personally, I'm for leaving the page at predator because everything links here already and it is in some sense the primary concept.  Jmeppley 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there isn't a Prey specific page (and I don't think there should be) but it is a popular link, so it should go somewhere. All the links intend the predator/prey meaning, so Predator seemed the logical place to redirect to: what would a predator be without prey? But the page is pretty much one-sided (the side of the predator) so I was hoping moving the page would make it clear that the page should cover both predator and prey. Predation is actually the better name, but that's an obstructed move. In the event, whoever moved it back should have checked for double links. Or maybe they did and just didn't feel like updating them? Ewlyahoocom 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who merged predation here. Thinking about the prey issue though, moving it to predation may make the most sense as it conceptually includes predators and prey. Marskell 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that Predation makes the most sense.  As you say, it includes the idea of prey as well, and it's also consistent with the other biological interactions.  I think it was merged into predator because the predator page had better content.  Jmeppley 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It was merged into predator because the predator page had better content." Yes, basically. It was just easiest/most sensible move looking at the two pages. So rename this "Predation" then? Do we need an admin to get the histories sorted properly? Marskell 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator and Prey (or the name of this page) 

message: I logged on today to find predation being redirected to predator and prey which redirects to predator.  I started fixing  the double redirecs before realizing what happened.  It seems you renamed the page to predator and prey and someone moved it back.  I've completed the move back because there were a bunch of ugly double redirects.   If you have stong feelings and good reasons why your original change should be preserved, I'd like to hear them.  If there already was a discussion and I just failed to find it, please point it out (on my talk page or on talk:predator).  Jmeppley 20:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there isn't a Prey specific page (and I don't think there should be) but it is a popular link, so it should go somewhere. All the links intend the predator/prey meaning, so Predator seemed the logical place to redirect to: what would a predator be without prey? But the page is pretty much one-sided (the side of the predator) so I was hoping moving the page would make it clear that the page should cover both predator and prey. Predation is actually the better name, but that's an obstructed move. In the event, whoever moved it back should have checked for double links. Or maybe they did and just didn't feel like updating them? Ewlyahoocom 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who merged predation here. Thinking about the prey issue though, moving it to predation may make the most sense as it conceptually includes predators and prey. Marskell 14:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that Predation makes the most sense.  As you say, it includes the idea of prey as well, and it's also consistent with the other biological interactions.  I think it was merged into predator because the predator page had better content.  Jmeppley 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It was merged into predator because the predator page had better content." Yes, basically. It was just easiest/most sensible move looking at the two pages. So rename this "Predation" then? Do we need an admin to get the histories sorted properly? Marskell 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[User talk:Ewlyahoocom#predator and prey]]

message: Predator → Predation … Rationale: what is a predator without prey? and what is prey with predators? … Please share your opinion at Talk:Predator. Ewlyahoocom 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support per above. Marskell 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Also see previous section (#Predator and Prey (or the name of this page)) for some discussion. Ewlyahoocom 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support per above. Marskell 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
Also see previous section (#Predator and Prey (or the name of this page)) for some discussion. Ewlyahoocom 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: If "Predator" and "Prey" are to encompass one article, then this article is in great need of expansion. Any researcher coming to this article in search of specific prey information (types of prey, lists of animals of prey, techniques of prey, etc.) would have a fairly difficult time. This article is alot like a dead end. A dead end article.It needs to be further sectionalized to include lists of predators and prey species (or links to such lists), which of course can never be complete. And internal links and categories should also be included.--J. Daily 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Expansion 

message: hi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.125.134 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of its exact status, though it usually refers to animals who kill and eat other animals. I'm fairly sure the way it is portrayed in the template at the bottom is incorrect, I'll bring it up on the template talk page. Richard001 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: After researching the definition I can confirm predation does include all forms of eating other living organisms, including herbivory as well as parasitism and grazing. An organism that eats consumers would be classed as a carnivore. Predation often refers to animals killing and eating other animals, especially in general conversation, but ecologically it can be a more broad concept, and the interactions (predator having some effect on prey unlike detrivory is of key importance. Richard001 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator vs herbivores 

message: I think that "natural enemy" should NOT be redirected to this page. Please consider creating new article - natural enemy might include parasites as well as predators and maybe also pests. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, parasites are a form of predator in the broader sense, so this would probably be the best target of the two. What do you mean by 'pests'? The other form of enemy I can think of are competitors, which I suppose you could also call natural enemies. I don't think the term is used very often in biology, or at most is used informally in a vague sort of way. It would probably be better to delete it than redirect it anywhere else. Richard001 (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean this: Pest (organism), for exemple Colorado potato beetle consumes our food and thus it is our competitor. I know it is not so widely used, but see also http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/. Sorry for my poor English, --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see what you mean. Usually a pest is just a competitor with human beings, though they can also be vectors of disease.  I still don't see what we can do with the redirect though. Biological interaction would probably be the most suitable article of a broader scope, as it discusses antagonistic interactions and competition etc. Richard001 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know either. Maybe to Biological interaction#Antagonism. Or consider creating a stub. --Vojtech.dostal (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we would need to find some sources on it if we were going to make a stub. For now I think leaving it as is is as good as anything else (I just said "as is is as"...) Richard001 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  natural enemy 

message: Looks like there has been vandalism over the summer (in my hemisphere) while I was away, e.g. the grazing section is missing. Does anyone else watch this article (as in actually checking each edit on a regular basis) besides me? Richard001 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, here's the edit: . Just shows you the system doesn't work, huh? What am I talking about, there is no system! Richard001 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Do you think any mention of subsidized predation (when a predator benefits from human activities) should be in the article? I wanted to know before I went and made a new section.Ratattuta (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidized Predator

message: The first sentence defines a predator as the organism which is hunting, but hunting suggests a rather deliberate, active form of predation. Why about sit and wait predators that don't even move? I don't think that I like this modification. Richard001 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "hunting" 

message: I'm a Wikipedia editing noob, so I'm not sure what has happened here, and whether it is related to the last edit, but the article currently has multiple blank lines after the introductory section - I noticed this by chance. Perhaps someone more clued-up can figure out what has happened and fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank Space! 

message: I came to this page via a link on Cambrian substrate revolution hoping to find information about the history of predation as life evolved.
Kevink707 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: I was going to say that large animals that eat fruit and insects are not considered predators, but apparently they are.  Even baleen whales are predators because they eat tiny microscopic animals in the ocean. —Soap— 12:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They all are, even grazers are. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insects 

message: I see a section on ambush predators, but I'm given to understand that humans and dogs (and perhaps others; I don't know) are considered "pursuit predators," in that they simply follow a prey animal until the animal drops its guard or slows enough from exhaustion that the predator can catch up and kill it. Besides "ambush" and "pursuit" predation, what other types are there? Perhaps someone with more expertise than I could put in a small section about different types of predation?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Predation? 

message: I added in a citation from a peer-reviewed article to the true predation section.Kyradsimms (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added citation