Talk:Decomposer

message: Hi.
Fungi are not bacteria, yet they appear in the bacteria section. There should be either a section for microorganisms or two seperate sections for fungi and bacteria.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.197.13.48 (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 219.74.59.194 removed all of the animals from the list of decomposers (earthworms, millipedes, woodlice). Although I realize that bacteria and fungi are the primary decomposers and that many people prefer to call animals that consume dead organic matter detritivores, this page currently defines decomposer in such a way as to include animals. I am not opposed to restricting the definition to microbes or stating in the article that animals are discussed on the detritivore page, but I don't think to delete the animals without making any other changes, or explaining the deletion on the talk page is appropriate. I am reverting the change for now, but feel free to discuss the issue. Cheers, Justinleif 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun a major rewrite and reorganization of this page, including adding a section that discusses the difference between microbial decomposers and animal detritivores. Hopefully, this will break the current cycle of people adding and then others deleting earthworms and such from this page. Please help proof my rewrite. Cheers, Justinleif 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Decomposers? 

message: As I mentioned above, I did a major rewrite and reorganization of the page today. I don't really know anything about decomposition in aquatic and marine ecosystems, however. I assume that it is primarily carried out by bacteria with some contribution from fungi, but I don't really know. So if anyone does know, please added what they know to the appropriate sections. This should not be a strictly terrestrial article, but it kind of is at present. Cheers, Justinleif 22:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquatic and marine decomposers? 

message: I am a 2nd year Med student studying microbiology, and I looked up saprotroph after my first mycology lecture. I am glad that it did not lead me to the decomposer article, as the saprotroph article was more in tune with what I was studying. I agree that the subtle differences in the words and their usages merit two separate entries. 
71.61.220.157 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saprotroph/Decomposer Merger 

message: what would happen if all the decomposers in the world were killed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devoder (talk • contribs) 10:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  decomposers killed? 

message: decomposers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.124.6 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  animals 

message: ]]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.180.183 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DECOMPOSITION 

message: So the groups of decomposers currently listed in the article are bacteria, fungi and worms. Shouldn't beetles also be listed? They're also decomposers, aren't they? 31.18.248.254 (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beetles? 

message: Based on the article, it seems that decomposers only include organisms that do not use internal digestion and instead break down decaying matter with chemical reactions.  From my knowledge, it seems like worms are actually detrivores (or scavengers, as the article currently says), not decomposers, unless some worms do not have to internally digest their food. Could someone more knowledgeable either remove this or specify that some worms are decomposers? Dberard (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worms 

message: Voice 106.77.160.73 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVS