Jump to content

Talk:Copepod/Archives/2023/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

"some copepods are parasitic": on what? People? Other plankton? Fish? -- The Anome 08:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Many are parasitic on fish, I expect they would mostly go for large animals (i.e. vertebrates). I think there's a worm-like copepod that lives in the noses of crocodiles. Ketil (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Should videos be played in the main artice? --66.31.160.238 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

what does that mean: "single cells from the water"? 141.53.194.251 08:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am sure this video is some awesome new footage, but to the layman (e.g. me) it is completely uninteresting and not only that low quality... remove it! 24.16.19.181 07:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember these being referred to as "cyclops" because of the one-eye. I think this was from amateur microscopy manuals in the 1960's. 79.199.39.52 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed on Economist article "Strongest animals" and "70% fat".

The Copepod article includes some rather mysterious statements (based on an Economist article) about an arctic copepod, Calanus glacialis.

About 4mm long and almost transparent, with a single eye and fine red antennae running the length of its body, it is a copepod, a type of crustacean noted for being, microgram for microgram, the world's strongest animal. Most creatures higher up the Arctic food chain, including walruses, narwhals and polar bears, depend on it. To get through the winter, Arctic animals need a lot of fat, which C. glacialis provides. About 70% of its dry weight consists of lipids. Where it lives, on the edge of the sea ice, it can account for up to 80% of zooplankton biomass.

Even in its complete context, in the Economist article, the meaning of this is rather obscure. How is strength per microgram defined? What does fat content have to do with it? Unless someone can find out what this paragraph means, I recommend removing it.CharlesHBennett (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the "diet" paragraph

I removed this, but it was reinstated by Epipelagic. Here are my reasons for deletion:

Diversity in copepod diets is important, as it provides many pathways by which they can obtain their required nutrients.

This is not true, e.g. salmon lice eat salmon exclusively, you can't get much less diverse than that. Maybe it's true for specific species, but I don't think a blanket statement like this is warranted or informatvie.

Diets that are nutritionally complete enrich the chances of success amongst individual copepods or the entire copepod population.[1]

This is vacuous - "nutritionally complete" diets of course increase success. For every organism. It doesn't add any worthwhile information, and you certainly don't need a reference to back it up.

Copepods are sensitive to metals such as silver, zinc, copper and nickel.[2] Adding such metals to the diet of copepods leads to a reduction in their feeding and reproduction rates.

Metals are harmful to most life, this is not particular interesting, and again the citation is gratuitous. This gives undue weight to this aspect - a article on copepods clearly wouldn't list every element that is harmful to it.

Out of such metals, copepods are the most sensitive to silver.[2] This is likely to be due to the fact that silver is not considered an essential nutrient to copepods or other marine organisms.[3]

Here it is even stated outright, this is true of all marine life - thus totally general, and totally non-notable.

Copepods generally tend to feed on a mixed algal diet in their natural habitat.

This is true of some copepods, but not e.g. the parasites.

The survival and success of the copepod population over the years may be partially due to their ability to select prey, avoiding contaminated food.[2]

This is vague, and in any case, not noteworthy. Survival of any organism may be partially due to this.

In my opinion, every single statement here is either way too general, low in information, speculative, only applicable to some copepod species, or flat out wrong. Citing Kleppel and Bielmayer for generic and speculative statements like this does not do credit on this page, nor on their work. Although I won't delete it again, I see now way this can usefully be cleaned up.

Ketil (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ G. S. Kleppel (1993). "On the diets of calanoid copepods" (PDF). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 99: 183–183. doi:10.3354/meps099183.
  2. ^ a b c Gretchen K. Bielmyer, Martin Grosell & Kevin V. Brix (2006). "Toxicity of silver, zinc, copper, and nickel to the copepod Acartia tonsa exposed via a phytoplankton diet" (PDF). Environmental Science & Technology. 40 (6): 2063–2068. doi:10.1021/es051589a. PMID 16570637.
  3. ^ Mariana Saia Pedroso, José Guilherme Filho Bersano & Adalto Bianchini (2007). "Acute silver toxicity in the euryhaline copepod Acartia tonsa: influence of salinity and food". Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 26 (10): 2158–2165. doi:10.1897/06-485R.1. PMID 17867869.

contradiction about planktonic lifestyle?

"Copepods are a holoplankton species, meaning they stay planktonic for all of their lifecycle."

The lead says there are plenty of species that benthic or even terrestrial. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Citations in Water Supplies Subsection

The third paragraph of the Water Supplies subsection has a lot of salient information but is largely without citation. Is there any way we can hunt down some support for those claims? I'll try to get started myself, but it's a big paragraph. Maddieball16 (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest 'terrestrial' instead of 'continental'

I'd like to suggest that the word 'continental' in the lead paragraph be replaced with 'terrestrial'. I believe that in ecology 'continental' is usually contrasted with 'insular': contrasting species that are wide spread vs those that can only be found on a particular island or in some other geographically limited area. I'm pretty sure the author meant 'terrestrial' from the context.

DlronW (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copepod. 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:

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) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copepod. 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:

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) 19:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Copepods and cholera

There seems to be quite an extensive literature showing that copepods and chironomids are reservoirs of Vibrio cholerae; and that waterbirds who consume them may then transfer the bacteria (the cause of the disease cholera) to human populations. this article - which cites several others - provides more detail.

I would add something about this to the page, but I'm not sure where it would best fit...

--peter_english (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

ya guys know, edit that or I will 2A02:C7C:DB71:7900:8024:5B1A:F6C8:A7EE (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copepod/Archives/2023/December&oldid=1215062987"