Talk:Autotroph

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahmallett.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Flowchart is confusing

The flowchart implies that there are organisms that produce their own organic compounds, but not by using light and not by using inorganic chemical reactions, and are called autotrophs (the box at the bottom of the chart). In other words, the flowchart suggests that there is a subtype of autotrophs, which is also called autotrophs, that are neither photoautotrophs nor chemoautotrophs.stupidness

If that is true, then it would be useful for the article to explain how these organisms produce organic compounds. If it is false, the flowchart should be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.202.8.114 (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC). judo is coolo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.182.214 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the word "elsewhere" has no referrent. What is the "where" from which "elsewhere" differs? Unfree (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Since elsewhere ist everything outside of the liveform it is really very confusing if not wrongly. I think the first question should be "optains carbon from other lifeforms?" --Pistnor (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In the sea?

"This mechanism is called primary production in the sea." Does that mean that scuba divers talk differently when they return to the boat, or only when they get back to shore? Or are we talking about the language of mermaids? Unfree (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Autotroph animals?

The article "heterotroph" states (correctly) that all animals are heterotrophic, and the article Fungus states that some fungi may be considered as autotrophs. I reworded the relevant section accordingly. Kolorado (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Other organisms, called heterotrophs, take in autotrophs as food to carry out functions necessary for their life" Since many heterotrophs feed on heterotrophs or their remains the sentence is misleading. Only the first link in the food chain is heterotrophs taking in autotrophs --Pistnor (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

autotrophs do not produce their own energy

The statement "An autotroph can produce its own energy through photosynthesis through the inputs of light, carbon dioxide and H₂O." is inaccurate, because autotrophs convert physical energy source into chemical form. Therefore the better statement can be: "An autotroph converts physical energy through photosynthesis using the inputs of light, carbon dioxide and H₂O into chemical form". Nagarjunag (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this just splitting hairs? Chemical forms are a form of bound energy. The point is that autotrophs use inputs to produce a chemical form that can be utilised in turn as "food" to produce energy. Ultimately, it powers itself by the way it converts the energy implicit in its inputs. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is important that energy can only be converted and not produced, so external energy (light, e.g. radialtion, energy bound in chemicals, ...) is converted to living materia. --Pistnor (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

produce their own food

"They are able to make their own food, ..." is misleading. Food for the plants consists in their nutrients, which are taken from their environment. If they are capable of making then why take it from the environment? Therefore, This statement is not necessary. The rest of the paragraph is OK. I suggest the "They are able to make their own food, and do not need a living energy or carbon source." be removed. --Nagarjunag (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment and edited the page. I removed the phrase "they are able to make their own food", but left the statement that autotrophs "do not need a living energy or carbon source", which I think is the main point of the sentence. Siegele (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Imprecise statement

Despite the number of primary school textbooks this statement can be found in, it is really meaningless: 'They are able to make their own food' 92.14.112.239 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to explain what you are on about in more detail. Google books has over 800 books which use this "really meaningless" phrase, most of which are not primary school books. And then horreur, Google scholar has nearly another 200 professional publications which use the phrase. The phrase has considerable merit in that it can be understood by primary school students, yet it does not seem particularly inaccurate to me. Can you please educate me and clarify what you are really trying to say? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Autotroph/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated "top" as high school/SAT biology content and general concept of metabolism. - tameeria 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

--74.96.229.43 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Autotrophs are organisms that are capable of making their own food. They are "self feeders." These organisms make their own food by converting relatively simple inorganic nutrients into more complex, energy-rich, organic forms. Thus, the autotrophs do not need any outside source of organic material. There are two types of autotrophs, divided according to the processes by which they make their food. Photoautotrophs use the process of photosynthesis, while chemoautotrophs use the process of chemosynthesis. Photoautotrophs are far more common, and examples include green plants, algae and some bacteria. This type of autotroph uses photosynthesis to convert the inorganic chemicals, carbon dioxide and water, into the organic sugar glucose, using sunlight as its source of energy. Glucose is the "food" produced by these photoautotrophs. Chemoautotrophs differ from photoautotrophs because they use chemicals from inorganic chemical reactions, rather than sunlight, as their source of energy to produce organic materials. Certain types of bacteria are chemoautotrophs. For example, there are chemoautotrophic bacteria at deep sea hydrothermal vents where there is no sunlight. These bacteria support the entire food web at these great ocean depths through chemosynthesis, since photosynthesis cannot occur due to the lack of sunlight. In a food web, the autotrophs are the producers. They are the base of the food web, and all other organisms ultimately depend upon them for their energy and organic material. Autotrophs are consumed by other organisms, the heterotrophs, passing along organic nutrients and energy. Thus, without the autotrophs, other organisms would not be able to obtain the food or energy needed to survive.

Proposed merge of Primary producer into Autotroph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Primary producer into Autotroph; synonyms, and any differences can be discussed on one page. Klbrain (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

---

These are two names for the same subject. Although "primary producer" appears to be used more often, it has other possible meanings while heterotroph is unambiguous. Also, most related articles have names like photoautotroph, lithoautotroph, etc. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Though Primary producer may be the better choice to merge to.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: Why? RockMagnetist(talk) 05:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Simply because it would give an ease of association with Primary production - autotrophs include photoautotrophs and chemoautotrophs and could also be included as primary producers.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Support merge proposal as per the nominator. Autotroph is the better title, as it is more consistent with the other -troph page titles and doesn't run into the confusion with Primary production (economics). Klbrain (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – because the two names are not really equivalent. They tend to be used in different contexts depending on the focus.

The term autotroph naturally pairs with heterotroph, and tends to be used when the focus is more at the physical and chemical level on how organisms get energy and build or breakdown chemicals. There is a constellation of other other -troph terms that also fit comfortably in this context, such as mixotroph, organotroph, phototroph, chemoautotroph, lithotroph, photolithotroph, chemolithotroph, lithoheterotroph, lithoautotroph, chemolithotroph and photolithotroph.

The term primary producer naturally pairs with primary consumer, and is particularly used when the focus is more at the ecological level, concerned with food webs and primary production. There is a long established traditional group of related terms that also belong in this context and tend to be used with each other, such as secondary producer, secondary consumer, apex predator and detritivore.

In addition, many primary producers are not autotrophs. For example, much of marine primary production is produced by mixotrophs. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Do you have any sources to support these claims? If I do a search like "autotroph primary producer" in Google Books, I don't find any statements contrasting them; rather, all the excerpts in the first couple of pages of results treat them as equivalent (I didn't bother looking further). I also tried doing a general search on "marine primary production mixotroph", and the first hit I got (a PNAS article) says "These mixotrophs blur the strict boundary between producers and consumers ... ". If anything, by combining your two groups of terms in one sentence, this phrase reinforces the claim that "autotroph" and "primary consumer" are interchangeable. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: You could look at this article and this book (see the editorial). What is clear is that the long standing distinction between phytoplankton and zooplankton (or algae and protozoans) has broken down, and there are suggestions a new model is needed for marine life. In the past you could say phytoplankton were autotrophs and zooplankton were heterotrophs – but you can't say that now. It's not clear yet just how much primary production is the work of mixotrophs. But what is certain is that, for the same reason you can no longer say phytoplankton are autotrophs, you can no longer say primary producers are autotrophs. The two concepts have diverged. The most you can say is that some primary producers are autotrophs. — Epipelagic (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The scientific issue is interesting (and should be added to this article), but the implications for the terminology are not clear. For example, Mitra et al. says both that "many protists often combine photoautotrophic and phagotrophic modes of nutrition" and that "mixotrophic protists combine facets of both primary producer and consumer in one organism." As far as I can tell, they are using autotrophy and primary production interchangeably. Similarly, neither of the other two sources draw a clear distinction. Meanwhile, a long list of sources explicitly equate autotroph and primary producer. Unless you can find a source that explicitly defines the two terms in different ways, I don't think you have a case. And even then, I would wonder whether the distinction is recognized outside of marine microbiology. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see this is dismissible on the grounds that sofar only marine microorganisms have come under scrutiny. Marine microorganisms account for about half of all primary production. There doesn't seem to be literature suggesting mixotrophy is not significant among terrestrial microorganisms, rather it seem yet to be investigated. I agree that at the level of macroorganisms nothing much has changed and the two terms are generally interchangeable. But among microorganisms an upheaval is taking place. I would like more clarity about what we are disagreeing about. I'm wondering if it's to do with how the meaning of autotroph is to be interpreted. When an organism is identified as an autotroph, it could mean it is a pure autotroph that functions only as an autotroph, or it could mean it contains at least an element of autotrophy. In the latter case, mixotrophs could also be called autotrophs. I tend to think of autotrophs in the former sense. Perhaps you are thinking of them more in the latter sense? — Epipelagic (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised that my statement is that hard to interpret. Put another way, all the sources I have seen so far (including the ones provided by you) either explicitly state that autotrophy and primary production are equivalent or use the terms in a way that seems equivalent. To justify two separate articles, we would need definitions that clearly distinguish between them. I haven't seen a source for that. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

But I don't disagree at all with that statement – autotrophy and primary production are equivalent terms. However this thread is not about those terms, so I don't see why you are putting such weight on them. I don't think anyone is putting out revised definitions for autotrophs yet. If you are satisfied the term autotroph is and will be generally understood to include mixotrophic organisms, regardless of the present revisions in understanding, then your position is correct. — Epipelagic (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Now you've really got me confused. You started this whole conversation by saying you oppose the merger "because the two names are not really equivalent." Do you still oppose the merger? RockMagnetist(talk) 00:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I oppose the merger. — Epipelagic (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

O.k. Why? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll let the matter go since I'm not sure I'm right. If need be later, the deleted article can be reinstated, so it's a minor issue. — Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

True. And I think we agree that the important issue is this new understanding of mixotrophy, which should be added to this article. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What about methanotrophs?

Are methanotrophs categorized as autotrophs or heterotrophs?

Methanotrophs obtain carbon by taking in methane as a gas dissolved in their environment. Chemically, methane is "organic" (see organic compound) but the methane that methanotrophs eat typically is abiotic – ecologically "inorganic" (see organic matter) – produced by geologic processes – does not immediately derive from some organism.

• Like propper autotrophs, methanotrophs are primary producers of organic molecules in their environments; they can be eaten by other organisms, but do not require either the body parts or waste products of other organisms for food.

• Like conventional heterotrophs, methanotrophs do not inspire CO₂, but rather take in carbon as a (chemically) organic molecule, which they use for both a source of carbon and as a source of energy.

Unlike conventional heterotrophs, methanotrophs can and do survive eating carbon (methane) that has never been a part of any organism. As a thought experiment, methanotrophs could presumably thrive in a suitably comfortable environment on a methane-rich but originally lifeless planet (think of somewhere warm, deep inside Titan, for example).

Some geologic methane is geologically primordial, and some is from cooked sediments that are a slow-moving branch of the carbon cycle. I'd say that all geologic methane counts as abiotic, since even if it was once biotic, it's been recycled via an abiotic process. The primordial carbon still in the Earth never has been a part of any organism and it looks, smells, and tastes the same as methane from recycled carbon.

So has this already been worked out? Where do the methane-eaters fit in this classification system? And does the categorization discussed in the article need to be re-written so that autotrophs are allowed to eat methane?

Astro-Tom-ical (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Life Sciences

Importance of autotrophs in food web 41.114.128.248 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)