Talk:Trophic level

Glucose

The objective of all of this is to get to the glucose whether directly by eating plants or indirectly by eating meat and fat. It's a striking omission that is included in most basic high school textbooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't you find a reliable source and add the point to the article. You are as responsible for what is in the article as anyone else! --Epipelagic (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Human trophic level

Could someone include in the article the human trophic level? Thanks,

http://wwz.ifremer.fr/institut_es/Los-recursos-documentales/Medias/Press-release/Niveau-trophique-humain

http://www.larazon.es/detalle_normal/noticias/4640399/sociedad+ciencia/el-hombre-esta-al-mismo-nivel-que-anchoa-en-la-cadena-alimentaria#.UrLWUdLuKSq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.24.82 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Human trophic level

There has been a little bit of edit-warring regarding human diet. Human diet, of course, is somewhat of a sensitive topic, just like Climate Change, Abortion, and many others. Nevertheless it is important to treat modern scholarly consensus as the basis of the articles. Fringe theories, if they are sufficiently notable to discuss, should be carefully addressed in sections that are separate from discussions of mainstream scholarship. Perhaps some authors have personal feelings about the morality of animal consumption but that is entirely orthogonal to this article. The notion that humans are herbivores has been long discredited, despite efforts by some activists to keep this theory alive. It is only because of technological innovations over the last 10,000 years that vegetarian diets have become possible. But that does not change our biochemistry.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, you are absolutely right that humans are not related to primates. That theory was discredited a long time ago, as you so aptly point out... Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"The notion that humans are herbivores has been long discredited"

This odd strawman doesn't belong in this section. The question in context is simply "what is the trophic level of humans," and the information we need to consider is the relative proportion of food consumed from a higher vs lower trophic level. If you can support your claims that we used to eat huge amounts of meat and that the amount of plant consumption drastically declined as modern humans evolved, please share your evidence. The books you cite make no such claims. The book "Evolution of the Human Diet: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable" by Peter S. Ungar, which you cite, does indeed argue that consumption of meat drove some of the evolutionary changes that helped make humans what we are today. However, at no point does it suggest that meat made up the biggest part of our diet. The chapter "Meat Made us Human" by the author's own text is not meant to oppose any previous claims regarding the percent of the human diet consisting of meat-- rather, his argument is focused on whether increased consumption of tubers was the cause or the effect of increased consumption of meat, and he argues that availability of meat drove the changes discussed. (Ie, did tuber gathering facilitate foraging for meat, or did foraging for meat require increased tuber gathering as a fallback for when the hunt failed?) In fact, he specifically states "If more commitment to terrestriality and meat foraging occurred at the beginning of the Pleistocene and if the higher-energy requirements of early H. Erectus could not be balanced with honey, then tubers would be a likely addition, providing the same mixed diet as Wrangham and colleagues (1999) describe, just a very different means to get to a more human division of labor in the food quest." Note that Wrangham's study is the one that MC is claiming has been discredited, but clearly, the opinion shared here (a controversial one) doesn't even attempt to challenge the proposed proportion of foods eaten by early man, only the reason they eat them.

MC accuses those opposing his views as being "activists," but considering the considerable uncertainty in the area, it's hard for me to believe anyone pushing uncertain information and drawing conclusions not arrived at in the sources is anything but an activist.

Here is an article more recent than either of the cited books: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273

" Some unresolved questions in this area of research are:

1. How important were animal resources to hominins (versus plants and other non-animal resources), and how did this importance vary by hominin species, time period, habitat, or other variables?

2. How does the amount of meat and marrow available for scavenging in modern ecosystems vary with the size of prey (e.g., Blumenschine 1987; Pobiner 2007), the species of prey, predator species, predator group size, and ecological variables such as season and habitat? Would any of these variables affect frequency and location of butchery marks, and if so, how (e.g., Pobiner and Braun 2005)? "

In addition, if the claims regarding diet have been settled, as MC claims, why are articles still being published that contradict this claim? His most recent work was published in 2011 (i can't access that) and the other from 2007. Meanwhile, articles such as this http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682587 continue to come out. This 2015 paper argues about the relative importance of various foods in the ancestral human diet.

If someone wants to provide various views on this controversial topic, fine. Find some source that speculates on the trophic level of ancient humans. But stop stretching words to fit what you want to say. It's clear that at some point, our meat consumption increased. What is not clear is whether that increase mirrors today's humans (in which case, the data already provided that puts a number on the human trophic level already covers it, and the only think worth additing is that it used to be *lower*), or if it is higher than modern human intake (which none of the data has shown, and is still questionable as far as relevance-- in the history of humans, we ate lots of plants, then more meat, and now we're back to mostly plants. So what? Why is that so important to debate on a topic about trophic levels in general?)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trophic level. 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/20140209090342/http://dev.fmap.dal.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Branch%20et%20al_Nature_2010.pdf to http://dev.fmap.dal.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Branch%20et%20al_Nature_2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212021939/http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/blueplanet/infobursts/trophic_levels_bg.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/blueplanet/infobursts/trophic_levels_bg.shtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Scavengers

It's a good thing there aren't any scavengers in the world... Only predators... Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Levels definitions

I have an issue with the definition of the level 5. In the article it is define as the level of Apex Predators. But some Apex Predators such as wolves only eat herbivores and have a trophic level of ~3.

My understanding is that level 5 should be better defined as the level of carnivores who eat carnivores of level 4.

And as a general rule a living organism trophic level is the trophic level of its food + 1. Regardless of the number of predators this living organism has.

Shall the article be corrected? Could someone points to a source for the definition of trophic levels as currently defined in the article? GehNgiS (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Level versus Species

I have placed {{cleanup|reason=Distinguish from [[Trophic level]]}} on Trophic species because I am unable to distinguish between the two. If anyone knows (and can cite) the difference that would help. I have not done so here because I am not sure such a large, distracting template is necessary here. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 December 2021 (UTC)