Talk:Mutualism (biology)

Ecology C‑class High‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

A summary of this article appears in biological interaction.

merge with biological interaction ?

Can this be merged into Biological interaction? Use Talk:Biological interaction to discuss. Jmeppley 19:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps merge with Symbiosis? --203.26.206.129 09:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, see Talk:Commensalism Jmeppley 16:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely worthy of its own article. Mutualism and symbiosis overlap but neither is a form of the other. Richard001 07:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rm of paragraph

It sucks last paragraph from the article that read "also, those trees with the ants that protect it.". It is clearly half a sentence and poorly worded. However if anyone does know what "those trees with the ants that protect them" are then it does imho deserve a mention in the article. Thryduulf 15:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genes transfer

This article is very interesing, and could be a perfect example of what Wikipedia is able to achieve. I say this from a philosophical pov, having stumbled here and immediately linked it with Gilles Deleuze's notion of rhizomes: Deleuze often talked about the mutualism between the wasp & the orchid, especially in A Thousand Plateaus. I could look up references for that to deepen the article's span; but what would really be interesting is a more thorough biological introduction to it. I may be wrong, but I kind of remember from all those discussions about this concept, really interesting since it involves cross-species phenomenons, that, in particular cases, genes could also be transfered through this process. This would thus a bit cross it (this being an extrapolation...) with Genetically modified organism (i'm not refering to cross-breeding which has nothing to do with mutualism). Anyone out there? Lapaz 01:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on horizontal gene transfer: "There is also recent evidence that the adzuki bean beetle has somehow acquired genetic material from its (non-beneficial) endosymbiont Wolbachia."

"Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes." [1]

Shouldn't it be included here? Lapaz 15:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kropotkin

would making refrences to peter kropotkins book mutual aid: a factor in evolution be appropriate? Im thinking of making it a subsection or atleast paying tribute to it as one of the first scientific addings of the concept mutual aid to darwinian evolution.

I strongly concur. His work might seem a tad dated now, but he was very likely the pioneer of this branch of ecology/biology. --Smilo Don 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to agree. It was a really popular work in the early part of the 20th century. Perhaps because noone could think of a model which would explain the evolution of interspecific cooperation in contexts like the prisoner's dilemma, people went on seeing competitive models like the survival of the fittest as the default for nature despite the abundant evidence to the contrary. But all of this is original research unless we find some work that talks about it.Brinerustle (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why this still haven't been added? Mutual Aid really is one of the first books on this subject. --Rastapunk (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not; feel free to add something, citing suitable secondary sources (i.e. not just Kropotkin, but what biologists wrote about his mutual aid ideas). Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ToDo - References

Someone with a modicum of knowlege of the subject matter needs to embed some of the references, per MoS. - Tiswas^(t/c)

Plants & Animals

There should be a section about the mutual symbiotic relationship between plants and animals (including human beings). Plants use the solids, liquids and gases (CO2) we excrete and we use the oxygen and food provided by plants. We need to grow more plants to feed an ever growing population, and to clean up our wastes...Friendlyinnovators (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To grow more plants for food would basically require cutting down more forests, which would kind of go against the 'cleaning up our wastes' thing. We might also consider why populations are so high in the first place, i.e. availability of food. Richard001 (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroponics enables the growth of plants using much less space and much less water than conventional methods. Oceans cover over 70% of the earth's surface and could be used to grow algae, which can be converted to biofuel and food. Reducing population is not a solution. I'm not willing to offer, are you? We need to use creativity to solve problems.Friendlyinnovators (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no long term solution that doesn't involve stopping population growth. Your ideas are unrealistic and don't address the source of the problem. But this has gotten completely off topic, so let's take it elsewhere if you wish to continue. Richard001 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Definitions

If "Mutualism is a biological interaction between individuals of two different species, where both individuals derive a fitness benefit", and "symbiotic" is a sub-classification within "mutualism", how can "parasitic" be a sub-classification within symbiosis, as written on the Wikipedia "Symbiosis" page? Commensalism is also listed as a type of symbiosis on the "Symbiosis" page, being defined as "a kind of relationship between two organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped". If these other definitions are correct, then the definition of "mutualism" must be incorrect.

Are there, in fact, no universally accepted definitions? Is this a matter of different schools of biology having their own definitions? Can a coherent set of working definitions not be formulated?

[This note has been added to both the "Mutualism" and "Symbiosis" Talk pages.] Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: "Symbiosis" as originally defined in the 19th Century by Anton de Bary refers to any close association by two or more species, regardless of the outcome of the association for those species. Therefore symbiosis can be mutualistic (for example lichens, anemonefish-anemone interactions, fig pollination, etc.), commensalistic, parasitic (most parasitic relationships are symbiotic in the sense that the parasite can only exist in or on the host)or wholly neutral. However, in the 20th century, "symbiosis" came to be used exclusively for what should really be termed "mutualistic symbiosis". Biologists are now divided on the issue; some (myself included) believe that we should refer to symbiotic relationships using the original definition (symbiosis simply refers to "living with" and says nothing about the outcome of that living together). Other biologists happily go along with the change in definition. I think they're wrong, but hey ho, there's no pleasing everyone all of the time! In that sense, therefore, there's not a "universally accepted definition". Hope that's clarified the issue? Speakingofcities (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutualism in humans

Maybe we should change "without which we would not be able to digest food efficiently" to "without which we are not be able to digest food efficiently". As this does happen frequently : it's a side effect of several antibiotics therapies DrYak (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example

Killer whales of Eden, Australia should be added somewhere. --92.1.175.38 (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutualism → Mutualism (biology) — REason: Hatnote: "This article is about the biological..." Mutualism should be made a Disambiguation page. Discussion began at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_26#Category:Mutualism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Mutualism is the primary topic by a factor of better than 6:1, based on pageviews. Dab pages are not needed or recommended when there are only two articles. The hatnote is performimg its function, directing the minority to the secondary use of the term. Station1 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. It's unsurprising that the article currently labelled as primary topic get more page views than one that isn't, partly because readers typing in "mutualism" land here and partly because when one article is given primary slot, internal links tend not to be properly disambiguated (because they don't show up in the lists maintained by WP:DPWL, and even if they are spotted, they cannot be fixed by popups).
I see no evidence other than page hits under the current setup that the biological theory is the primary topic, and those figures are measuring the effect of the current setup. Creating a disambiguation page will allow all the links to point to the correct article, and will avoid the current breach WP:NPOV (by favouring a scientific theory over a socio-economic theory).
Closing admin please note the who have expressed support for this move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 26#Category:Mutualism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The current setup is confusing for readers. There are at least three mutualisms: biological mutualism, economic mutualism and organizational mutualism. Each are interrelated but distinct, a relationship best established with a disambig. - N1h1l (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether to rename or not. You all raised good points! I created this disambiguation page. Is it ok? Please revise it, if necessary. thanks! Difu Wu (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Even as a Bio teacher, I can see this as being a equally valid (i.e. no real primary article/topic). Moogwrench (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleaning inter-language links?

Currently there is a mixture of links to articles to other languages about Mutualism and Mutualism (biology). Since Mutualism exists, wouldn't make sense to delete here all the links to generic Mutualism pages, keeping only those referring to Mutualism (biology)? --Qgil (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture? Red0Billed Oxpecker

"The Red-billed Oxpecker feed on ticks off the impala's coat" is in the mutualism article, yet the article on the Oxpecker suggests it is really commensalism or even parasitism, since the Oxpecker also pecks open wounds since it likes eating blood in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.24.24 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mycorrhiza image

Does that mycorrhiza image really belong here? For one thing, it's got captions in Czech. In the image description, the image's contributor says he "can provide you with my image without the words", so maybe someone should contact him and take him up on that? Or maybe the image would better be removed from the article entirely -- even without the captions, or with English captions, it's apparently hand-drawn with markers, and, at the risk of offending the contributor, may not really be up to encyclopedic standards. (Aside from which, the description of the image implies he may have copied it from a picture in a textbook, which means, depending on how closely he copied it, it may have copyvio issues as well...) ----Smeazel (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not an appropriate image here --Epipelagic (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutualism/symbiosis relationship statement not correct

The statement "Mutualism and symbiosis are sometimes used as if they are synonymous, but this is strictly incorrect: symbiosis is a broad category, defined to include relationships which are mutualistic, parasitic or commensal. Mutualism is only one type."

It seems to me that mutualism is a symbiosis. So calling mutualism a symbiosis is fine. It is just a 'type of'. I think this needs to be reworded as the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism also makes the statement that it is wrong to call mutualism a symbiosis. That needs to be reworded too. User:benjaminDHolland

File:Impala mutualim with birds wide.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Impala mutualim with birds wide.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 9, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-11-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Red-billed Oxpeckers (Buphagus erythrorhynchus) feeding on ticks found on this impala (Aepyceros melampus), an example of mutualism, which is defined as the way two organisms biologically interact where each individual derives a fitness benefit (i.e., increased reproductive output). Here, the birds gain food while the impala becomes free of parasites.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Archive – More featured pictures...

New Edit

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I added a hyperlink for Amphiprion ocellaris into your article. I am a part of a Behavioral Ecology Class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Washington_University_in_St._Louis/Behavioral_Ecology_%28Fall_2013%29) Washington University and our assignment was to create hyperlinks from our articles to other articles as examples. Best of luck with your article!! Gseehra123 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Special:MobileDiff/877442231

Chiswick Chap: I suppose each species would experience some reduction of fitness as you describe, but wouldn't one of the species experience a net increase in fitness? E.g. a tapeworm might have some injury inflicted by its unwilling host, but without that relationship, have no means of survival. Or am I misunderstanding something? (I'm not a subject-area expert, just reading the article as a layperson.) It would be nice to have the article be extra clear about what it means, anyway, I think, since this wording seems counterintuitive to me. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The competition in and of itself inflicts a cost on both parties (whatever they invest in fighting, basically). There is in addition sometimes a reward for the winner, but often the result is just back to where things were before, so no gain on either side. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap: Having looked over this again, it makes a lot more sense to me. Not least because the tapeworm in my example above is, I now suspect, only an example of parasitism, and not also of interspecies competition. (I'm not sure why I was trying to lump them together before, as the article seems pretty clear now and this makes a lot more sense.) Sorry for the trouble. Thank you for fixing my mistake, and thank you again for your patient and elucidating reply above! :D —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 14:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mutualism is thought to be the most common type of ecological interaction, and it is often dominant in most communities worldwide ???

Quote from lead:

"Mutualism is thought to be the most common type of ecological interaction, and it is often dominant in most communities worldwide."

I am absolutely no expert and have consulted no sources, but I find this statement hard to accept (though it may all depend on how "ecological interaction" is defined), and it does not seem to be directly sourced.

There must be innumerable examples of:

species A is dependent on species B, but species A has virtually no effect on species B (e.g. an small organism living in the shade of a tree, but with little impact on the ecosystem the tree "sees")
species A is dependent on species B, but species A is harmful to species B (e.g. a predator-prey relationship, or the small organism living in the shade of the tree happens to, on the balance, have more negative than positive impact)
as 1. or 2., but species A merely derives advantage from B without being wholly dependent

To undermine my own point slightly, if species A feeds on B which feeds on C, relations A-B and B-C may follow pattern 2., but the relation A-C may be (indirectly) mutualistic as, perhaps a little naively, more C's => more B's => more A's, and more A's => fewer B's => more C's.

It may be a lot more interesting to study relationships that are wholly or partially mutualistic, because relationships that are not mutualistic may be rather trivial, but do the mutualistic ones really outnumber the trivially non-mutualistic ones?--Nø (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now I've shortened it down to

"Mutualism is a common type of ecological interaction."

--Nø (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

consacration What word was intended?

The final paragraph of the first section contains “ consacration”. What word was intended, do you think? Wprlh (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! The text is unintelligible, so I have removed it for now - i.e., the following source text has been cut-and-pasted from the end of the lead:

Despite the importance of mutualism in both evolution and ecology, some authors have argued that mutualism has been less studied than other interspecific interactions such as predation or parasitism, with the main argument being a smaller consecration of ecology and biology textbooks towards mutualism.^[1] Other authors have argued that this is not the case when considering the primary research literature.^[2]

I think it would be nice to put it back, but it has to be made intelligible first!--Nø (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Keddy, Paul A. (1989). Competition. Springer. ISBN 978-0-412-31360-8.
^ Bronstein, Judith L. (March 1994). "Our current understanding of mutualism". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 69 (1): 31–51. doi:10.1086/418432. JSTOR 3036036. S2CID 85294431.

Consistency of notation

To avoid the risk of confusing the reader, we should use consistent notation throughout the article, e.g. either M and N, or N₁ and N₂, but not a mixture.--- Ehrenkater (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear and contradictory categorization of types of mutualism

I think the distinction between "service" and "resource" interactions should be exchanged for an explanation of various major types of mutualism, such as cleaning symbiosis, zoochory, etc, because sometimes, it is unclear whether something counts as a "service" or a "resource." For example, if a plant provides nesting sites for a species of ants that in return cultivate and defend the plant, is this a "service" or a "resource"? Also, multiple of the examples offered are not strictly a single type, but include different aspects. PerytonMango (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Protocooperation seems to be a synonym, so I suggest a merge for overlap. This proposal arose from an earlier discussion at Talk:Protocooperation# Klbrain (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the section Protocooperation#Mutualism, protocooperation is a form of mutualism, so they are not synonyms. It could still be a good way of organizing things to merge, or to move most content to one of the two articles, while the other is quite brief - I don't know. But not synonyms, apparently! Nø (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Protocooperation and Mutualism are not synonymous. The distinction made in Protocooperation#Mutualism is that "the cooperating species do not depend on each other for survival", which is more commonly considered a non-obligate or facultative mutualism. The single citation on the Protocooperation page suggests that the use of the term fell off after the late 1970s, with more recent scholarship instead using a broad definition of mutualism that includes both obligate and facultative interactions. In general, the examples listed in Protocooperation#Examples are now considered to be under the broad umbrella of "mutualisms".

Given that, I agree that Protocooperation should be merged so searches for the page redirect to Mutualism (biology). My suggestion for addressing protocooperation within the context of the Mutualism (biology) page is to expand the discussion of obligate vs facultative mutualisms in general, and within that mention that non-obligate mutualisms were sometimes historically categorized as protocooperation, with an appropriate citation to Odum (1953) that is mentioned in the Bronstein 2015 citation on the Protocooperation page. Srosefuqua (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Keddy, Paul A. (1989). Competition. Springer. ISBN 978-0-412-31360-8.

[2] Bronstein, Judith L. (March 1994). "Our current understanding of mutualism". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 69 (1): 31–51. doi:10.1086/418432. JSTOR 3036036. S2CID 85294431.

[1]

[2]