Talk:Biological interaction

Ecology Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Biology High‑importance

	Biology portal Biological interaction is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Is there a term for when two organisms interact and both are harmed? Or does that not exsist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.58.67 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE

This article should be merged imo with Symbiosis.

The redirect from Amensalism could as well be to Symbiosis, as symbiosis is defined there (with references) as:

After 130 years of debate, current biology and ecology textbooks now use the latter 
"de Bary" definition or an even broader definition (i.e. symbiosis = all species 
interactions), with the restrictive definition no longer used (i.e. symbiosis = 
mutualism).

The breadcrumb of my interest was: Symbiosis > Commensalism > Amensalism > here. As the section here is actually very similar to the one there I simply copied it across and redirected the link on Commensalism to the section there.

Seems a matter of opinion which of the two whould merege with which but my edit at least saves readers being messed about during any debate, or at least on this particular aspect of it.

LookingGlass (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LookingGlass - I think you are right that there is a very large overlap here, aggravated by confusion in the article about the meaning of symbiosis (with a hopelessly garbled subsection). There's actually a third article, Ecological relationship, covering the same territory also: it argues that predation and competition are "oppositional", while mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism are "symbiotic". (So when parasitism grades into predation, is that symbiotic or oppositional, hmm?). It's definitely a mess, and we definitely have too many articles, but which? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ecological relationship is not very well written. It is so simplified it could almost exist in the Simple English Wikipedia. I agree with the merge of biological interactions with symbiosis and the redirect of amensalism. There do not need to be so many articles covering largely overlapping areas. It lowers readership, confuses readers, and creates a slew of links that are hard to categorize. Less is more in this case. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 22:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've redirected Amensalism to Symbiosis#Amensalism, that was easy.

I'll merge Biological interaction to Symbiosis now, it's been waiting 3 years already.

Azcolvin429: What do we do with ecological relationship - do you fancy rewriting it? And by the way I'm not sure that Biological interaction shouldn't better redirect there, as brief one-off interactions like predation are not part of Symbiosis. We're not sorted yet, anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap Did you mean to redirect or merge page as now the redirected page is two sentences long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iztwoz (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious about this thread. Is it really true all biological interactions are symbiotic? Biological interactions can be between species, within species, and between biological and non-biological systems. Within species, fishes shoal and birds flock, and this is clearly a way of interacting. But I can't find references on Google Scholar to "symbiotic fish shoals" or "symbiotic bird flocks". Then there are sexual interactions within species, kin selections, territorial aggressions, nurturing of the young... Surely these are all biological interactions. Are they normally thought of as symbiotic? Microorganisms could hardly interact more closely when they form biofilms. Apparently these can under rare circumstances be symbiotic, a matter which is mentioned in just 186 papers, compared to 1,200,000 papers that make no such mentions. It is true that 5 papers from Google Scholar mention "symbiotic quorum sensing" for reasons that are not clear to me. But then the other 258,000 papers make no such mentions.

Interactions with non-biological systems are ubiquitous, happening everywhere on a huge scale. If the article is not going to include these, then it should be called "Biological interactions (ecology)", since it would not be a general article about biological interactions. The larger part of biogeochemical cycles is about biological systems interacting with chemical and geological systems. Marine microorganisms are whipped high into atmosphere by winds, travelling the world in jet streams as aeroplankton, eventually setting down at some random point on the earth's surface. That is a definite interaction between microorganisms and the atmosphere, and is therefore a "biological interaction". The oceans are currently acidifying which is globally redistributing the phytoplankton. The list goes on and on... — Epipelagic (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored?

Why was this article restored? I thought the consensus was to merge with symbiosis? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 18:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Interaction bird-giraffe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "synnecrosis" redirect here?

Not mentioned or explained in article. Equinox ◑ 04:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]