Talk:Herbivore

Are you a native speaker of the english language?

I find it hilarious that someone who considers themself wise enough to write encyclopedia articles, would write things like "sheeps" and "mooses". You should see the article of "fishes" and "elks", and not to mention "deers"--ChadThomson 08:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC) you're one to talk chad because if you look at the heading you wouldnt bein talkin like that now would you. "Is you native speaker of english language?" Now that is funny!

A true herbivore?

A true herbivore, such as a cow, is unable to chew or digest meat.

Err, that's funny. Then how do they digest meat and bone meal, which is still routinely fed to cattle in the USA, in spite of the BSE scandals in Europe? Maybe cows aren't such true scotsmen after all. Aragorn2 20:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corrected. JohnSankey 14:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am skeptical of biologists' traditional classifications of particular animal species as either "herbivore" or "carnivore," because I have personally witnessed so many cases of a supposed herbivore consuming the flesh of another animal (e.g., cute little blue butterflies swarming on a decaying elk carcass beside a railway through an Oregon forest) or a supposed carnivore consuming plant material (e.g., my pet Springer Spaniel pulling bunches of grapes off a grape vine and devouring them with relish, or simply grazing on the grass in my backyard). I think it is probably more accurate to state that most individuals of a particular species tend to derive most of their dietary intake from particular food sources, but many or most individuals of most species will consume any kind of food source that they can get their lips, teeth, hands, paws, or other body part on if circumstances permit. It is difficult to imagine how various species with dietary traits that we label "herbivorous" or "carnivorous" could have evolved in the first place without presupposing that their ancestors had been generally omnivorous, or at least contained some omnivorous individuals. Ebizur 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I merged List of herbivorous animals w this page, as the content was nearly identical, and of little length. Sam Spade 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should humans really be listed under herbivores? While one might argue the origins of the human diet, etc. it's fairly self-evident that modern Homo sapiens sapiens is an omnivorous animal regardless of the dietary habits of specific individuals or even entire cultures. There are currently no healthy, living, human beings who can not metabolize animal flesh. And for the record I am a very strict vegetarian. Human vegetarianism is a sociological trait not a dietary trait. Gabe 05:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vegtarians are not herbivores

Should humans really be listed under herbivores? While one might argue the origins of the human diet, etc. it's fairly self-evident that modern Homo sapiens sapiens is an omnivorous animal regardless of the dietary habits of specific individuals or even entire cultures. There are currently no healthy, living, human beings who can not metabolize animal flesh. And for the record I am a very strict vegetarian. Human vegetarianism is a sociological trait not a dietary trait. Gabe 05:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I left in a paragraph about humans as herbivores, but considered deleting it. I left it in because it makes a biological case, rather than being "vegetarian propaganda", but it lacks a citation and in my view is wrong. Humans, chimps, and bonobos all eat meat. Thus, outgroup comparison would lead to the conclusion that meat as an ordinary part of diet is ancestral in the human/chimp/bonobo clade. Certainly many human populations have taken meat-eating to heights not seen among the other ape species, and this may very well be reflected in our biology, but I don't regard humans as biological herbivores.--Curtis Clark 14:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph about humans being herbivores should be deleted because it has no citations and contradicts the main article about humans which contains sources to back up the position that humans are omnivores. 130.246.132.26 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Beware that we are not truly omnivores. Omnivore animals eat raw flesh, but, do we? And when I mean raw is raw, as there is flesh that can't be taken without being cooked but it has gone through other processes such as spice use and so on (Toni XTC, 15/01/2008)

Erhm... we are true omnivores. Being an omnivore has nothing to do with the food being prepared or not. A cocked plant is still a plant. The same applies to meat. Furthermore, we could easily eat raw meat, and many dishes do include raw meat, but the choice of preparing the food (be that meat or plants) is as much related to culture, our wish for a different tastes, and alike, as anything else, although there can be no doubts that it also is a way of minimizing the risk of getting food trasmitted diseases. That still doesn't change the fact that we're omnivores, even if people can choose to avoid certain types of food. Rabo3 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Plurals

The completely plural list is rather disgusting, but I don't see how we could fix that without placing "the" in front of all the animals names. If someone can fix it logically, do so. Seems very elementary the way it is. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Consistency error

"An herbivore" or "a herbivore"? Both are used here.

81.129.125.249 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have looked this up and I believe "a herbivore" is more correct. The example given by Merriam-Webster is "a herbivorous animal". That should settle it. AstarothCY (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes by User:69.181.116.226

User:69.181.116.226 stated, "I have corrected substantial errors to the definition of herbivore as it relates to a completely fallacious 'food chain' concept." I've reverted, because (1) human acculturation to eating meat is not supported by outgroup comparison (chimps eat meat as well), and "primary consumers" is a valid ecological term which ought not to be omitted.--Curtis Clark 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have re-inserted corrections that were done to overcome cultural biases. Naming herbivores as primary consumers is nonsense. Most herbivores in nature do not have the role of providing meat for carnivores. This is a cultural myth and does require correction.

I wrote the following in response to an email from Cheryl:

The evidence for hominid omnivory is abundant. It is well documented that some chimps eat meat. Although it seems to be in part cultural, I think it is a leap to call the chimps biased. Processed animal bones are a common part of Homo erectus, Homo neandertalensis, and Homo sapiens middens, and I seem to remember that they exist for Homo habilis as well. Among modern humans, the meat-rich diets of pre-European contact Inuit and Yupik are well-attested, and their conversion to "western" diets has caused health problems. I think discounting their aboriginal diet is truly a "cultural bias".

None of this is to say that modern "western" meat-rich diets are especially healthy (although the large amounts of refined carbohydrates are at least an equal problem). And certainly modern meat-raising has a harmful ecological footprint (although I would contend that the American short-grass prairie is better used to raise bison than monoculture corn and soybean). But it's actually an insult to the vegetarian movement (IMO) to have to make up "scientific facts" to support it, as if its health benefits weren't enough.

(http://goveg.org/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp, cited in her email) All this proves is that humans are not dogs or cats. We are clearly also not cows or horses, and in some important ways we are not gorillas, who have far better adaptation for an all-plant diet than we do.

And as for the food chain, yes, it’s a lot more complicated than that, but "primary consumer" is a valid ecological term, and your replacement was basically meaning-free.

--Curtis Clark 06:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Humans are not chimps but they are herbivores both anatomically and physiologically and though by Judeo-Christian tradition they are singualrly outside ecological classification, this is not supported by scientific inquiry. Please refer to one of the discussions on this issue: http://goveg.org/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp. Cheryl Maietta http://www.allinharmony.com

This is not a religious issue, it is a scientific one, so I don't understand why you cite "Judeo-Christian tradition"--Curtis Clark 06:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dangers and other issues

Nice bit on the misconception about all herbivores being gentle. A more obvious example would be the hippopotimous (Spelling) that is generally considered to be the most dangerous animal (after humans) in Africa if not in the world. Oh and humans are omnivores, they are physiologically adpated to an omnivorous diet. That is the definition. Physiological adaptation, digestive system and dentition. I may pop by to insert some sources and bulk out once I've done the omnivore article next week. AlanD 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Idea for discussion

I've an idea... Howsabout we roll herbivore, ominvore, carnivore and insectivore into one article with redirects from those terms? One article, animal feeding. Might be better than trying to pad out these terms seperately. If the sections fill out properly then they can be split off at a later date. This will also allow comparisons to be drawn between different feeding groups.AlanD 11:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss:

The problem calling it 'animal feeding' is that, for example, some plants are carnivorous. The existing article predation should cover the whole subject reasonably well though. This subject itself is more than large enough to warrant not only its own article, but the sub-articles that already exist. What I find concerning is that they are much larger than this one, which is barely more than a stub. They need to be summarized here, and this article further expanded upon. To shift the focus from the herbivores somewhat I would suggest renaming the article herbivory, much as predation is named so instead of predator, which is more one-sided. Herbivore could then redirect here. Richard001 09:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heck, it doesn't seem at all controversial, I'm just going to move it.

Nevermind, can't move over a redirect. I'll wait for some feedback then we can get some assistance if needed. Richard001 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page. LMK if there's any controversy, but seems good to me. --DanielCD 13:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Suggest we merge folivore here. Little content and herbivory and folivory are often taken to mean the same thing. Richard001 10:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't you merge nectarivore instead? Kappa 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't considered that case, though nectivory and frugivory are often considered separately. Feel free to present the case if you like. What do you think about folivore? Richard001 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if you merge folivore you should merge frugivore, nectarivore, granivore, palynivore and xylophagy. Kappa 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think frugivore should be merged but there others are possibilities. You still haven't said if you are in favour of merging though. Richard001 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think summary style would be better for all of them. In-depth discussion of what animals eat what and why doesn't belong on a high-level page like this. Kappa 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The page here isn't exactly too much reading at the moment though, and there's little point using summary style if the main article will be no bigger than the summary. Richard001 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any of these merges. Each is a separate and large topic, even though they can be subarticles of herbivore. Hadrianheugh (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. The activities of birds are a bit different than other Herbivors. David Straub (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any of these merges. They may be subtopics, but they are large enough ones to be worthy of their own entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.197 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as per Kappa. If Folivore is merged, so should all the others Kappa mentioned, and this article would become way too long. I wouldn't be averse to summaries, though, or even just a list of subtopics. Since there seems to be no consensus for merging Folivore, I've removed the tag. -kotra (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Browser

I was directed to this page from Mastodon. It says that the difference between Mastodons and Woolly Mammoths is that one is a grazer and the other is a browser. But then there's no distinction on this page. And then the link at the point just points to the Browser disambiguation page. I would love to add something, but I really can only guess what the differences are. I would think that cattle are grazers and giraffes are browsers? Please, someone help a poor guy understand the difference between 2 very similar and very extinct species. marnues (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Standardization

The title of this article is "herbivory", while other articles are styled such as "omnivore" and "carnivore". Is there a particular reason that they are not standardized to have the same suffix? --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Updating Herbivory Wikipedia Entry

This posting is to let the Wiki-community know that a project team of Ecologists at the University of Florida has taken the task of editing the Wikipedia Herbivory entry. This new entry will be posted by the end of December 2008. KLCallis (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed outline for new herbivory page

Below is an outline that the UF project team proposes for the new Herbivory page on wikipedia. Please feel free to comment on the outline. Several subtopics on the outline will be ready in a couple weeks for posting. Additional editing from the wiki-community is needed in areas where the project team does not have expertise. These will be addressed when the new page is loaded.

Herbivores – What are they

• →Termed primary consumers in the food chain
• →Organisms adapted to subsist solely on plant materials

Evolution of Herbivores:

→• Early fossil record of arthropod herbivory occurred in two stages.
→→o 1st stage during late Silurian to Early Devionian (approx. 417 – 403 MYA)
→• Earliest evidence of consumption of sporangia and stems
→• Next 75 MY (Labandeira, 2007)
→• Evolution of tetrapod herbivores: (Reisz, 2006)
→→o Dental occlusion
→→o Increase in food processing
→→o Phylogenetic framework

Predator-prey Theory (herbivore-plant interactions)

→o Cyclic
→o Stabilizing Predator-Prey dynamics
→→• Spatial heterogeneity
→→→• specialist herbivores.
→→• Prey defenses: See section on Plant defenses
→→→• Second prey type
→→• generalist herbivores
→→• Keystone herbivores
→• Optimal Defense theory: plant defense systems and how herbivores overcome those defenses (McKey, 1974)
→→o Risk of attack
→→o Value of plant part
→→o Metabolic cost of defense

Feeding strategies

→o Limitations
→→• Time limited (grazers and browsers) vs resource limited (Selective feeders)
→o Kleiber’s law
→→• Formula
→→• Explanation
→→• Examples
→o Types of feeding strategies:
→→• Table of examples
→• Foraging tactics (Gray, 1987)
→→o Search for appropriate habitat
→→o Active search for food items
→→o Hoarding
→→o Consumption
→• Optimal Foraging Theory
→→o What it is: Model for predicting animal behavior while looking for food or other niche
→→o Individual movement and distribution
→→o Controversy
→→→• Examples that fit the theory, not a theory that fits the reality
→→→• Circular and untestable (Pierce and Ollason, 1987 and Stearns and Schmid-Hempel, 1987)
→→→• Animals do not have the ability to assess and maximize their potential gains (Lewis, 1986 and Janetos and Cole, 1981)
→o Holling’s disk equation (Stephens and Krebs, 1986)
→→• Rate of return for an optimal diet model
→→→• Formula
→→→• Explanation
→→→• Examples
→o Marginal Value Theorem (Charnov, 1976)
→→• Balance between immediate reward and future reward
→→• Giving Up Density (GUD) (Brown et al, 1997)
→→• Giving Up Time (GUT) (Breed et al, 1996)

Attacks and Counter-Attacks

→• Plant Defense
→→o What is plant defense? Why defend?
→→o Tolerance vs Resistance
→→o Physical (Mechanical) vs Chemical
→→→• Physical examples
→→→• Thorns, spines, trichomes, etc.
→→→• Silica
→→→• Trichomes
→→→• Waxes, resins
→→→• Chemical examples
→→→• Terpenes
→→→• Phenolics
→→→• Alkaloids
→→→• Cyanogens
→→→• Semiochemicals
→→• Constitutive vs induced defenses (Edwards and Wratten 1985)
→→→• Give examples and pictures of each
→• Herbivore Offense
→→o Purpose of offense
→→o Strategies for offense
→→o Feeding choice- variety vs specialization (Dearing et al. 2000)
→→o Dealing with chemicals
→→→• Detoxify (Karban and Agrawal 2002)
→→→• Sequester (Nishida 2002, Karban and Agrawal 2002)
→→→• Avoid (ex. production of lots of saliva)
→→o Use of Symbionts (ex. aphids, Douglas 1998)
→→o Host manipulation (ex. leaf rolling, Sagers 1992)
→• The Adaptation Dance
→o Intro to coevolution
→→• Definition of coevolution
→o Plant defense and herbivore offense as drivers
→o Coevolutionary arms race (Mead et al. 1985)
→o Beneficial herbivory (mutualism; Herrera 1985)
→→• Ex. seed dispersal by vertebrates, pollination
→o Limits to coevolutionary change

Herbivore Impacts:

→• Economic Impacts
→→o Recreational – hunting and ecotourism – hunting generates billions of dollars annually in the US alone - ecotourism is important source of income globally
→→o Agricultural Crop Damage – white-tailed deer alone in the US damage approximately $100 million in agricultural crops every year - Insect crop damage
→→o Environmental Destruction – White-tailed deer alone damage approximately $750 million of forest regeneration projects – Herbivores, through over-browsing and high populations, can change the vegetative community of a region and thus impact the carrying capacity of that habitat for both themselves and other species.
→→o Human – White-tailed deer alone cause over $1 billion in damage repairs from deer-vehicle collisions every year – treatment for 29,000 injuries annually
KLCallis (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On the whole this structure looks amazing, and I look forward to seeing the article take its new form! The last section is the only one I'd take issue with; it seems strange to focus on an animal which just so happens to be a herbivore, rather than the effects of herbivory - for example, locust swarms would seem a much better example of human impact than deer-vehicle collisions when vehicles can also collide with carnivores. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. We used deer just as one example since they do have a significant impact and were something we knew about. We would welcome additions with other examples but thought this would be a starting point. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kifaro50 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Edits by UF ecology group

While a couple of references remain to be entered into the Herbivory page, the major edits by the ecology group at UF are complete. Please feel free to add and contribute to the content we started on this page. We have included information for our area of expertise, however we would encourage people with other areas of expertise to continue expanding this page. Thank you.--KLCallis (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Herbivore. Simple as that, right?

I found it interesting that the base description of Herbivore, the first main section, suggested that herbivores consume plants to "transform the sun's energy stored in the plants to food that can be consumable by carnivores and omnivores up the food chain." Edited this bit simply because photosynthesis is what "transforms the sun's energy stored in plants to food", only it makes food for the plants, which gets the whole cycle rolling. I could be wrong, though... JourneyV (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)