![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is about the group of krill, important animals of the
plankton. It covers the different species in all areas of the world, their taxonomy, geographical distribution, morphology, behaviour, life cycle, ecology and economy. I started the article in May 2003 and many contributed since, especially
user:Lupo did a great job.
Uwe Kils
23:49, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Of the four listed possibilities for the word "krill", aren't the first three all the same? Antarctic krill is clearly just a type of krill, and that's what (baleen) whales eat. The only ambiguity seems to be between krill (the animal) and Krill (the fictional character). It strikes me that when someone uses the word "krill", they almost always mean the crustacean, and almost never the character (a google search gives the first non-crustacean entry on the second page, and that's an Australian band). Let's have the current Euphausiid article at krill, with a sentence at the end saying "Krill is also a character in ElfQuest..." Any objections?-- Stemonitis 08:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help, Uwe. I see you changed "These filters need to be very fine indeed, for krill feed primarily on phytoplankton, in particular on diatoms, which are unicellular algae" to "These filters can be very fine indeed, for Antarctic krill feeds..." and later on (in Ecology) you state that Northern krill feeds on larger zooplankton (and hence doesn't need such a fine filter).
Is this truly specific to Euphausia superba, or does the very fine filter apply to all species of the genus Euphausia? See e.g. (Weier 2005), p. 3, where they state that (in the sidebar) for E. pacifica. If so, I'd suggest "These filters can be very fine indeed in those species (such as Euphausia spp.) that feed primarily on phytoplankton, in particular on diatoms, which are unicellular algae)." What do you think?
Just want to say that the work that has been done on the Krill and Antarctic Krill articles has been brilliant. These articles have come on enormously. I never Knew Krill existed until about a week ago and now i feel a hint of dare i say affection for the little critters (probably going a bit too far). Anyway well done to all who have contributed especially Kils and Lupo. Big up the Krill massive! Yakuzai 23:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How do krill taste? Like shrimp? I'm really curious! -- Salleman 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my issues so quickly. Because I feel like I've already taken up too much space on FAC, I thought I'd write here instead. There are two remaining issues:
Dave (talk) 16:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense. If I can find a free picture of some other krill, I may add it. But You're probably right about reusing pictures. Thanks for the tip on the footnotes. Dave (talk) 17:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I thought this bit from the FAC discussion would be better here now, since the article has been promoted. And by the way, congrats on that and another great article.
Can someone explain why krill are considered a keystone species. They are clearly the most important species in the ecosystem, but that is not realy what makes a keystone. That is more a foundation species. A species is usually considered a keystone if its impact on the ecosystem is disproportionate to its abundance. Given that krill are possibly the most successful species on earth, it's hard to imagine their impact being disproportionately large relative to their biomass. Jmeppley 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point about not being a primary producer, so foundation species is not appropriate here. However on a different technicality, krill are not a species, they are an order, so I don't see how they can be a keystone species.
although beyond technicalities, this artcile says
They are considered a keystone species near the bottom of the food chain because they feed on phytoplankton and zooplankton, converting these into a form suitable for many larger animals for whom krill makes up the largest part of their diet.
To me this explains why they are important to the ecosystem, but I don't see how it satisfies the idea of dissporportionate importance and impact.
I did a brief literature search last night and found many articles refer to krill as keystone species without any reference and then move one. The ones that do offer support talk only about the Antarctic Ecosystem. Even then the idea seems to be that they convert all the plankton into a form that larger predators can use. While this is critical, because of their enormous abundance, it is not disproportionate. In a follow up on a 1994 meeting on keystone species, Robert Paine, who originated the concept in 1969, says:
The concept's potential significance to conser- vation biologists is that it designates species that exert influences on the associated assemblage, often including numerous indirect effects, out of proportion to the key- stone's abundance or biomass.
Jmeppley 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it true that the euphausidae family has the largest biomass than any other multi-cellular animal family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 ( talk) 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to have heard something about the way the decline (and recovery?) of whale populations over the last 200 years has affected the krill resources. Lots of missing whales must have some significant impact. nicransby 01:42, 05 March 2007 (UTC)
Back in July, one Willy turner made a few edits to the krill page citing The Book of General Ignorance as a source. The edits are all plausible, but sound more like an attempt to be funny to me. His talk page is littered with notices of pages he created getting deleted and a few questions about the veracity of his changes, but no outright claims of vandalism. I'm backing the changes out for now, because I don't think The Book of General Ignorance is a legitimate source for an encyclopedia article. If someone can confirm any of his changes, please put them back in with a good source. Jmeppley 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Will someone please deal with this edit; I'm struggling to keep up with this editor. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the phytanic acid levels in krill or oils derived from krill could be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpharlan ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a few sentences about krill oil as a dietary supplement. In my opinion the two clinical trials have flaws, so I did not describe any of the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do the references link to pages on Wikipedia, and this article is littered with red links also. Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a few sites quoting this: "number of krill: 500 million tons / ~1.5 g each * 907.18X10^3 g / ton = 302.393 trillion" - yet it seems to be a measure for only one species (of 85) of krill. Is that correct? If so, is there an estimate for the total number of krill in the world, across all species?
At Wikipedia:Featured article review/Krill/archive1, people asked questions about the phylogeny of krill.
I can't do anything about that, not knowing anything about it and not having access to the relevant literature. It appears that User:Squidonius might have the knowledge needed—at least it appears from his edits at Malacostraca that he does have access to the literature needed. Some other info is at [4]. On Nyctiphanes, there is [5], and on E. recurva, E. vallentini, and E. lucens, there is [6] which may (or may not; I'm really out of my waters here) have relevant info.
Krill do not have a fossil record. See Jarman 2001 (it's the abstract of one of the articles I don't have access to). At everything2 somebody claims that "only one krill fossil has ever been found. It was eaten by a fish and fossilized within it." I have no idea what the source for that claim might be. Lupo 11:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Squidonius ( talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"Krill occur worldwide in all oceans; most species have cosmopolitan distributions, although several species have endemic or neritic restricted distributions."
Are there examples of species with endemic distribution and/or species with neritic distributions? And references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.110.182 ( talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the following recent addition:
Reason: from mr:झिंगा, it seems to me that this is about shrimp or prawns, not about Krill. [7], [8], and [9] confirm this suspicion. The last link states "Jawala" was the local name for Acetes indicus (see also Acetes). Lupo 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Where is Euphausia on this diagram? Is "Eudoeuphasia" a typo and should be "Euphausia"? Lupo 10:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The last line of the header is a broken sentence as it mentions two countries but give the name for one, it would be better if it were...
In Japan and Russia, krill is also used for human consumption, in the former it is known as okiami (オキアミ)[1] while in the latter it is know as kril (криль) [viz. google translate].
Additionally, note No.1 may be written incorrectly, I thought that scientific names (the Graeco-Latin names) are language-independent. My Japanese is only beginner-level, so I was amused by the name being in katakana, the foreign word alphabet, yet it does not sound anything like krill, checking on the
Japanese page, reveals it is from the kanji 沖醤蝦 (so there is an extra piece of info!). The second name moku does not seem written correctly, as
目 (chinese has 1 syllable =1 character, not Japanese) means moku = order.
I think this sentence is what should be on here: "殻ごと干した干しエビ、調味用の魚醤 (蝦醤、トラシなど)や塩辛の原料としても知られる", which I think it says "It is also (も) known (知られる) as a material (原料) of dried shrimp (殻ごと干し)or dried shrimp shell (た + 干しエビ), fish sauce (
魚醤) to for seasoning (調味 + 用 + の) (shrimp sauce (蝦醤), shrimp paste (
トラシ), etc (ど)) and (や) salted fish (
塩辛, <-this has a picture of a whitebate-like dish). Can anyone improve on this? --
Squidonius (
talk) 08:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I was having a discussion with my friend, and we decided that we were not sure whether or not krills can feel cold. Do krills feel cold?
Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.208.114 ( talk) 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
In section on human consumption it states that exo skelton are high in flourides. As bottom of food chain that could affect fish that eat krill. Does this mean that these fish are then high in flourides and unsuitable for mass consumption and if not why not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 ( talk) 11:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
According to The official Norwegian dictionary, krill is derived from the icelandic word krili, meaning Little thing. Should I just change this, or will someone have a word first? Rkarlsba ( talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is about the group of krill, important animals of the
plankton. It covers the different species in all areas of the world, their taxonomy, geographical distribution, morphology, behaviour, life cycle, ecology and economy. I started the article in May 2003 and many contributed since, especially
user:Lupo did a great job.
Uwe Kils
23:49, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Of the four listed possibilities for the word "krill", aren't the first three all the same? Antarctic krill is clearly just a type of krill, and that's what (baleen) whales eat. The only ambiguity seems to be between krill (the animal) and Krill (the fictional character). It strikes me that when someone uses the word "krill", they almost always mean the crustacean, and almost never the character (a google search gives the first non-crustacean entry on the second page, and that's an Australian band). Let's have the current Euphausiid article at krill, with a sentence at the end saying "Krill is also a character in ElfQuest..." Any objections?-- Stemonitis 08:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help, Uwe. I see you changed "These filters need to be very fine indeed, for krill feed primarily on phytoplankton, in particular on diatoms, which are unicellular algae" to "These filters can be very fine indeed, for Antarctic krill feeds..." and later on (in Ecology) you state that Northern krill feeds on larger zooplankton (and hence doesn't need such a fine filter).
Is this truly specific to Euphausia superba, or does the very fine filter apply to all species of the genus Euphausia? See e.g. (Weier 2005), p. 3, where they state that (in the sidebar) for E. pacifica. If so, I'd suggest "These filters can be very fine indeed in those species (such as Euphausia spp.) that feed primarily on phytoplankton, in particular on diatoms, which are unicellular algae)." What do you think?
Just want to say that the work that has been done on the Krill and Antarctic Krill articles has been brilliant. These articles have come on enormously. I never Knew Krill existed until about a week ago and now i feel a hint of dare i say affection for the little critters (probably going a bit too far). Anyway well done to all who have contributed especially Kils and Lupo. Big up the Krill massive! Yakuzai 23:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How do krill taste? Like shrimp? I'm really curious! -- Salleman 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my issues so quickly. Because I feel like I've already taken up too much space on FAC, I thought I'd write here instead. There are two remaining issues:
Dave (talk) 16:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense. If I can find a free picture of some other krill, I may add it. But You're probably right about reusing pictures. Thanks for the tip on the footnotes. Dave (talk) 17:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I thought this bit from the FAC discussion would be better here now, since the article has been promoted. And by the way, congrats on that and another great article.
Can someone explain why krill are considered a keystone species. They are clearly the most important species in the ecosystem, but that is not realy what makes a keystone. That is more a foundation species. A species is usually considered a keystone if its impact on the ecosystem is disproportionate to its abundance. Given that krill are possibly the most successful species on earth, it's hard to imagine their impact being disproportionately large relative to their biomass. Jmeppley 08:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point about not being a primary producer, so foundation species is not appropriate here. However on a different technicality, krill are not a species, they are an order, so I don't see how they can be a keystone species.
although beyond technicalities, this artcile says
They are considered a keystone species near the bottom of the food chain because they feed on phytoplankton and zooplankton, converting these into a form suitable for many larger animals for whom krill makes up the largest part of their diet.
To me this explains why they are important to the ecosystem, but I don't see how it satisfies the idea of dissporportionate importance and impact.
I did a brief literature search last night and found many articles refer to krill as keystone species without any reference and then move one. The ones that do offer support talk only about the Antarctic Ecosystem. Even then the idea seems to be that they convert all the plankton into a form that larger predators can use. While this is critical, because of their enormous abundance, it is not disproportionate. In a follow up on a 1994 meeting on keystone species, Robert Paine, who originated the concept in 1969, says:
The concept's potential significance to conser- vation biologists is that it designates species that exert influences on the associated assemblage, often including numerous indirect effects, out of proportion to the key- stone's abundance or biomass.
Jmeppley 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it true that the euphausidae family has the largest biomass than any other multi-cellular animal family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 ( talk) 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to have heard something about the way the decline (and recovery?) of whale populations over the last 200 years has affected the krill resources. Lots of missing whales must have some significant impact. nicransby 01:42, 05 March 2007 (UTC)
Back in July, one Willy turner made a few edits to the krill page citing The Book of General Ignorance as a source. The edits are all plausible, but sound more like an attempt to be funny to me. His talk page is littered with notices of pages he created getting deleted and a few questions about the veracity of his changes, but no outright claims of vandalism. I'm backing the changes out for now, because I don't think The Book of General Ignorance is a legitimate source for an encyclopedia article. If someone can confirm any of his changes, please put them back in with a good source. Jmeppley 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Will someone please deal with this edit; I'm struggling to keep up with this editor. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the phytanic acid levels in krill or oils derived from krill could be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpharlan ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a few sentences about krill oil as a dietary supplement. In my opinion the two clinical trials have flaws, so I did not describe any of the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do the references link to pages on Wikipedia, and this article is littered with red links also. Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a few sites quoting this: "number of krill: 500 million tons / ~1.5 g each * 907.18X10^3 g / ton = 302.393 trillion" - yet it seems to be a measure for only one species (of 85) of krill. Is that correct? If so, is there an estimate for the total number of krill in the world, across all species?
At Wikipedia:Featured article review/Krill/archive1, people asked questions about the phylogeny of krill.
I can't do anything about that, not knowing anything about it and not having access to the relevant literature. It appears that User:Squidonius might have the knowledge needed—at least it appears from his edits at Malacostraca that he does have access to the literature needed. Some other info is at [4]. On Nyctiphanes, there is [5], and on E. recurva, E. vallentini, and E. lucens, there is [6] which may (or may not; I'm really out of my waters here) have relevant info.
Krill do not have a fossil record. See Jarman 2001 (it's the abstract of one of the articles I don't have access to). At everything2 somebody claims that "only one krill fossil has ever been found. It was eaten by a fish and fossilized within it." I have no idea what the source for that claim might be. Lupo 11:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
-- Squidonius ( talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"Krill occur worldwide in all oceans; most species have cosmopolitan distributions, although several species have endemic or neritic restricted distributions."
Are there examples of species with endemic distribution and/or species with neritic distributions? And references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.110.182 ( talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the following recent addition:
Reason: from mr:झिंगा, it seems to me that this is about shrimp or prawns, not about Krill. [7], [8], and [9] confirm this suspicion. The last link states "Jawala" was the local name for Acetes indicus (see also Acetes). Lupo 20:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Where is Euphausia on this diagram? Is "Eudoeuphasia" a typo and should be "Euphausia"? Lupo 10:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The last line of the header is a broken sentence as it mentions two countries but give the name for one, it would be better if it were...
In Japan and Russia, krill is also used for human consumption, in the former it is known as okiami (オキアミ)[1] while in the latter it is know as kril (криль) [viz. google translate].
Additionally, note No.1 may be written incorrectly, I thought that scientific names (the Graeco-Latin names) are language-independent. My Japanese is only beginner-level, so I was amused by the name being in katakana, the foreign word alphabet, yet it does not sound anything like krill, checking on the
Japanese page, reveals it is from the kanji 沖醤蝦 (so there is an extra piece of info!). The second name moku does not seem written correctly, as
目 (chinese has 1 syllable =1 character, not Japanese) means moku = order.
I think this sentence is what should be on here: "殻ごと干した干しエビ、調味用の魚醤 (蝦醤、トラシなど)や塩辛の原料としても知られる", which I think it says "It is also (も) known (知られる) as a material (原料) of dried shrimp (殻ごと干し)or dried shrimp shell (た + 干しエビ), fish sauce (
魚醤) to for seasoning (調味 + 用 + の) (shrimp sauce (蝦醤), shrimp paste (
トラシ), etc (ど)) and (や) salted fish (
塩辛, <-this has a picture of a whitebate-like dish). Can anyone improve on this? --
Squidonius (
talk) 08:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I was having a discussion with my friend, and we decided that we were not sure whether or not krills can feel cold. Do krills feel cold?
Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.208.114 ( talk) 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
In section on human consumption it states that exo skelton are high in flourides. As bottom of food chain that could affect fish that eat krill. Does this mean that these fish are then high in flourides and unsuitable for mass consumption and if not why not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 ( talk) 11:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
According to The official Norwegian dictionary, krill is derived from the icelandic word krili, meaning Little thing. Should I just change this, or will someone have a word first? Rkarlsba ( talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)