|WikiProject Arthropods||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
"some copepods are parasitic": on what? People? Other plankton? Fish? -- The Anome 08:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Many are parasitic on fish, I expect they would mostly go for large animals (i.e. vertebrates). I think there's a worm-like copepod that lives in the noses of crocodiles. Ketil (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Should videos be played in the main artice? --188.8.131.52 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
what does that mean: "single cells from the water"? 184.108.40.206 08:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am sure this video is some awesome new footage, but to the layman (e.g. me) it is completely uninteresting and not only that low quality... remove it! 220.127.116.11 07:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I remember these being referred to as "cyclops" because of the one-eye. I think this was from amateur microscopy manuals in the 1960's. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Swag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Clarification needed on Economist article "Strongest animals" and "70% fat".
The Copepod article includes some rather mysterious statements (based on an Economist article) about an arctic copepod, Calanus glacialis.
About 4mm long and almost transparent, with a single eye and fine red antennae running the length of its body, it is a copepod, a type of crustacean noted for being, microgram for microgram, the world's strongest animal. Most creatures higher up the Arctic food chain, including walruses, narwhals and polar bears, depend on it. To get through the winter, Arctic animals need a lot of fat, which C. glacialis provides. About 70% of its dry weight consists of lipids. Where it lives, on the edge of the sea ice, it can account for up to 80% of zooplankton biomass.
Even in its complete context, in the Economist article, the meaning of this is rather obscure. How is strength per microgram defined? What does fat content have to do with it? Unless someone can find out what this paragraph means, I recommend removing it.CharlesHBennett (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Problems with the "diet" paragraph
I removed this, but it was reinstated by Epipelagic. Here are my reasons for deletion:
- Diversity in copepod diets is important, as it provides many pathways by which they can obtain their required nutrients.
This is not true, e.g. salmon lice eat salmon exclusively, you can't get much less diverse than that. Maybe it's true for specific species, but I don't think a blanket statement like this is warranted or informatvie.
- Diets that are nutritionally complete enrich the chances of success amongst individual copepods or the entire copepod population.
This is vacuous - "nutritionally complete" diets of course increase success. For every organism. It doesn't add any worthwhile information, and you certainly don't need a reference to back it up.
- Copepods are sensitive to metals such as silver, zinc, copper and nickel. Adding such metals to the diet of copepods leads to a reduction in their feeding and reproduction rates.
Metals are harmful to most life, this is not particular interesting, and again the citation is gratuitous. This gives undue weight to this aspect - a article on copepods clearly wouldn't list every element that is harmful to it.
- Out of such metals, copepods are the most sensitive to silver. This is likely to be due to the fact that silver is not considered an essential nutrient to copepods or other marine organisms.
Here it is even stated outright, this is true of all marine life - thus totally general, and totally non-notable.
- Copepods generally tend to feed on a mixed algal diet in their natural habitat.
This is true of some copepods, but not e.g. the parasites.
- The survival and success of the copepod population over the years may be partially due to their ability to select prey, avoiding contaminated food.
This is vague, and in any case, not noteworthy. Survival of any organism may be partially due to this.
In my opinion, every single statement here is either way too general, low in information, speculative, only applicable to some copepod species, or flat out wrong. Citing Kleppel and Bielmayer for generic and speculative statements like this does not do credit on this page, nor on their work. Although I won't delete it again, I see now way this can usefully be cleaned up.
- G. S. Kleppel (1993). "On the diets of calanoid copepods" (PDF). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 99: 183–183. doi:10.3354/meps099183.
- Gretchen K. Bielmyer, Martin Grosell & Kevin V. Brix (2006). "Toxicity of silver, zinc, copper, and nickel to the copepod Acartia tonsa exposed via a phytoplankton diet" (PDF). Environmental Science & Technology. 40 (6): 2063–2068. doi:10.1021/es051589a. PMID 16570637.
- Mariana Saia Pedroso, José Guilherme Filho Bersano & Adalto Bianchini (2007). "Acute silver toxicity in the euryhaline copepod Acartia tonsa: influence of salinity and food". Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 26 (10): 2158–2165. doi:10.1897/06-485R.1. PMID 17867869.
contradiction about planktonic lifestyle?
"Copepods are a holoplankton species, meaning they stay planktonic for all of their lifecycle."
Citations in Water Supplies Subsection
The third paragraph of the Water Supplies subsection has a lot of salient information but is largely without citation. Is there any way we can hunt down some support for those claims? I'll try to get started myself, but it's a big paragraph. Maddieball16 (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)