Talk:Amensalism

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Symbiosis
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Symbiosis

Amensalism[edit]

I think the part about allelopathy should either be further elaborated on or removed, since allolepathy is often beneficial to the allelopathic organism by eliminating its competition for available nutrients.Miranatu 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both of those examples seem to be advantageous to one species. Better examples are needed. Richard001 19:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The "killer" organisms gain space to grow and reproduce.

The page for Penicillium chrysogenum explicitly states that bacteria are competitors for the same resources, and as a result I'd assume that the relationship is not amensalism; are there any better examples in the literature than the 2 currently on the page? --BlackAndy 08:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Organisms that create waste, such as urine, and it kills plants or other organisms that it urinates on? 71.232.1.199 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the black walnut?[edit]

It seems to be beneficial for the tree to kill other plants to have more living space. So why is it considered amensalism? --V. Szabolcs 06:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion to Redirect[edit]

@Alexandermcnabb, I'm confused about your reasons for revision. Going through them in order:

DICDEF: I'm unsure of how this qualifies as a dictionary definition; looking at articles like Commensalism, they seem to have a similar topic/layout.
attribution concerns: What attribution concerns are these?
redlinked: There's one redlink, and to my current knowledge redlinking isn't grounds for removal, right?
uncited content: Most of the content is cited, and what isn't is tagged with the Citation Needed template; all 'essential' info to the article is cited.
essay/OR: How does this qualify as an essay or as original research?

TypistMonkey (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TypistMonkey - The information in the article is, as you note in your edit summary, copied from other articles but we don't know which. It adds limited value, IMHO, to the information in the Symbiosis article and is little more than a definition of the word amensalism, which is sufficiently covered in that article. No, redlinks don't mean deletion is appropriate, but when you're defining a concept and that definition is A is a type of B and B is a redlink, it's something I'd take as a flag that we're in the territory of not terribly notable in itself. If commensalism has an article, that's super but WP:OTHERSTUFF. Coming across this on new page patrol, the redirect - as per consensus at Talk:Biological interaction seemed perfectly reasonable. And there we have it! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]