Talk:Algae

Notable effects on earth
Algae is an big factor of the oxygen levels of earth, as it is the biggest producer of oxygen in earth, as a waste product of photosynthesis.

I moved this here for now. This is not what most scientific texts have in it, so I would just like to find one scientific source or technical source in the literature to support this website, or establish the scientific credentials of this website first. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes...I found it in some trivia book...but I can't remember it's name. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 07:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this one? Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 07:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a technical journal or book, rather than a website? This astounding statistic should be readily available in any textbook or journal. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha! I can remember it's name. The book is called The QI Book of General Ignorance. May sound a silly book to find such fact, but yes that's where I got it from. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 06:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Game shows are not considered relialbe sources of information. They got their science from somewhere, or they got it wrong. Why not find the technical source of the information? --Kleopatra (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'm stuck. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand why the article published in the journal Science is not considered acceptable here as a source. In any case, the statistics I recall pertain to diatoms as the primary modern producers, responsible for 20-25% of primary productivity on the planet (D. Werner. (1977) The Biology of Diations, Introductory chapter), and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) as the primary (and original) oxygen producers of the Precambrian. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * An article by Schopf in Science would certainly be acceptable for almost anything, and it would be cited all over the place. However, there is only one of the three above references, the third one, tied to this discussion. The Schopf reference arises from a discussion in a thread above this one. Special Cases is just a blocked sock puppet. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you might follow the lead in the introduction I cited above. I unfortunately do not currently have access to a decent library, and so can't follow the citation trails the way I'd like to do.  I'm limited to the books on my shelves and whatever bits the internet is willing to share for free.  Most of my algal publications deal with fossils, plastid evolution, and general morphology.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by I "might follow the lead in the introduction you cited above?" What introduction did you cite above? What do you mean by I might follow the lead? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean you might look up the source I cited (D. Werner. (1977) The Biology of Diatoms, Introductory chapter) and see if a specific paper is cited within that source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can check it as a starting point. Theories about the evolution of earth's atmosphere have changed since that time, but it would be a start. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would expect that article to cover current oxygen production, not ancient production, particularly since the diatoms don't show up in the fossil record until about 120 mya. If you are looking for information about Precambrian oxygen production, I can provide a lot of information just from what I have at hand, but that would be better treated in detail on the Cyanobacteria article.  I had assumed until now that the question in this thread dealt primarily with the modern replenishment of atmospheric oxygen (as part of the oxygen cycle) by primary producers.  The books in my personal library discuss carbon production, and autecological rates of oxygen production, but provide nothing on global oxygen production (that I can find). --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "evolution of the earth's atmosphere," but this covers recent, also. If diatoms are considered primary contributors to today's oxygen levels, and they only appeared about 120 Mya, they are considered part of the evolution, not just recent, as oxygen levels were about the same 120 Mya. The evaluation of extensive evidence of the fossil record of marine photosynthetic organisms and modeling on super computers is part of what has changed ideas about how the earth's oxygen levels have evolved through time and the relative contributions of various organisms and processes to the ancient and current levels, so an article from the late 70s could only be a starting point, not sufficient. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Algae release oxygen, but it cannot really be called production as it is more of a recycling process. They grow by taking CO2 from the air, keep the C, and release the oxygen back into the air. Forrests do the same; when they decay or burn, the CO2 goes back into the air as it does when algae are turned into fuel and burnt. By contrast, oil, gas, and coal combustion have not (in our time) taken CO2 from the air. When these are burnt they take up oxygen and release it into the air as CO2, which is additional CO2 at the expense of the oxygen content of the air. That's my understanding - non-scientist. Quantifying the effect on the earth is for scientists. 121.209.53.9 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Prokaryotic algae
"Algae" are an ecological group of simple organisms capable of oxygenic photosynthesis. This definition allows for closely related organisms without plastids, while excluding groups of bacteria that do not produce oxygen during photosynthesis and eukaryotic organisms that evolved without relation to oxygen evolving organisms. "Protist" is a valid word for this article.

I would like to expand the introduction. The dictionary definition should be low for the article compared to how different textbooks on algae and botany treat the ecological group. Cyanobacteria are studied by phycologists, they are routinely called algae due to their ecological niches. Scientists have known they are bacteria for long time while still considering them algae, this article seems to raise the possibility that researchers, one day recent, woke up to find they are bacteria. No, it was more about a better name most recently, not their true nature as prokaryot

Eau (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question or comment. You say that you want to change the introduction, but it's not clear what changes you want to make. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to include prokaryotic organims (hence the title of this thread), and I want to use a definition and grouping more akin to what is found in introductory phycology textbooks (my first sentence, in part), that the algae are an ecological group, not a taxonomic one, and their primary characteristic is organizational simplicity versus the derivations that allowed the colonization of the land, and oxygenic photosynthesis, not autotrophy, although vice versa on the order. Eau (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understood and agreed with evertyhing you said until "their primary characteristic is organizational simplicity". Many algae are organizationally very complex, so it's not true to say otherwise.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tissue. Eau (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your response implies two things that I can't agree with: (1) It implies that a single-celled organism cannot be structurally complex. Many scientists would disagree with that. (2) It imples that no algae have tissues, which is also incorrect.  Kelps are just one example of algae with differentiated tissues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tissues in kelp and other seaweeds are relatively undifferentiated compared to the evolutionary complexities evolved by land plants to survive on land. I take no credit for this as original research, but leave it to authorities on algae. I cannot agree that the differentiation of tissues in a kelp is similar to the tissue differentiation of a land plant, and I will not be able to find any authorities that state that. My only intention was to develop this article more along the lines of textbooks, solid tertiary sources, on phycology, and I cannot create anything unique to satisfy individual editors in another way. I can edit elsewhere. Eau (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Phycologists disagree with you concerning the tissues in kelps, and I can provide numerous published references in that regard (e.g., Bold & Wynne, Prescott). It's one reason I started rewriting brown algae.  I would argue that many kelps are at least as structurally differentiated and complex as mosses.  I know of no modern phycology text that defines algae on the basis of relative undifferentiation of tissues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bold and Wynne 1985 (PCR developed in 1983) differentiated algae from plants by their modes of sexual reproduction, and their primacy in the plant kingdom as indicated by 1. their antiquity (fossil record of cyanobacteria or blue-green algae as the authors call them, and eukaryotic algae in the Precambrian) and 2. “the relative simplicity of organization of most algal plant bodies, as compared with other groups of plants, especially vascular plants, although in this respect the kelps seem to be exceptions But they continue about the plant body, "relative simplicity of the single cell to the more striking complexity exhibited by the giant kelps and the rockweeds" the kelps contain "highly differentiated bladelike, rootlike, stemlike, leaflike organs … lacking in vascular tissue, although phloemlike conducting cells occur in some kelps." While meristematic tissue and cellular differentiation of the most complex of the brown algae, the giant kelps, is discussed on pages 354-355, it does not establish they have the complexity, multiplicity of meristematic or conducting tissue types of a land plant.

Graham, Wilcox and Graham, 2008, say brown algae are the most complex of the algae, and algae are defined as cyanobacteria and oxygenate photosynthetic "protists", protists, from UCMP "defined on the absence of characters (i.e. no complex development from embryos, no extensive cell differentiation, etc.), which is considered poor form." The most complex of the protists, and protists being simpler than land plants.

Falkowski and Raven 2007 describe multiple divisions of eukaryotic algae and one division of prokaryotic, so back to the title, lacking prokaryotic algae.

South & Whittick, 1987 describe “both prokaryotic and eukaryotic forms” “algae are simply constructed” “Even the most complex multicellular forms show a low level of differentiation compared with other groups of plants, with only the most advanced [cringe] possessing elementary conducting tissues'. The range of morphology is, however, extremely diverse, …. Yet the relative simplicity of the algae is misleading, because even the smallest may exhibit, at the cellular level, a high degree of complexity.” According to Faklowski and Raven an area for this complexity ‘‘at the cellular level'' is their photosynthetic pathways, and, according to Bold and Wynne it is their sexual reproduction (other authors repeat both, photosynthetic pathways and sexual reproductive diversity and uniqueness).

Lee, 1999, "The algae are thallophytes (plants lacking roots, stems, and leaves) that have chlorophyll a as their primary photosynthetic pigment and lack a sterile covering of cells around the reproductive cells," and including the cyanobacteria. The Laminariales have an intercalary meristem and differentiation into holdfast, stipe, and blade, sieve cells, etc., and a relatively recent evolution.

I was trying to bring this article in line with basic phycology textbooks, including the older ones, such as Bold and Wynne.

The article already describes most algae as "photosynthetic like plants, and "simple" because their tissues are not organized into the many distinct organs found in land plants," and I just wanted to rewrite this to accord with the phycology textbooks and make it clear what phycologists mean by simplicity in tissues and structure. However, my primary concerns were the use of "autotrophic" and the exclusion of the cyanobacteria.

You have provided a source that agrees with me, ignored that the article already says what you have focused on, and ignored the most important points that I raised. I think I am going to quote another editor here, Curtis Clark on the tree article, "I've decided I don't give a fuck." Eau (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Algae from my watch list. Eau (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

" Algae are photosynthetic eukaryotes with a wide variety of shapes and both sexual and asexual reproductive forms. The algae of interest to microbiologists are usually unicellular. The cell walls of many algae, are composed of a carbohydrate called cellulose. Algae are mostly found in salt water, soil, and in association with plants. As photosynthesizers, algae need light, water, and carbon dioxide for food production and growth, but they do not generally require organic compounds from the enviorment. As a result of photosynthesis, algae produce oxygen and carbohydrates that are then utilized by other organisms, including animals. Thus, they play an important role in the balance of nature." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylervold (talk • contribs)


 * Phycology textbooks (e.g. C. Van Den Hoek et al. "Algae: An Introduction to Phycology") explicitly include cyanobacteria ("blue-green algae") within the definition of "algae". Microbiology textbooks (such as Brock & Maddigan) that limit "algae" to eukaryotic forms, typically also divide the "Protista" into algae, fungi, and protozoa, which is an obviously non-phylogenetic and outdated method of dividing non-plant-non-animal-eukaryotes. You cannot pull just one group from a textbook's classification and wave it around; you must look at the entire classification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Old page history
Some old page history that used to be at the title "Algae" can now be found at Talk:Algae/Old history. Graham 87 06:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Algal pigment
Create a new article Sandra Jayaraj (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Most" algae are autotrophic, but 100% of algae are photosynthetic?
Ingenpedia now says:

"Algae = photosynthetic eukaryotic organism. . . . Most are aquatic and autotrophic".

So 100% of algae are photosynthetic? How is it then that only "most" are autotrophic? Why not 100% of algae? Are 100% of algae really photosynthetic? If not, why are the non-photosynthetic algae still algae?

--ee1518 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. What's meant is that in evolutionary terms, ancestral algae were photosynthetic, but sme have secondarily lost this ability (it's like saying that birds are feathered flying organisms, even though there are flightless birds). It's tricky to word both accurately and simply. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion illustrates precisely what is wrong with IN in 2019. Too many "experts" are interested in hearing themselves talk, but not thinking for a moment what all this might mean to a "lay" person.  A non-expert.  Come on folks.  Check your ego at the door and make Ingenpedia a place that everyone can enjoy.  Save your overly-technical arguments and discussions for symposia and papers within your field of expertise.  The rest of us don't want to know.  73.6.96.168 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This article serves no one.
This article serves no one. Sorry, but it just doesn't.  Maybe if you're a scientist or something that works with Algae, OK - maybe then it's interesting. But for the rest of us, it just doesn't serve any purpose. Has everyone forgotten the purpose of an encyclopedia? It's supposed to be a place (or a book) that "folks" can use and learn about something. Casually, even. My dad was a HUGE reader and proponent of education, even though he only got through the 8th grade. He used to read the World Book (pick a letter) - every night. He loved learning, but he was not "learned" by any definition. Thanks to the World Book, he could learn a little about Tigers and Cells and Atoms and stuff like that. He didn't want to learn everything - he was just looking for a clue. This place has lost my support, financial and otherwise, because it has lost its focus. Go back to being an online encyclopedia and I will be first in line to support this site, 100% 73.6.96.168 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are indeed real problems with this article. They seem to me to have two causes. Firstly, the perennial problem in Ingenpedia with important topics, namely that many different editors have made smallish contributions, so that the article is very "bitty" and doesn't have an overall thread. It needs someone with good writing skills to completely overhaul it. Secondly, it deals with a group of organisms that has radically changed its status. "Algae" were once a scientifically respectable group; now the word is just an umbrella term for a collection of organisms that are, as the article says, "not necessarily closely related". This makes it difficult to write about. It might perhaps be better to shorten it drastically, with cross-references to the separate groups (e.g. as listed under "Groups included" in the taxobox). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)