Back to the web for a moment, while I explain a little about appetite and sustainability of resources. Remember the spider’s practice of immobilising prey and wrapping it up in a silky shroud for later consumption? We know that spiders tend to be territorial, and DF and KMC were obviously thinking that the world is comprised solely of spiders like them and supply like me. They were most likely operating under the genetically programmed notion that they owned the world, well the habitat anyway. Huh? But if that’s so, how could it be logical that organisms with such a rapacious appetite would leave even a tasty morsel behind?
It has to do with "prudent predation". First, let’s consider the balancing act that is involved in predator-prey relationships. Over generations, individual selection favours predators that can increase their populations most efficiently. Here’s the balancing act ~ if a species becomes too successful in this, and population growth explodes, the species creates its own demise because once prey populations are depleted or overexploited the source of future growth or continued viability of the species is threatened. To compensate there’s an evolutionary tendency towards moderation. That moderation is the ecological principle of “prudent predation”. This means that even a predator with a voracious appetite limits its prey capture so that prey will be available down the line. If all prey were consumed what would be left? By exercising some restraint, it permits prey populations to increase and replace prey taken by harvesting, hence, keeping the food source available. Makes sense right?
Except that these two forgot that prudent predation only works if the same predators that restrain themselves from devouring all prey and, as such, are provident with resources are the same individuals who can benefit from what has been left over for the future. That’s right. Prudent predation only works if a predator has exclusive access, and the sole benefit and point of territoriality is to maintain exclusive access to the habitat’s resources.
It has to do with "prudent predation". First, let’s consider the balancing act that is involved in predator-prey relationships. Over generations, individual selection favours predators that can increase their populations most efficiently. Here’s the balancing act ~ if a species becomes too successful in this, and population growth explodes, the species creates its own demise because once prey populations are depleted or overexploited the source of future growth or continued viability of the species is threatened. To compensate there’s an evolutionary tendency towards moderation. That moderation is the ecological principle of “prudent predation”. This means that even a predator with a voracious appetite limits its prey capture so that prey will be available down the line. If all prey were consumed what would be left? By exercising some restraint, it permits prey populations to increase and replace prey taken by harvesting, hence, keeping the food source available. Makes sense right?
Except that these two forgot that prudent predation only works if the same predators that restrain themselves from devouring all prey and, as such, are provident with resources are the same individuals who can benefit from what has been left over for the future. That’s right. Prudent predation only works if a predator has exclusive access, and the sole benefit and point of territoriality is to maintain exclusive access to the habitat’s resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment