Question Boy (violently jerking hand in the air): Mam? Mam? Does that mean that we cannot predict the outcome of removing one species from the web or the impact that an increase population is likely to have on another?
TL: Why, um, yes. We've often been wrong about that. The classic example is fur seals off the coast of Southern Africa. Fisherman in the area were upset that their stocks of hake were going down and blamed the seals. But when ecologists investigated further it turned out the the seals might actually end up increasing fish stocks. See there were two species of hake in the area and the adults of one species fed on the juveniles of the other. When you factor this into mathematical models, the size of the seal population actually had no effect or resulted in a net increase in available fish stocks.
Question Boy (yes, again): Mam. Does this mean that the fisherman whining about seal populations off Cape Cod eating all their stocks are likely complete idiots who have in fact depleted their own stocks and just want a scape goat?
TL: Well, yes. That is one, um, interpretation of the situation. Does anyone else have any...
Question Boy (interrupting): And do those fishermen realize that seals are just one of the cutest animals ever and people literally fly thousands of miles to hang out in Cape Cod and watch them and maybe they should shut up and get into the tourist business? And if they do start killing off the seals maybe the large predatory sharks in the area might have to turn to big fish or even people for food, the easiest of which to catch are probably fishermen?
TL: Um, yes. We should let them know that. Anyone else? Anyone?
any ideas?i have to do a food chain on oceans
Posted by: ashley | February 27, 2007 at 11:00 AM