contestada

Before the 1960s, most ecologists thought that the number of producers in an ecosystem was the only variable that limits the number of herbivores. The idea was that every level was regulated by the amount of food from the trophic level below it:a. How did the green world hypothesis differ from this "bottom-up" view? b. Imagine a simple food chain: Grass Grasshoppers Mice. If snakes that eat mice are added to the ecosystem, how would you redraw the food chain to represent this change?

Respuesta :

Answer:

The number of the producers in an ecosystem limits the number of herbivores and and other organisms of the ecosystem.

The producers are the main food for the herbivores animals and the herbivores are food for the next tropic level.

This is the reason why the whole food chain depends on the producers. If the basic level will not be able survive then there is no chance that the other levels will survive.

Grass →Grasshoppers →Mice is the older food chain and if snakes are added in the food chain then the they will feed on the mice and will be dependent on them for their food.

The new food chain will be Grass →Grasshoppers →Mice→Snakes.

Histrionicus

In the given question, the green world hypothesis differs from this "bottom-up" view as - the green world is described predator as a determinant factor whereas in bottom-up producers are determined the fate of the ecosystem or food chain.

Green world hypothesis

The hypothesis states that the predators help to keep the population of producers high by eating the herbivores. If they didn't eliminate herbivores, they'll eat all the plants.

The bottom-up theory on the contrary states that the producer determines the population of the rest of the species as they provide a primary energy source.

B. If snakes that eat mice are introduced then the food chain can be redrawn as grass like a snake as top predators:

grass - > grasshopper-> mice-> snake.

Learn more about bottom-up theory:

https://brainly.com/question/11555274

Otras preguntas