Rob Chipman
08-22-2014, 02:00 PM
Some of you may have seen this. A buddy sent it to me. It's a video on how wolves changed the ecosystem in Yellowstone.
I'm not endorsing any particular message in regard to wolves. What I find interesting is the idea of "trophic cascade". From what I understand, trophic cascade is a term that describes the cascading effects of a change in an upper level predator - ie, no big predators leads to higher populations of prey animals, which has effects (for example, over grazing, etc) as well as smaller predators, which has effects (fewer smaller prey animals).
Add big predators back in and the effects are more than lower populations of their specific prey. The effects cascade through the eco-system. That obviously makes sense. I think we all recognize that the bush is interconnected, and you can't just plug and play with species and habitat.
Like I say - I'm not making an argument that we need more wolves or that we shouldn't shoot cute furry puppies that look cool on posters.
The antler point restriction thread had me looking at other mule deer related stuff across the web and habitat degradation seems to be a repeating theme. I started wondering what might happen if a habitat got over-consumed past a critical point. Could a habitat be degraded enough so that it would only support a minimal number of animals who, once in balance, kept the habitat degraded? If that habitat was upgraded could it support more animals and stay in balance?
I don't know the answer and I don't think the video provides it, but I know there's some smart guys on this forum who can make some good comments on it, so...here's the youtube link:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ysa5OBhXz-Q
I'm not endorsing any particular message in regard to wolves. What I find interesting is the idea of "trophic cascade". From what I understand, trophic cascade is a term that describes the cascading effects of a change in an upper level predator - ie, no big predators leads to higher populations of prey animals, which has effects (for example, over grazing, etc) as well as smaller predators, which has effects (fewer smaller prey animals).
Add big predators back in and the effects are more than lower populations of their specific prey. The effects cascade through the eco-system. That obviously makes sense. I think we all recognize that the bush is interconnected, and you can't just plug and play with species and habitat.
Like I say - I'm not making an argument that we need more wolves or that we shouldn't shoot cute furry puppies that look cool on posters.
The antler point restriction thread had me looking at other mule deer related stuff across the web and habitat degradation seems to be a repeating theme. I started wondering what might happen if a habitat got over-consumed past a critical point. Could a habitat be degraded enough so that it would only support a minimal number of animals who, once in balance, kept the habitat degraded? If that habitat was upgraded could it support more animals and stay in balance?
I don't know the answer and I don't think the video provides it, but I know there's some smart guys on this forum who can make some good comments on it, so...here's the youtube link:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ysa5OBhXz-Q