|
science kaibab deer
It is a criticism of many population ecologists that the pattern of population increase and subsequent crash of the deer population would have occurred even if the bounty had not been placed on the predators.
In my science class we are supposed to say whether or not we agree with the sentence above. One problem, what does it mean? I dont get it.
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Work & School category?
Maybe give some free advice about: School?
I'm not exactly sure. Deer don't really have predators other than humans, but I think I know what it's getting at. I would say just talk about whether or not you believe that deer populations would increase and decrease as drastically as they do if they weren't hunted. If you can, call your teacher or someone in your class and see how they interpreted it. Good luck!
]
Even if people did not hunt the animals that hunted deer, the deer population would still decline after increasing.
I'd recommend you agree with it because it's true. Even if deers don't have predators, their population will still drop after increasing because of the environments limiting factors. You could argue however that the decline of the deer population will be delayed and the increase will increase more if there were no predators.
]
More Questions: |