Most biology textbooks describe that predators and prey exist in a balance. This "balance of nature" hypothesis has been criticized by some scientists because it suggests a relationship between predators and prey that is good and necessary. Opponents of this hypothesis propose the following questions: Why is death by predators more natural or "right" then death by starvation? How does one determine when an ecosystem is in "balance"? Do predators really kill only the old and sick prey? What evidence is there for this statement? What is your opinion of the balance of nature hypothesis? Would the deer on the island be better off, worse off, or about the same without the wolves. Defend your position.
Answers
Answered by
0
Most biology textbooks describe that predators and prey exist in a balance. This "balance of nature" hypothesis has been criticized by some scientists because it suggests a relationship between predators and prey that is good and necessary. Opponents of this hypothesis propose the following questions: Why is death by predators more natural or "right" then death by starvation? How does one determine when an ecosystem is in "balance"? Do predators really kill only the old and sick prey? What evidence is there for this statement? What is your opinion of the balance of nature hypothesis? Would the deer on the island be better off, worse off, or about the same without the wolves. Defend your position.
Similar questions