Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
BCOR 102 - Exam II
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis | hypothesis that proposes biodiversity is highest when disturbance is neither too rare nor too frequent. With low disturbance, competitive exclusion by the dominant species arises. With high disturbance, only species tolerant of the stress can persist. |
| Rescue Effect | in the metapopulation model, the reduction in the probability of extinction due to migrants. |
| conversion efficiency | (beta) the ability of predators to convert each prey item captured into additional per capita growth rate - equation |
| Sink Population | populations where local birth rate is less than the local death rate and immigration rate is greater than zero. Cannot persist in isolation b/c birth rate is less than death rate - depend on external immigration. Net "importers" of individuals. b<d |
| Keystone Species | a single species whose presence or absence has strong effects on community structure (sea otters -> sea urchins -> kelp forest -> game fish; also African elephants) |
| Senescence | aging and physiological deterioration of individuals in post-reproductive ages (theories = rate of living theory, mutation accumulation, and antagonistic pliotropy) |
| Meta-population | a group of several local populations that are linked by immigration and emmigration |
| Rate of Living Theory | (theory for senescence) irreperable damage to cells - evolution has pushed this to the max |
| Antagonistic Pliotropy | (theory for senescence) traits that favor early reproduction have a cost later on in survivorship |
| Source population | net exporter of individuals - b>d |
| Exploitation competition | indirect competition through the use of shared resources - in one pop uses the resource more, there is less for the other pop. |
| Interference competition | direct competition that reduces a competitors efficiency - territoriality |
| Pre-emptive competition | competition for space |
| Interspecific competition | competition among individuals of different species for limiting resources |
| Intraspecific competition | competition among individuals of the same species for limiting resources |
| Lokta-Voltera Predation Equation Assumption 1 | no immigration or emigration, time lags, or age/size structure |
| Lokta-Voltera Predation Equation Assumption 2 | prey only limited by predator |
| Lokta-Voltera Predation Equation Assumption 3 | predator is a specialist on the victim (starves if you remove that species) |
| Lokta-Voltera Predation Equation Assumption 4 | random encounters of predator and victim in homogenous environment - the pred. has no strategy to catch the victim |
| Lokta-Voltera Predation Equation Assumption 5 | individual predators potentially insatiable (have to want to eat more)`` |
| Time Hypothesis | Theory that high latitude areas were covered by glaciers for longer and tropical areas have had more time. |
| Habitat Diversity Hypothesis | Note that in Vermont there is only one forest canopy - in the tropics there are three. MacArthur found that animal species diversity correlated better with forest complexity. |
| Niche Adjustment Hypothesis | Question of how are we going to add more species to the ecosystem. 1) Expand resource axis, 2) more resource specialization, and 3) more niche overlap. |
| Predation Hypothesis | observations by Paine on sea stars and mussels - keystone predator: predator that increases species richness of prey by specializing on competitive dominant. Refuted by Addicot's experiment of pitcher plants and mosquito larvae. Led to 3 observations |
| Productivity Hypothesis | observation that greater productivity (more energy from the sun, etc.) = less competition needed = more species can survive (examples: desert ants vs. annual rainfall = confirms; # of species in aquatic ecosystems decreases with more N and P) |
| Energy Hypothesis | observation that high temps and moisture provides more energy allowing for more species - high temps = high mutation rates = more genetic diversity = more species. High temps also = high metabolic rates = shorter generation times = faster evolution. |
| Species/Area Relationship | Observation -> more area = more species. 4 explainations: Habitat Diversity hyp., Disturbance Hyp., Random Sampling Hyp., and Equilibrium Theory of Island Biogeography |
| Distance Effect | observation of the area hypothesis that isolated regions (islands farther away) have fewer species |
| Habitat Diversity Hypothesis | large areas -> more habitat types -> gives more species |
| Disturbance Hypothesis | small areas -> are more chemically disturbed -> have fewer species |
| Random Sampling Hypothesis | views islands as passive interceptors of dispersing organisms. Large islands -> larger target area -> intercept more randomly dispersing individuals -> more species |
| Equilibrium Theory of Island Biogeography (MacArthur/Wilson Theory) | states that the # of species on an island is determined by its geometry - more species on near islands vs far, and more species on large island vs small |
| Equilibrium Theory Assumption 1 | Island can potentially be colonized by a set of P source pool species with similar characteristics and extinction rates |
| Equilibrium Theory Assumption 2 | probability of colonization decreases with distance or isolation (i.e. the distance effect) |
| Equilibrium Theory Assumption 3 | population sizes are proportional to island areas (combination of 3 and 4 give us the area effect) |
| Equilibrium Theory Assumption 4 | probability of population extinction increases with small population size (combination of 3 and 4 give us the area effect) |
| Equilibrium Theory Assumption 5 | colonizations and extinctions are independent of species composition (no species interactions - predation, competition, etc.) |
| Predictions of M/W Model | 1) S increases w/ area and decreases w/ distance. 2) each island should reach a characteristic equilibrium. 3) Turnover of species composition at equilibrium (from table) |
| Simberloff and Wilson | Tested M/W model with insects on mangrove islands |
| Three observations of Predation Hypothesis | 1) Random forager: predator will consume prey in the proportions in which they occur in nature. 2) Specialist on competitive dominant = increase in species. 3) Switching predator = jumps around on most dominant species -> increases species #s. |
| Explanations for Diversity | Time hypothesis, habitat diversity hypothesis, niche adjustment hypothesis, predation hypothesis, productivity hypothesis, and energy hypothesis. |
| Gause experiments | worked on the coexistence of predator and prey. Found that coexistence didn't depend on predator/victim relationships, rather it depended on migration to come into equilibrium. |
| Coexistence of Predator and Victim 1 | Escape in size = prey are generally only vulnerable during one stage in their life history. |
| Coexistence of Predator and Victim 2 | Escape in space = starfish feeding on mussels higher up on rocky shorelines - limited by low tide. |
| Coexistence of Predator and Victim 3 | Escape in time = colorful fish only come out during the day - rodents only come out at night to avoid hawks. |
| Coexistence of Predator and Victim 4 | Escape in numbers = periodical cicadas or "junebugs" - emerge 13 or 17 years - no defense against predators - emergence is synchronized and so many emerge that predators cannot possibly consume all of them - reproduction occurs. Prime numbers. |
| Lotka and Voltera Graph 1 | dV/dt = 0 when P = r/alpha dP/dt = 0 when V = d/beta |
| Lotka and Voltera Graph 2 | |
| Lotka and Voltera Graph 3 | |
| Ecological Character Displacement | comparing food sizes and bill sizes with birds on islands - allopatric populations (living apart) and sympatric populations (living together) |
| State Space Case 1 | species 1 wins competition |
| State Space Case 2 | species 2 wins competition |
| State Space Case 3 | stable equilibrium - coexistence |
| State Space Case 4 | unstable equilibrium - one or the other species will win |
| r-K selection | assumes that population density is the major selective force that determines the life history traits of an organism. |
| r-selected populations | populations that were permanently maintained at low density (b/c of external forces of mortality and disturbance) - evolution favors early, semelparous reproduction - many offspring, poor survivorship, Type III, small adult body size. |
| K-selected populations | populations that experienced chronic high densities - evolution favored later, iteroparous reproduction, small r, few offspring, Type I, large adult body size. |
Created by:
gmacharg@gmail.com
Popular Biology sets