[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


Darren Naish writes;

>(Sorry, I don't know who to attribute this to).  Some might disagree
>strongly with this statement. The late Bev Halstead, for example,
>argued that small herbivorous mammals would have been numerous enough
>and destructive enough to compete effectively with large herbivorous
>dinosaurs.  In his famous little 1987 book (with colour plates by
>Jenny Halstead), he even worked out that around 1000 herbivorous MTBs
>or other mammals would eat as much as one 2 ton hadrosaur - a
>population explosion of furballs would therefore mean trouble for the
>I don't agree, and obviously there are problems.

There may actually be something to this.  Consider rodents: being an
 r-selected species, they will have a population boom when food supplies are
 high.  The overabundance of these small mammals mean that they readily
 consume vast quantities of whatever is available for consuption (when that
 happens, human grain crops are practically devistating).  Also consider
 locusts: a swarm will devour anything even slightly edible, leaving very
 little for animals left behind.  However, the problem here is that these
 "disasters" are very short lived, so the actual effect is questionable (and
 is only applicable for tetrapods).

With Laughter,

"In the beginning the universe was created...this has made many people very
 angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."