, the amount of energy needed to catch the next one would increase, as in the first scenario. The difference is that in this imaginary situation there would eventually be so few fish that the amount of energy required to catch them would be more than they provided when caught and consumed, and the cormorants, having reached that point of diminishing returns, would die. There might be very few fish, but that would be a temporary condition. Fish produce lots of eggs, lots of young — some species producing hundred, even thousands — and since the cormorants would be gone, there would be a greatly increased survival of young fish so long as the pool’s owner keeps the fish food coming. Eventually, even with unlimited food, there would be so many fish that there wouldn’t be enough water to sustain them and they, too, might become extinct ... at least in the pool.
NEXT » Back in the Real World
Cormorants: Food Chains and Basic Ecological Principles
The Alewife, Alien Salmon and Trout, and the Double-Crested Cormorant
The Round Goby
The Difference Between Science and Management
The Agricultural Subsidy
The Missing Predator Argument
Semi-Science and Wildlife Management
So ... What Do Real Scientists Say?