Why is a food web a more realistic way of portraying an ecosystem than a food chain?
Hi. Great question. A food web is more realistic as an ecosystem's stability is a product of it's biodiversity. The more biodiverse an ecosystem is the more stable it is. I'm this sense highly stable ecosystems are highly interdependent i.e. More species will rely on each other for food. The more feeding relationship there are the more realistic it is to represent the ecosystem as a diverse, interdependent food web.
It's more practical because of the reality you can include more living beings in with the general mish-mash, and show how they associate with one another in a biological system. Instead of simply completing a little section of around 3 or 4 creatures in a fundamental evolved way of life, you can have the same number of various creatures as you need from a biological system in a nourishment web, whom both can eat a similar living being, be it a maker or less predator. You can likewise start to recognize conceivable conditions or impact of the expulsion or the reduction or increment of at least one animal varieties in the biological system. For instance, the maker on the chart could be grass, and there are sheep and goats eating it, and mountain lions and wolves eating the sheep and goats. The People adjacent chase the mountain lions and slaughter off the mountain lions. The wolves at that point quickly increment in number because of the absence of rivalry from the mountain lions and start gobbling up a greater amount of the sheep and goats, making the sheep and goat populace get tiny, and making much more grass develop. This is only one case of how a nourishment web changes where the departure of a predator can have falling impacts through the environment, indicating how the sustenance web is significantly more sensible at depicting a biological community than an evolved way of life.
Get an answer in 5 minutes from expert tutors at Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and more.