Becuase the comsumers would starve if there were more of them then
producers
A loss of a producer means that there will be less food for consumers since producers are the foundation of an ecosystem
If the producers happen to be large trees, they can be small in number but still have a large biomass, therefore allowing them to support a community of more consumers.
A reduction in sunlight can lead to decreased primary productivity, limiting the availability of food sources for consumers in the ocean ecosystem. This scarcity of resources can cause increased competition among consumers as they vie for the limited food supply. This heightened competition may result in some species outcompeting others, leading to shifts in the ecosystem's structure and dynamics.
If all primary consumers became extinct, there would be a ripple effect through the food chain. This would lead to an increase in the population of primary producers, as there would be less pressure from herbivores. However, it could also disrupt the balance of the ecosystem and impact other organisms that depend on primary consumers for food.
The duckweed, cattails, and other producers in a pond ecosystem have a greater total amount of energy available compared to the frogs, minnows, and other consumers. This is because energy is transferred through the food chain, with producers converting sunlight into energy through photosynthesis, which then gets passed on to consumers as they consume the producers. Each trophic level loses energy as heat during metabolic processes, resulting in less energy being available to higher trophic levels.
then the consumers would probably eat less of what is produces and they would starve and have nothing else to do or no other choice but to die because what they consume is what they produce.
They consume the plants (producers) and obtain the most amount of nutrients and energy and then get eaten by the secondary consumers who obtain a little less energy since it is being passed down a line. Cows would be a primary who consumers grass that obtained energy and nutrients through photosynthesis and then we eat the cow (secondary) and gain what was left from the grass after the cow ate it and spent energy
producers would supply less than consumers would be willing to consume at that particular price. There would be SHORTAGE
The inverted biomass pyramid is where the weight of the producers is less than the weight of the consumers. The inverted pyramid is more prevalent in aquatic ecosystems, as in such an environment, the biomass depends on the reproductive ability and the lifespan of the species. The best example is the pond ecosystem, where the mass of the producers of the ecosystem, which are generally the phytoplanktons is always less than the mass of the consumers in the ecosystem, which are generally fish and other insects.
A biomass pyramid can be inverted if there are more primary consumers (herbivores) than producers (plants) in an ecosystem. This can happen, for example, if there is a high turnover rate of producers or if primary consumers are unusually efficient at consuming plant material. This situation is not common in most ecosystems but can occur in cases of ecological imbalance or disruption.
The plants get 10 percent energy from the sun. The highest concentration of energy is in producers [for example plants or algae]. Then the primary consumer eats only plants but retain only ten percent of their energy. Secondary consumers eat the primary consumers and get ten percent from the primary consumers. Secondary consumers can also eat plants. Then the final level is the tertiary consumers who are typically carnivores and eat secondary consumers. They retain 10 percent from the secondary consumers. So with each level less energy is achieved.
producers to supply more and consumers to buy less.