The sea otter is consumed by other mammals, so, no... it is not a tertiary consumer, but a primary or secondary consumer would be more accurate. Daally
If the tertiary consumer dies in a food chain, it could disrupt the entire ecosystem. This could lead to an increase in population of the secondary consumer, which in turn would lead to a decrease in population of the primary consumer. This imbalance in the food chain could have cascading effects on the rest of the ecosystem.
i think it would be producer, then primary consumer, then secondary consumer, then tertiary consumer.
The sea otter is consumed by other mammals, so, no... it is not a tertiary consumer, but a primary or secondary consumer would be more accurate. Daally
plants
Yes - this would be a tertiary consumer. Anything that does not create its own food is a consumer.
The biomass of a tertiary consumer would be smaller than the biomass of a primary consumer. This is because energy is lost as it moves up the food chain through each trophic level. Tertiary consumers have less available energy and biomass compared to primary consumers.
The consumer in the food chain/web that eats the Austalian sea lion would be forced to find other food. If that consumer can't find other food then it would extinct as wel. And so on...
the business will be choosen as a tertiary production because the business is selling the product to consumer
The shark would be a consumer. In fact, it would be considered a tertiary consumer due to being a carnivore that consumes many of the other consumers.
you would be a tertiary consumer. (An omnivore) because it has meat and lettuce and other stuff on it.
Tertiary consumer