Carnivores are generally more efficient at transferring energy through the food chain than herbivores because they occupy a higher trophic level and consume organisms that are more energy-dense. They typically have shorter food chains, requiring less energy to sustain their metabolic processes. Additionally, carnivores often convert a higher percentage of the energy obtained from their food into biomass, while herbivores lose more energy through processes like digestion and metabolic heat. This results in a more efficient energy transfer from primary producers to higher trophic levels.
a herbiorous diet be argued as being more energy efficient tnan a carnivores
It is the way nature plays out. The carnivores eat the herbivores, so it is impossible to have more carnivores then herbivores. If there are too few herbivores around, the carnivores begin to starve, so for that reason there will always be more herbivores then carnivores. Most carnivores protect there territories from other carnivores, killing them if necessary, because they instinctively know an area can only support so many carnivores based on food supply -- which for them are herbivores. Also many carnivores are capable of practicing birth control to some degree to keep their numbers appropriate for the number of herbivores that can sustain them.
In general, there tend to be more herbivores than carnivores in an ecosystem. This is because herbivores form the base of the food chain, supporting the larger number of carnivores that rely on them for food.
Plants produce food Herbivores eat plants Carnivores eat herbivores Thus to keep everyone fed there have to be more plants than there are herbivores to eat them (or the herbivores would starve) and more herbivores than carnivores (or the carnivores would starve).
There are more herbivores than carnivores in the Serengeti. This is because the herbivores form the base of the food chain, supporting a larger number of carnivores that prey on them. The abundance of herbivores also supports a diverse ecosystem with various species of grazers and browsers.
a herbiorous diet be argued as being more energy efficient tnan a carnivores
It is the way nature plays out. The carnivores eat the herbivores, so it is impossible to have more carnivores then herbivores. If there are too few herbivores around, the carnivores begin to starve, so for that reason there will always be more herbivores then carnivores. Most carnivores protect there territories from other carnivores, killing them if necessary, because they instinctively know an area can only support so many carnivores based on food supply -- which for them are herbivores. Also many carnivores are capable of practicing birth control to some degree to keep their numbers appropriate for the number of herbivores that can sustain them.
I think there is a pretty even amount of carnivores and herbivores. There might be a bit more herbivores because they need more of their species to survive, since the carnivores hunt them.
In general, there tend to be more herbivores than carnivores in an ecosystem. This is because herbivores form the base of the food chain, supporting the larger number of carnivores that rely on them for food.
Plants produce food Herbivores eat plants Carnivores eat herbivores Thus to keep everyone fed there have to be more plants than there are herbivores to eat them (or the herbivores would starve) and more herbivores than carnivores (or the carnivores would starve).
There are more herbivores than carnivores in the Serengeti. This is because the herbivores form the base of the food chain, supporting a larger number of carnivores that prey on them. The abundance of herbivores also supports a diverse ecosystem with various species of grazers and browsers.
Herbivores are typically more efficient users of solar energy compared to carnivores or omnivores because they directly consume plants which have already converted sunlight into chemical energy through photosynthesis. Carnivores and omnivores consume animals that have consumed plants, resulting in a less efficient transfer of energy up the food chain. Parasites derive energy from a host organism, so their efficiency in using solar energy is indirectly related to the efficiency of their host.
there were more pant eaters. They are called Herbivores. Meat eating dinosaurs are called, carnivores. Carnivores ate Herbivores.
no. There were more herbivores than carnivores and u think all dinosaurs are carnivores! =(
carnivores are animals which eat animals while herbivores are animals which eat plant and every one knows that plants are an easy source of food with this herbivores increase in numbers as there is plenty and easy to get food and carnivores stay at a low number as it is difficult to catch there food
Competition between herbivores is usually more intense, as they rely on the same plant resources for survival. Carnivores may compete for prey, but because they can feed on a wider range of animals, competition may not be as intense as with herbivores.
I think there are supposed to be an equal amount as well as plants the herbivores eat. This is to maintain an equilibrium so no side makes the other extinct. I think this holds true to the point of an outside factor. Weather killing a large amount of plants could affect an ecosystem by having a lack of food for the herbivores. They may die off leaving little to no food for the carnivores. I think it's all about equilibrium so there should not be more carnivores than herbivores and vice versa.