There are more herbivores than carnivores in ecosystems primarily due to the energy pyramid's structure. Energy transfer between trophic levels is inefficient, with only about 10% of the energy available at one level being passed on to the next. Since herbivores occupy the primary consumer level, they require a larger population to sustain the fewer carnivores that depend on them for energy. Additionally, the vast availability of plant biomass supports a greater number of herbivores in comparison to the limited food resources available for carnivores.
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.
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.
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.
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).
No. Here's the thing, no energy conversion is never 100% efficient. Meaning if a creature eats one pound of meat, it can't grow one pound of body from that. If they're all carnivores, eating each other, the system would never even get going. It would run out of energy. It's like driving to a gas station over and over again, and always buy less fuel than it took you to get there. Pretty soon you'll run out. Any system that isn't 100% needs to be constantly topped up with energy. With plant eaters, it's sunlight that does this.
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.
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.
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.
There are more herbivores than carnivores in an ecosystem primarily due to the energy pyramid's structure. Energy decreases significantly as it moves up trophic levels; only about 10% of the energy from one level is passed to the next. Since herbivores (primary consumers) occupy the second trophic level and rely on abundant plant life (producers) for energy, they can support larger populations. In contrast, carnivores (secondary and tertiary consumers) have less available energy and food resources, leading to smaller populations.
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).
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.
No. Here's the thing, no energy conversion is never 100% efficient. Meaning if a creature eats one pound of meat, it can't grow one pound of body from that. If they're all carnivores, eating each other, the system would never even get going. It would run out of energy. It's like driving to a gas station over and over again, and always buy less fuel than it took you to get there. Pretty soon you'll run out. Any system that isn't 100% needs to be constantly topped up with energy. With plant eaters, it's sunlight that does this.
no. There were more herbivores than carnivores and u think all dinosaurs are carnivores! =(
Carnivore means only one meat eater,and carnivores are more than one meat eaters.
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
Yes, Sharks, Dolphins, and several other carnivores live underwater
They help the ecosystem and contribute to it and they help they ecosystem.