A decline in the size of native fox population
If an endangered species were introduced into a nonnative habitat they might flourish as there are no natural predators. Of course, it could make them dwindle even more if there wasn't any food.
Well, in a non-native habitat an animal will have a difference in natural predators and prey. The species may have no predators and have a population explosion, eating up all the resources that they use for food, causing themselves and other animals that eat the same food starve. The non-native animal may also bring with it diseases that native animals are suceptible to, causing a drastic decrease in their population. If these animals get wiped out their source of food will run rampant, without being eaten as it's used to and this can lead to a whole other host of problems depending on what the animal eats, ex. animals, plants or bugs.
Or mabey the opposite is true. Mabey the non native animal has alot of predators and they all get wiped out. Or the non native animal is susceptible to the native diseases and dies out. Mabey their isn't proper food for the non native species. But most likely the first paragraph would be more relevant.
Climate must also be taken into consideration. Is the non native animal going to be able to handle the new environment? Heat, cold, rain, dry spells, etc. A good example would be a polar bear, he would not do well in the saharra desert. Just the same as a tropical bird would not survive in the artic.
Simply put it could die off by not being able to compete with native species for resources. Or it could out compete the native species.
The native species population would decrease because the nonnative species would be competing for food sources.
it would turn pretty gay
If there were no pioneer species there wouldn't be any species ya see
you will be arrested.
The animal that preys upon that species would grow fatter, and produce more young.
By eating them or hunting them down for the fun of it. But, actually if you ever taken even an intro to Biology class, you will know, that no wild animal can hunt it's prey to extinction. The food chain is in a balance, the more antelope the lions kill, the less antelope there is to feed the lion. when there is less food, the predators have nothing to eat, so they die. When more lions die, there is more antelope to feed more lions. Only humans have been to known to hunt something to extinction because we have no survival needs for those animals.
It would become extinct.
If an endangered species were introduced into a nonnative habitat they might flourish as there are no natural predators. Of course, it could make them dwindle even more if there wasn't any food.
nothing at all
Yes it will increase in a habitat.
Well, it is possible; however, if this were to happen the predatory species would be at a particular disadvantage given that it would lose that species in its diet. Should that particular species (i.e., the one that went extinct) have assumed a position of importance in the predator's diet, there could be rather disasterous consequences for the latter's continued survival.
What happens is the prey species has a run away growth of population. Followed by depletion of food supply, starvation and death.
Alien vs. Predator - arcade game - happened in 1994.
Aliens versus Predator - video game - happened in 1999.
Alien vs Predator - Jaguar game - happened in 1994.
If you would remove a crocodile from a food web then species would die out as they are not getting the certain source of food however; there could be an increase of certain types of species as they will no longer have that predator in the food chain. So the prey will survive.
Yes. If you happen to be a bug, a chicken is your worst enemy.
It could get killed by a predator or get lost from the nest.
Suppose the cicadas come out every C years and a predator comes out every P years. Then the life cycles of the predator and the cicadas will coincide every LCM(C, P) years. The predator will want it to happen as often as possible while the cicadas want that to happen as seldom as possible. If C is co-prime with P then the cycles coincide after CP years - which is best for the cicada.Suppose the cicadas come out every C years and a predator comes out every P years. Then the life cycles of the predator and the cicadas will coincide every LCM(C, P) years. The predator will want it to happen as often as possible while the cicadas want that to happen as seldom as possible. If C is co-prime with P then the cycles coincide after CP years - which is best for the cicada.Suppose the cicadas come out every C years and a predator comes out every P years. Then the life cycles of the predator and the cicadas will coincide every LCM(C, P) years. The predator will want it to happen as often as possible while the cicadas want that to happen as seldom as possible. If C is co-prime with P then the cycles coincide after CP years - which is best for the cicada.Suppose the cicadas come out every C years and a predator comes out every P years. Then the life cycles of the predator and the cicadas will coincide every LCM(C, P) years. The predator will want it to happen as often as possible while the cicadas want that to happen as seldom as possible. If C is co-prime with P then the cycles coincide after CP years - which is best for the cicada.