lecture: Threats to Biodiversity: Answer Sheet

Name: Pushpinder Singh Cheema

First watch the following video: https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/some-

animals-are-more-equal-others-keystone-species-and-trophic-cascades

Second watch the next video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdwnfPurXcs

SOME KEY POINTS:

-Trophic Cascade Hypothesis (Negative Correlation)
(wolf numbers increase, moose numbers decrease, fir numbers increase)
or (wolf numbers decrease, moose numbers increase, fir numbers decrease)
-Primary Productivity Hypothesis (Positive Correlation)
(rain increases, fir increases, moose increases, wolf increases)
or (rain decreases, fir decreases, moose decrease, wolf decrease)
-West part of Island (closed canopy, heavily browsed by moose, location of SS ”Siskiwit
Swamp”)
-East part of Island (open canopy, disturbed area, lots of wolves and plants, location of RH
“Rock Harbor”)

Part 1: Introduction

1. What type of correlation (positive or negative) would you expect to see between the
population densities or growth rates of each trophic level in this system (fir/moose/wolves) under
the primary productivity hypothesis?

Under the primary productivity hypothesis, the relationship between the population densities or
growth rates of each trophic level in this system (fir/moose/wolves) would be expected to be
positive.

The primary productivity hypothesis, also known as the "bottom-up" hypothesis, posits that plant
growth is limited by the energy available to plants, which is influenced by factors like
temperature and precipitation. According to this hypothesis:

Higher Plant Productivity: If there is an increase in primary productivity (i.e., higher plant
growth), there would be more forage available for herbivores (moose).

Herbivore Population Response: An increase in available forage should lead to an increase in

herbivore population density (moose) because they have more resources for sustenance.

Carnivore Population Response: In turn, an increase in herbivore population density could lead
to an increase in the population of their predators (wolves), as there is now a larger prey base to
support the carnivores.
In summary, the primary productivity hypothesis suggests a positive correlation between plant
growth, herbivore population density, and carnivore population density in this ecosystem. If one
trophic level (e.g., plants) experiences an increase in productivity, it should drive increases in the
trophic levels above it (e.g., herbivores and predators).

2. What type of correlations would you predict under the trophic cascade hypothesis?

Under the trophic cascade hypothesis, you would predict negative correlations between trophic
levels. The trophic cascade hypothesis suggests that changes in one trophic level are caused by
opposite changes in the trophic level immediately above or below it in the food chain.
Specifically:

Negative Correlation between Herbivores and Plants:

A decrease in herbivore abundance (e.g., moose) would lead to increased plant growth because
there is less herbivory pressure on the vegetation. In contrast, an increase in herbivore abundance
would lead to decreased plant growth due to higher levels of herbivory.
Negative Correlation between Carnivores and Herbivores:

A decrease in herbivore abundance (due to predation by carnivores, e.g., wolves) would result in
a decrease in carnivore abundance since there is less prey available. Conversely, an increase in
herbivore abundance would lead to an increase in carnivore abundance as there is more prey to
support the carnivore population.
In summary, the trophic cascade hypothesis predicts negative correlations between herbivores
and plants and between carnivores and herbivores in a cascading manner through the food chain.

3. What would you predict as the effect of wolf removal on plant growth under each hypothesis?

The effect of wolf removal on plant growth would differ under the primary productivity
hypothesis and the trophic cascade hypothesis:

Primary Productivity Hypothesis:

Prediction: If wolves are removed from the system, the herbivore population (e.g., moose) might
increase without the check of predation.
Consequence: An increase in herbivore abundance could lead to increased herbivory on plants,
potentially reducing plant growth.
Reasoning: In the absence of wolves, herbivore populations may grow unchecked, and their
increased feeding on plants could negatively impact vegetation.
Trophic Cascade Hypothesis:

Prediction: If wolves are removed, the herbivore population (e.g., moose) would likely increase
because they are released from predation pressure.
Consequence: An increase in herbivore abundance could lead to increased herbivory on plants,
potentially reducing plant growth.
Reasoning: In this hypothesis, wolves are seen as regulators that control the herbivore
population. If wolves are removed, herbivore populations may surge, leading to increased
pressure on vegetation and potentially reduced plant growth.
In summary, both hypotheses predict that the removal of wolves would likely result in increased
herbivore abundance, which, in turn, could lead to increased herbivory on plants and potentially
reduced plant growth. The mechanisms and reasoning, however, differ between the two
hypotheses: the primary productivity hypothesis focuses on direct herbivore impact, while the
trophic cascade hypothesis emphasizes the regulatory role of predators in maintaining herbivore
populations and, indirectly, promoting plant growth.

Part 2: Trophic System Data

1. What is the purpose of each figure? Are there unclear terms or confusing aspects to any
figure?

Let's break down the purpose of each figure and identify any potentially unclear terms or
confusing aspects:

Figure A (Population size of wolves each winter):

Purpose: Represents the population size of wolves during each winter.

Unclear Terms: The description seems straightforward. The term "aerial counts" might refer to
counting from aircraft, which is a common method for estimating wildlife populations. However,
readers unfamiliar with ecological research methods may find this term unclear.
Figure B (Population size of moose each winter):

Purpose: Represents the population size of moose during each winter.

Unclear Terms: Similar to Figure A, "aerial counts" might be unclear to some readers.
Figure C (Ring-widths from the west end of Isle Royale, N=8):

Purpose: Shows ring-widths (likely tree growth rings) from the west end of Isle Royale.
Unclear Terms: The term "ring-widths" might be unclear to those unfamiliar with
dendrochronology, which is the study of tree rings. The use of "N=8" suggests the sample size
but might be confusing if not explained.
Figure D (Ring-widths from the east end of Isle Royale, N=8):

Purpose: Shows ring-widths from the east end of Isle Royale.

Unclear Terms: Similar to Figure C, "ring-widths" might be unclear to some readers. The
distinction between the east and west ends is essential but may need further clarification.
Figure E (Actual evapotranspiration rates - AET):

Purpose: Depicts AET as an approximation of primary productivity, representing water

availability as a function of temperature and rainfall.
Unclear Terms: "Actual evapotranspiration rates (AET)" might be unfamiliar to readers without
a background in ecology or environmental science. An explanation of AET and its role as an
index of water availability is crucial.
Shaded areas in Figure 1 (Periods of forage suppression):

Purpose: Signify periods of forage suppression that may be connected to interactions between
herbivores and carnivores.
Unclear Aspects: The specific details of forage suppression and the interactions between
herbivores and carnivores during these periods are not detailed in the figure description. Readers
might benefit from more information on what these shaded areas represent.
Recommendations:

Provide brief explanations or definitions for terms such as "aerial counts" and "ring-widths."
Consider adding a note explaining the significance of N=8 in Figures C and D.
Include a brief explanation of the shaded areas in Figure 1 and the connection to herbivore-
carnivore interactions.
Adding such clarifications would enhance the accessibility of the figures for readers who may
not be familiar with ecological research terminology.

2. How do the maxima and minima of the ring-width indices correspond to changes in moose
density? Does this support the primary productivity hypothesis, the trophic cascade hypothesis,
or neither?

To assess how the maxima and minima of the ring-width indices correspond to changes in moose
density, we need to consider the ecological context and the potential implications of these
patterns. The ring-width indices are likely indicative of tree growth, with wider rings suggesting
more favorable growth conditions.

Here are potential scenarios and their interpretations:

Correlation between Ring-Width Indices and Moose Density:

Scenario 1: Wide rings (maxima) correspond to periods of low moose density, while narrow
rings (minima) correspond to periods of high moose density.
Interpretation: If wider rings occur during periods of low moose density, this could suggest that
lower moose abundance is associated with better tree growth, potentially supporting the primary
productivity hypothesis. In this scenario, lower moose density may lead to reduced herbivory
pressure, allowing for more robust tree growth.

Scenario 2: Wide rings (maxima) correspond to periods of high moose density, while narrow
rings (minima) correspond to periods of low moose density.

Interpretation: If wider rings coincide with higher moose density, this could be counterintuitive
and might not align with the primary productivity hypothesis. It might raise questions about the
ecological dynamics and whether other factors, such as climate, play a significant role.

Implications for Hypotheses:

Support for Primary Productivity Hypothesis: If the scenarios align with Scenario 1, where wider
rings correspond to periods of low moose density and potentially less herbivory, this would
support the primary productivity hypothesis. It suggests that variations in tree growth are
influenced by the availability of resources and the impact of herbivores on vegetation.

Support for Trophic Cascade Hypothesis: If Scenario 2 is observed, where wider rings
correspond to periods of high moose density, it could raise questions about whether there are
cascading effects in the ecosystem. It might prompt investigation into the role of predators (e.g.,
wolves) and whether changes in moose density have cascading effects on vegetation.

Neither Hypothesis: If the relationship between ring-width indices and moose density is not
consistent with either scenario, it may suggest that factors other than moose density or primary
productivity are influencing tree growth.

In summary, the interpretation depends on the observed correlation between ring-width indices
and moose density. If wider rings align with periods of low moose density, it supports the
primary productivity hypothesis; if wider rings align with periods of high moose density, it
prompts further investigation into potential trophic cascade effects. The actual data and specific
patterns would provide more insights into the ecological dynamics of the Isle Royale ecosystem.

3. Do firs from either end of the island (east/west) respond the same way to changes in moose
density? How can you account for any observed differences?
The east firs respond to changes in moose density in a similar way. If the moose stayed on the
western side of the island and consumed more balsam firs there than they did on the eastern side,
this is conceivable.

4. How do the maxima and minima of the wolves correspond to changes in moose density? How
might you account for this relationship?

To assess how the maxima and minima of wolf populations correspond to changes in moose
density, we can consider potential scenarios and mechanisms. The relationship between wolves
and moose is often a classic example of a predator-prey interaction, and understanding this
dynamic is crucial for interpreting ecological patterns.

Here are potential scenarios and explanations for the relationship between wolf populations and
moose density:

Correlation between Wolf Population and Moose Density:

Scenario 1: High wolf populations (maxima) correspond to periods of low moose density, while
low wolf populations (minima) correspond to periods of high moose density.
Explanation: This scenario aligns with the typical predator-prey dynamics where an increase in
the predator population leads to a decrease in the prey population, and vice versa. Wolves
regulate moose populations by predation.
Correlation Inversely Related to Trophic Cascade:

Scenario 2: High wolf populations (maxima) correspond to periods of high moose density, while
low wolf populations (minima) correspond to periods of low moose density.
Explanation: This scenario could suggest a trophic cascade effect, where a decrease in wolves
results in an increase in moose density, leading to increased herbivory on vegetation. This, in
turn, may affect plant growth.
Delayed Response or Lag Effect:

Explanation: There might be a time lag between changes in wolf populations and their impact on
moose density. For example, if wolf populations decrease, it might take some time for moose
populations to increase, leading to a delayed response in the vegetation.
Environmental Factors:

Explanation: Environmental factors, such as habitat quality, availability of forage, and climatic
conditions, can influence both wolf and moose populations independently. Changes in these
factors might contribute to observed patterns.
Interactions with Other Species:
Explanation: The presence of other species, such as additional predators or competitors for
resources, can influence the dynamics between wolves and moose. Changes in these interactions
may impact moose density and, consequently, wolf populations.
In Summary:

If Scenario 1 is observed (high wolf populations correspond to low moose density), it aligns with
classic predator-prey dynamics and supports the idea that wolves regulate moose populations.

If Scenario 2 is observed (high wolf populations correspond to high moose density), it raises
questions about potential trophic cascade effects, and additional investigation into the ecosystem
dynamics would be warranted.

Understanding the observed relationship between wolf and moose populations requires
considering ecological dynamics, predator-prey interactions, and potential cascading effects on
vegetation. Data analysis and further exploration of the specific patterns in wolf and moose
populations would provide more insights.

Part 3: Ring Width Indices

1. Are there any confusing aspects to the figures or caption in Part 3?

The provided passage and description of Figures A and B in Part III seem relatively clear, but
there are a few aspects that might benefit from additional clarification:

Description of Chronologies:

The passage mentions that the chronologies in Figure A are from an east-end subsample
designated RH (Rock Harbor), and those in Figure B are from a west-end subsample designated
SS (Siskiwit Swamp). While it provides information about the locations, it would be helpful to
explicitly state what "chronologies" represent in this context. In dendrochronology, a chronology
typically refers to a time series of tree-ring measurements.
Interpretation of Ring-Widths:

The passage describes that Figure 2 depicts ring-widths of balsam firs from Isle Royale. While it
mentions the ability of moose to browse as high as 3m, additional information about how ring-
widths are indicative of growth patterns, especially in response to moose or wolf interactions,
could enhance understanding.
Reference to Distinct Local Topographies:

The passage briefly mentions that the local topographies for the two samples are substantially
different. It would be helpful to provide more details about the specific characteristics of these
topographies and how they might influence tree growth.
Explanation of N=10 and N=9:

The passage includes N=10 for the RH location and N=9 for the SS location, indicating the
sample sizes. While common in scientific notation, a brief explanation for readers unfamiliar
with this notation might enhance clarity.
Explanation of Closed-Canopy and Open-Canopy:

The terms "closed-canopy" and "open-canopy" are used to describe the forest environments in
Siskiwit Swamp and Rock Harbor, respectively. A brief explanation of these terms could be
beneficial for readers who may not be familiar with ecological terminology.
In summary, while the passage provides valuable information about the locations, sample
characteristics, and tree-ring data, a bit more detail and clarification on the points mentioned
above could enhance the overall understanding of the figures and captions in Part III.

2. The moose population peaked in the mid 1970s and then declined over the next decade. How
did the trees at each site respond in the years following the peak? Are the results for these
samples surprising given the larger data sets for tree ring-width on the previous page?

The RH site is located in the eastern portion of ISLE Royal; according to the previous handout,
this region of the island experiences lower temperatures, less precipitation, and presumably
slower rates of overall growth. Yet, it is in an area with disturbed, open canopy. The significant
improvement in light and space availability should certainly prevail over climatic factors and
spur new development. Nevertheless, in the late 1970s, these trees were tall enough to be above
the moose grazing line, indicating that moose had largely repressed them.

4. Which hypothesis do you feel is best supported by the ring-width chronologies in Part 3?

Unlike trees at the SS location, trees at the RH site seem to have avoided moose herbivory after
the downturn. The RH firs continue to expand quickly even after the moose population is back to
normal.

5. What final conclusions can you draw about the interactions between each trophic level on Isle
Royale? Is control exerted from the top down, as suggested by the trophic cascade model, or are
interactions between trophic levels ultimately controlled by primary productivity?
These two findings suggest that herbivores have little effect on balsam fir growth. The authors
counter that these findings do not cast doubt on the trophic cascade theory. They suggest instead
that external shocks might cancel out the effects of higher trophic interactions, allowing
producers to adjust to underlying productivity fluctuations.

Part 4: Conclusion

Watch the following video and then answer the question that follows:

How Wolves Change Rivers [REMASTERED HD] - George Monbiot - YouTube

What would you do to ensure the island is healthy for a long time to come?

It's crucial to remember that the extinction of all wolves is not a long-term solution before
moving on to the crucial measures we can take to keep the island safe. In addition, it will disrupt
the food chain and could increase the number of moose on that island. Hence, reducing wolf
activity in the easter section, which has an open canopy, and encouraging a large number of
wolves to live there, which is thought to be the cause of the decline in Moses rates, could be a
potential remedy.