A flood hit an area, destroying much of the surrounding ecosystem. One animal species survived the flood, but all of its competi
tors were eliminated. Despite the reduced competition and an abundance of other resources, there was no substantial growth recorded in the population of the surviving species. What are the plausible reasons for this lack of population growth? changes in abiotic factors
new competition from nonnative animals displaced by the flood
a decrease in predators
an increase in available living space
lack of available mates after the flood
Changes in abiotic factors, or Lack of available mates after the flood. If one answer had to be chosen, choose "lack of available mates"
Explanation:
New competition by displaced animals can not be an answer due to the possibility that there is little to no food left, and floods do not have the ability to displace animals. A decrease in predators would usually lead to a greater population, so this answer does not work. An increase in living space would also lead to an increase in population, so this answer is incorrect. A lack of available mates work as an answer because populations depend on genetic diversity and a large selection of mates in order to grow their population. Changes in abiotic factors can mean a lack of certain resources that could be shelter.
generally considered to have originated in the late nineteenth century as a reaction to the abuses of big business and the problems that plagued the lower socio-economic classes of that era.
