I understand competitive exclusion but wouldn’t the same logic extend to the animals of the same species if we’re going to take competitive exclusion to this extreme?
Posted on December 24, 2010.
I understand competitive exclusion but wouldn’t the same logic extend to the animals of the same species if we’re going to take competitive exclusion to this extreme?
I understand your confusion, but think about it this way. A niche is the role an animal played in it’s environment (food it eats and where it lives) Suppose there were 2 families of squirrels and they both moved to a new area. In this area there are only enough acorns to feed one family and only one tree with a hole in it to sleep in. So basically there is one niche and 2 groups of animals that want it. One family is going to loose and they will die off. the other squirrels with their mad skills will live on and pass their traits on to future generations of awesome squirrels. lol
Competitive exclusion applies within a species, and that is an important reason why species change over time: any advantageous traits tend to increase in frequency in the population. The individuals which are unable to compete die out or adapt to an alternate niche where they are not competing for the same crucial resource. This is an important means of generating multiple populations (and ultimately species), such as Darwin’s finches adapting to different food sources. Since it is an interbreeding population, there will be no bright line where you can say “extinct” although you can follow the rise and fall of different traits.
I pay no attention to Gause’s Exclusion Principle, since different marine phytoplankton seem to occupy the same niche.
But anyway, individuals of the same species balance between ensuring their own survival and ensuring the survival of their genes (through the next generation). A male that drives away all females is going to be eliminating his allele set from future generations, see what I mean?