That's what those first herbivores did, and judging by the state of life on Earth past and present, a very successful niche indeed. eating plant matter off tall trees) and does very well at it, it will prosper and pass on its genes to the next generation. Evolution favours the survival of the fittest: if a species 'finds' a niche (e.g. When the first land plants appeared during the Silurian, the first herbivores evolved not long after because everything else was too busy killing one another to exploit a new source of food. I really hope this helps describe in some way, I'm not sure if it made any sense, but I hope it helps! They would also most likely have a much slower metabolism and growth rate, which would assist in them reaching such a monumental size. Four feet would also allow them to move without toppling over, as the way their footprints show, they walked in a way somewhat like a cross between a camel and an elephant, with two feet off the ground at once during a small amount of time when walking. Sauropods, for instance, have 4 legs, which more evenly distributed their weight, to the point each foot probably carried a very small amount of weight compared to the entire mass of the creature. Two legged stature, common in carnivorous dinosaurs, would have not been the greatest method of locomotion if size is wanted, as once they reach too large, they would have trouble even walking due to the weight. For predators, such large size, other than aquatic creatures, would inhibit them from hunting prey, as they would be seen too early in ambush predators, or simply not be able to survive on the food given. It's hard to find a place that has absolutely 0 plant life. While it could be said that some large animals are omnivorous (elephants have been seen eating birds before) the ability to get that large means you would need massive amounts of food to survive, and thankfully for large sauropods and other truly massive animals, plants are everywhere. Well, carnivores are, as a rule, more active than herbivores. ![]() Being bigger and hungrier and worse at your job is pointless. But a pack of lions can take down a buffalo five times the mass of an individual lion, and it’s enough to feed them all. You get diminishing returns on size really quickly. It’s the same reason the giraffes aren’t taller than trees it would be a waste of neck. But the herbivores still won in terms of size, and they always will because it just doesn’t pay to be bigger than the biggest thing you can eat. The Mesozoic was different because the atmosphere allowed everything to get bigger, and the plant life at the time could sustain more big herbivores, which in turn sustained more, bigger predators. And yet it would be constantly hungry, and there aren’t enough big, slow herbivores to reliably sustain a breeding population of big, slow predators. It wouldn’t be able to sneak up on anything. If there were an elephant-sized predator on land today, it wouldn’t be able to eat gazelles, because they’re too fast. The ecological niche is big enough to sustain a modest population of high-browsers. You have to browse almost constantly to meet your caloric needs, but that’s okay because grass and leaves are easy to find and you don’t need to chase them down. It’s also a really effective protection against predators because you’re simply too big to take down. ![]() On land, being big is a good idea for a herbivore because it lets you access food other herbivores can’t get, like tall trees. But there isn’t any viable equivalent on land. ![]() In the ocean, a slow animal can be a filter feeder, predating on small animals without needing to outpace them. Because of the cube-square law, big animals are heavier than they are big.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |