So after some really intense conversation in class, we figured out that our second organism had to be prey to the trout. While we recognized that while the predator population decreases, the prey population would increase, we also determined that a prey population compared to a prey's population would always be larger. This is because a predator must consume more prey to get the matter and energy it needs.
From there, we looked at the graph to realize that the trout always had enough food to consume, yet its population continued to plummet in 1970. This drove us to consider that prey's availability could NOT be the reason for the trout's decline.
The request for MORE data set in...
And lo and behold, Mrs. Brinza got another set of data.
But what does this data reveal? What new questions arise?
From there, we looked at the graph to realize that the trout always had enough food to consume, yet its population continued to plummet in 1970. This drove us to consider that prey's availability could NOT be the reason for the trout's decline.
The request for MORE data set in...
And lo and behold, Mrs. Brinza got another set of data.
But what does this data reveal? What new questions arise?