We have less offspring per go (eg 1 normally) as we put a lot of time, efoort and energy into looking after than offspring. If we had multitudes of kids at a time, it wouldn't benefit us or them
For animals that do this, which tend to be insects, fish , molluscs,amphibians and reptiles (ie the more primative groups), that is have multitudes of eggs, they are able to out more time and effort into other things (eg eat, produce more offspring etc) and look after themselves.
From what I remember they are called p and r populations (or something like that), and I remember a graph with spp that have lots of offspring have a massive death rate of offspring (because they do not look after their young and are eaten by predators etc), but the ones that survive will generally do well and live long and prosper etc. So its left up to nature to weed out the weak ones or unlucky ones (there is more chance involved too).
While humans have low child mortaility and more mortality as time goes by.
2007-04-23 16:35:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by mareeclara 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
So it's basically the opposite of the other question.
1. Short life expectancy/high predation: this is particularly true of prey species in the ocean; octopi lays tons of eggs because the chances are high that either the eggs of the larvae will be eaten by other fish
2. Uncertainty of fertilization: again as in fish, sessile animals (sponges, mussels, etc - those that can't move) eject a lot of eggs and sperm in the hopes that they'll meet eggs/sperm from another individual and be fertilized; the ocean is big, so you have to eject a lot in order to have a chance of reproduction
3. Sweepstakes hypothesis: coined by Dr. Dennis Hedgcock at USC; based on the idea that, for a given year, the circumstances that dictate survival are so varied that only a few larvae survive; for example, salmon have tons of babies because they can be killed off at various life stages, and only a few babies actually make it to reproduce. Such threats include predation; inability to swim over obstacles; lack of resources (food, nutrients); tide (could sweep them out somewhere that's inhospitable); poor nutrient output that season
2007-04-23 23:08:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by Sci Fi Insomniac 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
My one reason: predators! My Explanation: These species tend to have predators that are larger than they and hungry enough to eat an entire brood of eggs in one gulp. Just imagine how many fish eggs (caviar) one old lady can eat with a single ritz cracker. In order for the species to adequately survive, they MUST reproduce in mass.
2007-04-23 23:12:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by klg2k2002 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Predators eat many of the eggs.
2007-04-23 23:04:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by ecolink 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
They have adapted to harsher environments, where it is more difficult for their offspring to survive, and so a larger number proves a better probability of their survival.
2007-04-23 23:03:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋