Skip to content
New summer mock series is live Attempt timed papers for SSC, banking, and engineering entrances with updated syllabi for this season. View exams

#competitive species

2 public questions tagged with this topic.

High dispersal ability and competitive ability species likely become:

“Invasive” for high dispersal ability and competitive ability species likely become. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. Species management must identify the demographic stage and ecological process that most strongly limits population growth. Prevention, early detection, removal, habitat manipulation, and biological control act at different points in an invasion or recovery trajectory. The remaining alternatives—“Endangered”, “Dominant”, “Specialist”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. Effective control reduces propagule pressure or population growth without causing unacceptable non-target effects. Repeated monitoring is necessary because seed banks, dormant stages, recolonization, and density-dependent compensation can reverse short-term gains. The cited framing is therefore most useful when treated as a conditional biological claim, with assumptions about scale and environmental context kept explicit. Linking the wording to measurable consequences for fitness, abundance, or flux gives the conclusion its scientific meaning and prevents a purely mnemonic interpretation.

Ref: Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems, Begon et al., 5th Ed., Ch. 21

Competitive species dominate in:

“Low disturbance, high nutrients” for competitive species dominate in. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. Survivorship curves summarize age-specific mortality: Type I concentrates loss late in life, Type II approximates a constant hazard, and Type III concentrates loss early. They are empirical patterns, not rigid taxonomic rules. The remaining alternatives—“High stress and low nutrients”, “High disturbance, high stress”, “Arctic conditions”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. Selection favors the schedule that increases lifetime reproductive success under local mortality and resource conditions. Body size, development time, fecundity, parental investment, and generation length consequently tend to covary. This distinction matters because similar surface patterns can arise through different mechanisms, whereas ecological prediction depends on identifying the mechanism that actually changes rates. The cited framing is therefore most useful when treated as a conditional biological claim, with assumptions about scale and environmental context kept explicit.

Ref: Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes, Grime, 2nd Ed.