Mixing
Could a new species wipe out the rest of an established ecosystem?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm not asking about an exotic species in the modern world we know all too well the havoc that can be caused by the introduction of an alien species into an existing ecosystem. I want to know if a novel evolutionary adaptation could create a species which wipes out the rest of the ecosystem it evolved in.
In particular I'm wondering if something similar to the Manchineel could evolve and through a relatively minor mutation and change in it's biochemistry kill off the rest of the ecosystem around it and then take over the newly vacant floral niches?
For the purposes of this question assume a bare-bones ecosystem without land-dwelling vertebrates or grasses but with trees flowers and insect life. Furthermore assume the plant taking over is in fact wind pollinated and thus independent of other organisms for it's propagation. I'm wondering about how realistic causing the total extinction of other multi-cellular life on land is rather than simply forcing other lifeforms into niche environments.
This is an extension of some ideas spurred by Why wouldn't my colonists go to see what's going on down there? and Planet with no rain, only fog, like Chile's Atacama Desert, reference to which may or may not be helpful.
Other possible plant touchstones may include Yew and Locust which are toxic not only to people and animals but also to other plants that would otherwise compete with them.
environment flora ecology
asked 3 hours ago
Ash
23.3k462136
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm not asking about an exotic species in the modern world we know all too well the havoc that can be caused by the introduction of an alien species into an existing ecosystem. I want to know if a novel evolutionary adaptation could create a species which wipes out the rest of the ecosystem it evolved in.
In particular I'm wondering if something similar to the Manchineel could evolve and through a relatively minor mutation and change in it's biochemistry kill off the rest of the ecosystem around it and then take over the newly vacant floral niches?
For the purposes of this question assume a bare-bones ecosystem without land-dwelling vertebrates or grasses but with trees flowers and insect life. Furthermore assume the plant taking over is in fact wind pollinated and thus independent of other organisms for it's propagation. I'm wondering about how realistic causing the total extinction of other multi-cellular life on land is rather than simply forcing other lifeforms into niche environments.
This is an extension of some ideas spurred by Why wouldn't my colonists go to see what's going on down there? and Planet with no rain, only fog, like Chile's Atacama Desert, reference to which may or may not be helpful.
Other possible plant touchstones may include Yew and Locust which are toxic not only to people and animals but also to other plants that would otherwise compete with them.
environment flora ecology
asked 3 hours ago
Ash
23.3k462136
3
You mean like how some early life poisoned most of their competitors by changing the atmosphere to oxygen-rich?
– user535733
3 hours ago
@user535733 Kind of except with a far more evolved biosphere and actually forcing it's competitors into extinct rather than relegating them to niche environments.
– Ash
3 hours ago
1
How fast do you want it to happen oxygen took millions of years.
– John
2 hours ago
@John My thinking was that if it took more than a few generations then elements of the ecosystem would be able to adapt to the new species rather than being wiped out by it.
– Ash
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm not asking about an exotic species in the modern world we know all too well the havoc that can be caused by the introduction of an alien species into an existing ecosystem. I want to know if a novel evolutionary adaptation could create a species which wipes out the rest of the ecosystem it evolved in.
In particular I'm wondering if something similar to the Manchineel could evolve and through a relatively minor mutation and change in it's biochemistry kill off the rest of the ecosystem around it and then take over the newly vacant floral niches?
For the purposes of this question assume a bare-bones ecosystem without land-dwelling vertebrates or grasses but with trees flowers and insect life. Furthermore assume the plant taking over is in fact wind pollinated and thus independent of other organisms for it's propagation. I'm wondering about how realistic causing the total extinction of other multi-cellular life on land is rather than simply forcing other lifeforms into niche environments.
This is an extension of some ideas spurred by Why wouldn't my colonists go to see what's going on down there? and Planet with no rain, only fog, like Chile's Atacama Desert, reference to which may or may not be helpful.
Other possible plant touchstones may include Yew and Locust which are toxic not only to people and animals but also to other plants that would otherwise compete with them.
environment flora ecology
asked 3 hours ago
Ash
23.3k462136
I'm not asking about an exotic species in the modern world we know all too well the havoc that can be caused by the introduction of an alien species into an existing ecosystem. I want to know if a novel evolutionary adaptation could create a species which wipes out the rest of the ecosystem it evolved in.
In particular I'm wondering if something similar to the Manchineel could evolve and through a relatively minor mutation and change in it's biochemistry kill off the rest of the ecosystem around it and then take over the newly vacant floral niches?
For the purposes of this question assume a bare-bones ecosystem without land-dwelling vertebrates or grasses but with trees flowers and insect life. Furthermore assume the plant taking over is in fact wind pollinated and thus independent of other organisms for it's propagation. I'm wondering about how realistic causing the total extinction of other multi-cellular life on land is rather than simply forcing other lifeforms into niche environments.
This is an extension of some ideas spurred by Why wouldn't my colonists go to see what's going on down there? and Planet with no rain, only fog, like Chile's Atacama Desert, reference to which may or may not be helpful.
Other possible plant touchstones may include Yew and Locust which are toxic not only to people and animals but also to other plants that would otherwise compete with them.
environment flora ecology
environment flora ecology
asked 3 hours ago
Ash
23.3k462136
asked 3 hours ago
Ash
23.3k462136
edited 2 hours ago
asked 3 hours ago
Ash
23.3k462136
asked 3 hours ago
Ash
23.3k462136
asked 3 hours ago
Ash
23.3k462136
23.3k462136
3
You mean like how some early life poisoned most of their competitors by changing the atmosphere to oxygen-rich?
– user535733
3 hours ago
@user535733 Kind of except with a far more evolved biosphere and actually forcing it's competitors into extinct rather than relegating them to niche environments.
– Ash
3 hours ago
1
How fast do you want it to happen oxygen took millions of years.
– John
2 hours ago
@John My thinking was that if it took more than a few generations then elements of the ecosystem would be able to adapt to the new species rather than being wiped out by it.
– Ash
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3
You mean like how some early life poisoned most of their competitors by changing the atmosphere to oxygen-rich?
– user535733
3 hours ago
@user535733 Kind of except with a far more evolved biosphere and actually forcing it's competitors into extinct rather than relegating them to niche environments.
– Ash
3 hours ago
1
How fast do you want it to happen oxygen took millions of years.
– John
2 hours ago
@John My thinking was that if it took more than a few generations then elements of the ecosystem would be able to adapt to the new species rather than being wiped out by it.
– Ash
2 hours ago
3
3
You mean like how some early life poisoned most of their competitors by changing the atmosphere to oxygen-rich?
– user535733
3 hours ago
You mean like how some early life poisoned most of their competitors by changing the atmosphere to oxygen-rich?
– user535733
3 hours ago
@user535733 Kind of except with a far more evolved biosphere and actually forcing it's competitors into extinct rather than relegating them to niche environments.
– Ash
3 hours ago
@user535733 Kind of except with a far more evolved biosphere and actually forcing it's competitors into extinct rather than relegating them to niche environments.
– Ash
3 hours ago
1
1
How fast do you want it to happen oxygen took millions of years.
– John
2 hours ago
How fast do you want it to happen oxygen took millions of years.
– John
2 hours ago
@John My thinking was that if it took more than a few generations then elements of the ecosystem would be able to adapt to the new species rather than being wiped out by it.
– Ash
2 hours ago
@John My thinking was that if it took more than a few generations then elements of the ecosystem would be able to adapt to the new species rather than being wiped out by it.
– Ash
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
No
You are not talking about a single mutation but a sudden drastic change in the plants biochemistry without killing said plant. A mutation will not produce this. Toxicity takes many many generations to evolve and almost as long to build in concentration.
The only way you will do this is with a species introduced from outside the ecosystem, one that the local wildlife has not been evolving alongside. Note this can still be completely natural, plants get to new islands in bad storms or in bird poop, they can travel hundreds of miles this way. The key is the the local wildlife has no defense against the new plant because it was not present in the environment before. for a benign example the cattle egret made it from Africa to the americas on a storm and has spread like wildfire ever since.
answered 2 hours ago
John
28.4k83897
Toxicity in general certainly takes time to evolve but does the change from a toxin that other lifeforms can tolerate in very low concentrations to a closely related but different toxin that they can't have to take time periods of the same order? Or in fact a small but telling change in the rate of production.
– Ash
2 hours ago
no, said toxin will already be present in the environment for things to develop a resistance too. worse as a broad spectrum toxin (you want it to effect animals and plants) the plant that has it will need to have increasing measures to not poisons itself so a sudden change may kill it. toxicity has evolved many times and resistance evolves right along side it. because it cannot evolve too quickly.
– John
2 hours ago
I'm not talking about it evolving gradually I'm talking about a sudden change, which could have killed the whole ecosystem but the species producing it got lucky.
– Ash
2 hours ago
No that's not how mutation works, you can't have that sudden of a change in a species, you can get it by introducing a new species, but not by changing an existing one. keep in mind broad toxins are also toxic to the things that produce them. If it evolves quickly it will kill itself long before it can spread.
– John
2 hours ago
Okay so it shouldn't happen and certainly not if the toxicity of the plant is based on a single broadly toxic compound?
– Ash
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
One example I could think of is grass itself.
Through a simple evolutionary step (fairly recent in the overall evolution of life), that of propagating underneath the soil instead of above it with rhizomes, the plant quickly destroyed all opportunity (and strangled standard trees) for pre-existing trees to grow.
It does this by pollinating through air (as you mentioned), covering the available land, with complex interwoven root systems that completely eliminate older tree-like individual stems and roots. Even fire cannot destroy the plant as the roots underneath are unaffected. Any plant that tries to grow amongst grass is quickly strangled. Any animal that eats it only affects the plant above the surface, but eaten portions are easily replaced.
The evolution of grass has been so successful that huge swathes of continents had their preexisting jungles and ferns replaced entirely with grass.
In terms of plant species that you mention that wipe out established eco-systems, you need look no further than simple grass.
answered 2 hours ago
flox
5,755320
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Yes
The new species can completely transform the "look and feel" of the landscape. Even without toxins, invasive species are wreaking havoc. The toxin would be yet another advantage.
No
Life in general is incredibly resilient and good at filling new ecological niches as they develop. Compare extremophile lifeforms, or for that matter multiresistant microbes. As the new lifeform spreads, many other individuals are killed. Entire species will die. But those individuals which are not killed immediately will breed into ever more resistant strains.
So the new plant might become dominant in the old ecosystem. It won't replace all other lifeforms.
answered 1 hour ago
o.m.
55k679183
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
No
You are not talking about a single mutation but a sudden drastic change in the plants biochemistry without killing said plant. A mutation will not produce this. Toxicity takes many many generations to evolve and almost as long to build in concentration.
The only way you will do this is with a species introduced from outside the ecosystem, one that the local wildlife has not been evolving alongside. Note this can still be completely natural, plants get to new islands in bad storms or in bird poop, they can travel hundreds of miles this way. The key is the the local wildlife has no defense against the new plant because it was not present in the environment before. for a benign example the cattle egret made it from Africa to the americas on a storm and has spread like wildfire ever since.
answered 2 hours ago
John
28.4k83897
Toxicity in general certainly takes time to evolve but does the change from a toxin that other lifeforms can tolerate in very low concentrations to a closely related but different toxin that they can't have to take time periods of the same order? Or in fact a small but telling change in the rate of production.
– Ash
2 hours ago
no, said toxin will already be present in the environment for things to develop a resistance too. worse as a broad spectrum toxin (you want it to effect animals and plants) the plant that has it will need to have increasing measures to not poisons itself so a sudden change may kill it. toxicity has evolved many times and resistance evolves right along side it. because it cannot evolve too quickly.
– John
2 hours ago
I'm not talking about it evolving gradually I'm talking about a sudden change, which could have killed the whole ecosystem but the species producing it got lucky.
– Ash
2 hours ago
No that's not how mutation works, you can't have that sudden of a change in a species, you can get it by introducing a new species, but not by changing an existing one. keep in mind broad toxins are also toxic to the things that produce them. If it evolves quickly it will kill itself long before it can spread.
– John
2 hours ago
Okay so it shouldn't happen and certainly not if the toxicity of the plant is based on a single broadly toxic compound?
– Ash
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
No
You are not talking about a single mutation but a sudden drastic change in the plants biochemistry without killing said plant. A mutation will not produce this. Toxicity takes many many generations to evolve and almost as long to build in concentration.
The only way you will do this is with a species introduced from outside the ecosystem, one that the local wildlife has not been evolving alongside. Note this can still be completely natural, plants get to new islands in bad storms or in bird poop, they can travel hundreds of miles this way. The key is the the local wildlife has no defense against the new plant because it was not present in the environment before. for a benign example the cattle egret made it from Africa to the americas on a storm and has spread like wildfire ever since.
answered 2 hours ago
John
28.4k83897
Toxicity in general certainly takes time to evolve but does the change from a toxin that other lifeforms can tolerate in very low concentrations to a closely related but different toxin that they can't have to take time periods of the same order? Or in fact a small but telling change in the rate of production.
– Ash
2 hours ago
no, said toxin will already be present in the environment for things to develop a resistance too. worse as a broad spectrum toxin (you want it to effect animals and plants) the plant that has it will need to have increasing measures to not poisons itself so a sudden change may kill it. toxicity has evolved many times and resistance evolves right along side it. because it cannot evolve too quickly.
– John
2 hours ago
I'm not talking about it evolving gradually I'm talking about a sudden change, which could have killed the whole ecosystem but the species producing it got lucky.
– Ash
2 hours ago
No that's not how mutation works, you can't have that sudden of a change in a species, you can get it by introducing a new species, but not by changing an existing one. keep in mind broad toxins are also toxic to the things that produce them. If it evolves quickly it will kill itself long before it can spread.
– John
2 hours ago
Okay so it shouldn't happen and certainly not if the toxicity of the plant is based on a single broadly toxic compound?
– Ash
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
No
You are not talking about a single mutation but a sudden drastic change in the plants biochemistry without killing said plant. A mutation will not produce this. Toxicity takes many many generations to evolve and almost as long to build in concentration.
The only way you will do this is with a species introduced from outside the ecosystem, one that the local wildlife has not been evolving alongside. Note this can still be completely natural, plants get to new islands in bad storms or in bird poop, they can travel hundreds of miles this way. The key is the the local wildlife has no defense against the new plant because it was not present in the environment before. for a benign example the cattle egret made it from Africa to the americas on a storm and has spread like wildfire ever since.
answered 2 hours ago
John
28.4k83897
No
You are not talking about a single mutation but a sudden drastic change in the plants biochemistry without killing said plant. A mutation will not produce this. Toxicity takes many many generations to evolve and almost as long to build in concentration.
The only way you will do this is with a species introduced from outside the ecosystem, one that the local wildlife has not been evolving alongside. Note this can still be completely natural, plants get to new islands in bad storms or in bird poop, they can travel hundreds of miles this way. The key is the the local wildlife has no defense against the new plant because it was not present in the environment before. for a benign example the cattle egret made it from Africa to the americas on a storm and has spread like wildfire ever since.
answered 2 hours ago
John
28.4k83897
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
John
28.4k83897
answered 2 hours ago
John
28.4k83897
answered 2 hours ago
John
28.4k83897
28.4k83897
Toxicity in general certainly takes time to evolve but does the change from a toxin that other lifeforms can tolerate in very low concentrations to a closely related but different toxin that they can't have to take time periods of the same order? Or in fact a small but telling change in the rate of production.
– Ash
2 hours ago
no, said toxin will already be present in the environment for things to develop a resistance too. worse as a broad spectrum toxin (you want it to effect animals and plants) the plant that has it will need to have increasing measures to not poisons itself so a sudden change may kill it. toxicity has evolved many times and resistance evolves right along side it. because it cannot evolve too quickly.
– John
2 hours ago
I'm not talking about it evolving gradually I'm talking about a sudden change, which could have killed the whole ecosystem but the species producing it got lucky.
– Ash
2 hours ago
No that's not how mutation works, you can't have that sudden of a change in a species, you can get it by introducing a new species, but not by changing an existing one. keep in mind broad toxins are also toxic to the things that produce them. If it evolves quickly it will kill itself long before it can spread.
– John
2 hours ago
Okay so it shouldn't happen and certainly not if the toxicity of the plant is based on a single broadly toxic compound?
– Ash
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
Toxicity in general certainly takes time to evolve but does the change from a toxin that other lifeforms can tolerate in very low concentrations to a closely related but different toxin that they can't have to take time periods of the same order? Or in fact a small but telling change in the rate of production.
– Ash
2 hours ago
no, said toxin will already be present in the environment for things to develop a resistance too. worse as a broad spectrum toxin (you want it to effect animals and plants) the plant that has it will need to have increasing measures to not poisons itself so a sudden change may kill it. toxicity has evolved many times and resistance evolves right along side it. because it cannot evolve too quickly.
– John
2 hours ago
I'm not talking about it evolving gradually I'm talking about a sudden change, which could have killed the whole ecosystem but the species producing it got lucky.
– Ash
2 hours ago
No that's not how mutation works, you can't have that sudden of a change in a species, you can get it by introducing a new species, but not by changing an existing one. keep in mind broad toxins are also toxic to the things that produce them. If it evolves quickly it will kill itself long before it can spread.
– John
2 hours ago
Okay so it shouldn't happen and certainly not if the toxicity of the plant is based on a single broadly toxic compound?
– Ash
2 hours ago
Toxicity in general certainly takes time to evolve but does the change from a toxin that other lifeforms can tolerate in very low concentrations to a closely related but different toxin that they can't have to take time periods of the same order? Or in fact a small but telling change in the rate of production.
– Ash
2 hours ago
Toxicity in general certainly takes time to evolve but does the change from a toxin that other lifeforms can tolerate in very low concentrations to a closely related but different toxin that they can't have to take time periods of the same order? Or in fact a small but telling change in the rate of production.
– Ash
2 hours ago
no, said toxin will already be present in the environment for things to develop a resistance too. worse as a broad spectrum toxin (you want it to effect animals and plants) the plant that has it will need to have increasing measures to not poisons itself so a sudden change may kill it. toxicity has evolved many times and resistance evolves right along side it. because it cannot evolve too quickly.
– John
2 hours ago
no, said toxin will already be present in the environment for things to develop a resistance too. worse as a broad spectrum toxin (you want it to effect animals and plants) the plant that has it will need to have increasing measures to not poisons itself so a sudden change may kill it. toxicity has evolved many times and resistance evolves right along side it. because it cannot evolve too quickly.
– John
2 hours ago
I'm not talking about it evolving gradually I'm talking about a sudden change, which could have killed the whole ecosystem but the species producing it got lucky.
– Ash
2 hours ago
I'm not talking about it evolving gradually I'm talking about a sudden change, which could have killed the whole ecosystem but the species producing it got lucky.
– Ash
2 hours ago
No that's not how mutation works, you can't have that sudden of a change in a species, you can get it by introducing a new species, but not by changing an existing one. keep in mind broad toxins are also toxic to the things that produce them. If it evolves quickly it will kill itself long before it can spread.
– John
2 hours ago
No that's not how mutation works, you can't have that sudden of a change in a species, you can get it by introducing a new species, but not by changing an existing one. keep in mind broad toxins are also toxic to the things that produce them. If it evolves quickly it will kill itself long before it can spread.
– John
2 hours ago
Okay so it shouldn't happen and certainly not if the toxicity of the plant is based on a single broadly toxic compound?
– Ash
2 hours ago
Okay so it shouldn't happen and certainly not if the toxicity of the plant is based on a single broadly toxic compound?
– Ash
2 hours ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
One example I could think of is grass itself.
Through a simple evolutionary step (fairly recent in the overall evolution of life), that of propagating underneath the soil instead of above it with rhizomes, the plant quickly destroyed all opportunity (and strangled standard trees) for pre-existing trees to grow.
It does this by pollinating through air (as you mentioned), covering the available land, with complex interwoven root systems that completely eliminate older tree-like individual stems and roots. Even fire cannot destroy the plant as the roots underneath are unaffected. Any plant that tries to grow amongst grass is quickly strangled. Any animal that eats it only affects the plant above the surface, but eaten portions are easily replaced.
The evolution of grass has been so successful that huge swathes of continents had their preexisting jungles and ferns replaced entirely with grass.
In terms of plant species that you mention that wipe out established eco-systems, you need look no further than simple grass.
answered 2 hours ago
flox
5,755320
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
One example I could think of is grass itself.
Through a simple evolutionary step (fairly recent in the overall evolution of life), that of propagating underneath the soil instead of above it with rhizomes, the plant quickly destroyed all opportunity (and strangled standard trees) for pre-existing trees to grow.
It does this by pollinating through air (as you mentioned), covering the available land, with complex interwoven root systems that completely eliminate older tree-like individual stems and roots. Even fire cannot destroy the plant as the roots underneath are unaffected. Any plant that tries to grow amongst grass is quickly strangled. Any animal that eats it only affects the plant above the surface, but eaten portions are easily replaced.
The evolution of grass has been so successful that huge swathes of continents had their preexisting jungles and ferns replaced entirely with grass.
In terms of plant species that you mention that wipe out established eco-systems, you need look no further than simple grass.
answered 2 hours ago
flox
5,755320
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
One example I could think of is grass itself.
Through a simple evolutionary step (fairly recent in the overall evolution of life), that of propagating underneath the soil instead of above it with rhizomes, the plant quickly destroyed all opportunity (and strangled standard trees) for pre-existing trees to grow.
It does this by pollinating through air (as you mentioned), covering the available land, with complex interwoven root systems that completely eliminate older tree-like individual stems and roots. Even fire cannot destroy the plant as the roots underneath are unaffected. Any plant that tries to grow amongst grass is quickly strangled. Any animal that eats it only affects the plant above the surface, but eaten portions are easily replaced.
The evolution of grass has been so successful that huge swathes of continents had their preexisting jungles and ferns replaced entirely with grass.
In terms of plant species that you mention that wipe out established eco-systems, you need look no further than simple grass.
answered 2 hours ago
flox
5,755320
One example I could think of is grass itself.
Through a simple evolutionary step (fairly recent in the overall evolution of life), that of propagating underneath the soil instead of above it with rhizomes, the plant quickly destroyed all opportunity (and strangled standard trees) for pre-existing trees to grow.
It does this by pollinating through air (as you mentioned), covering the available land, with complex interwoven root systems that completely eliminate older tree-like individual stems and roots. Even fire cannot destroy the plant as the roots underneath are unaffected. Any plant that tries to grow amongst grass is quickly strangled. Any animal that eats it only affects the plant above the surface, but eaten portions are easily replaced.
The evolution of grass has been so successful that huge swathes of continents had their preexisting jungles and ferns replaced entirely with grass.
In terms of plant species that you mention that wipe out established eco-systems, you need look no further than simple grass.
answered 2 hours ago
flox
5,755320
answered 2 hours ago
flox
5,755320
answered 2 hours ago
flox
5,755320
answered 2 hours ago
flox
5,755320
5,755320
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Yes
The new species can completely transform the "look and feel" of the landscape. Even without toxins, invasive species are wreaking havoc. The toxin would be yet another advantage.
No
Life in general is incredibly resilient and good at filling new ecological niches as they develop. Compare extremophile lifeforms, or for that matter multiresistant microbes. As the new lifeform spreads, many other individuals are killed. Entire species will die. But those individuals which are not killed immediately will breed into ever more resistant strains.
So the new plant might become dominant in the old ecosystem. It won't replace all other lifeforms.
answered 1 hour ago
o.m.
55k679183
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Yes
The new species can completely transform the "look and feel" of the landscape. Even without toxins, invasive species are wreaking havoc. The toxin would be yet another advantage.
No
Life in general is incredibly resilient and good at filling new ecological niches as they develop. Compare extremophile lifeforms, or for that matter multiresistant microbes. As the new lifeform spreads, many other individuals are killed. Entire species will die. But those individuals which are not killed immediately will breed into ever more resistant strains.
So the new plant might become dominant in the old ecosystem. It won't replace all other lifeforms.
answered 1 hour ago
o.m.
55k679183
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Yes
The new species can completely transform the "look and feel" of the landscape. Even without toxins, invasive species are wreaking havoc. The toxin would be yet another advantage.
No
Life in general is incredibly resilient and good at filling new ecological niches as they develop. Compare extremophile lifeforms, or for that matter multiresistant microbes. As the new lifeform spreads, many other individuals are killed. Entire species will die. But those individuals which are not killed immediately will breed into ever more resistant strains.
So the new plant might become dominant in the old ecosystem. It won't replace all other lifeforms.
answered 1 hour ago
o.m.
55k679183
Yes
The new species can completely transform the "look and feel" of the landscape. Even without toxins, invasive species are wreaking havoc. The toxin would be yet another advantage.
No
Life in general is incredibly resilient and good at filling new ecological niches as they develop. Compare extremophile lifeforms, or for that matter multiresistant microbes. As the new lifeform spreads, many other individuals are killed. Entire species will die. But those individuals which are not killed immediately will breed into ever more resistant strains.
So the new plant might become dominant in the old ecosystem. It won't replace all other lifeforms.
answered 1 hour ago
o.m.
55k679183
answered 1 hour ago
o.m.
55k679183
answered 1 hour ago
o.m.
55k679183
answered 1 hour ago
o.m.
55k679183
55k679183
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127684%2fcould-a-new-species-wipe-out-the-rest-of-an-established-ecosystem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
You mean like how some early life poisoned most of their competitors by changing the atmosphere to oxygen-rich?
– user535733
3 hours ago
@user535733 Kind of except with a far more evolved biosphere and actually forcing it's competitors into extinct rather than relegating them to niche environments.
– Ash
3 hours ago
1
How fast do you want it to happen oxygen took millions of years.
– John
2 hours ago
@John My thinking was that if it took more than a few generations then elements of the ecosystem would be able to adapt to the new species rather than being wiped out by it.
– Ash
2 hours ago