Guppy Simulation

1. If being flashy and colorful attracts predators, why do you think guppies are so colorful?
Most likely to attract females; no other explanation is really plausible.

2. The fish's common name is guppy or millions fish.  Its scientific name is poecilia reticulata.  Average size is 3.5 cm.

3. The predator's common name is pike cichlid, its scientific name is crenicichla alta, and originates from Trinidad and Latin America.

4. Predator populations would be heavily influenced by how deep and accessible whatever part of the stream it is.

5. John Endler was an evolutionary biologist who studied wild guppy populations in Trinidad.

6.
Pool 1: Brightly multicolored with large spots.
Pool 2: Medium coloration on body and tail, with medium-sized spots.
Pool 3: Drab coloration, very small spots concentrated near tail.

7. If there are more predators in one area of the stream, then there will be less brightly colored guppies.

8. If the fish are brighter, they're much more likely to be targeted by predators.

9. Yes, in areas with less predators the brightest guppies take over the population.  In areas with more predators, only the drabber fish survive.  This goes with the hypothesis.

10. Two factors influence the characteristics of a guppy population: the predators, and the mates (natural and sexual selection).  Saying that male guppies are caught in the crossfire more or less means this; they need to find a safe median between attracting mates and avoiding predators.

11. Guppies have different coloration in different areas of the stream based on predator population.  They adapt to be drabber/brighter when predators are more/less.

12. The guppies would not attract mates because they have so little coloration, but would not be preyed upon.  If there are brighter guppies in the area, they would win out over time.

13. The brighter guppies would be preyed upon and would die off due to the high amount of predators, because their coloration would be more visible to predators.  Unfortune.
         

	% of Brightest Guppies (10 generations)	% of Bright Guppies (10 generations)	% of Drab Guppies (10 generations)	% of DrabbestGuppies (10 generations)
Trial 1 Guppy: Even Mix Predators: 30 Rivulus	70%	21%	6%	2%
Trial 2 Guppy: Even Mix Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara	14%	86%	0%	0%
Trial 3 Guppy: Even Mix Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid	0%	3%	2%	95%
Trial 4 Guppy: Mostly Bright Predators: 30 Rivulus	88%	9%	1%	3%
Trial 5 Guppy: Mostly Drab Predators: 30 Rivulus, 30 Acara, 30 Cichlid	0%	2%	6%	93%

Preservation of Biodiversity

Biodiversity: this is the sort of thing that people can accept on faith as a moral issue (more in the sense that it's the right thing to do than just "oh don't kill the polar bears and baby seals nooooo").  Looking at it as a practical issue, though, ignoring anything morally questionable about it, I'm actually a bit less convinced after researching it than I was before.  Don't get me wrong, biodiversity something worth preserving, but we haven't really put together a very compelling argument against saving it from, well, us.

• One common argument for preserving biodiversity is that there is potentially a great deal of medicines and other, similar benefits from species not yet studied, and if they went extinct we would lose that benefit forever.  This begs the question, though, why should we bother preserving biodiversity once we've identified and safeguarded the species' of value to us?  Once scientists have meticulously studied and gone through every plant and animal on the planet, this argument no longer holds much validity.
• One less common argument is that biodiversity can act as a safeguard against natural disasters: but usually when this is brought up it only refers to forestation and similar, which seems more like an argument against deforestation than anything, and that is different than biodiversity.  For example, why not just select the kind of tree best suited to defending the area and leave the others vulnerable to logging and natural hazards?
• As far as food sources go, with the progress of genetic engineering to create species more useful as food sources, we could preserve the backbone of a diverse diet while allowing other species to phase out at their leisure.  Sounds pretty cruel, but again, just an objective view.
• Finally, there's the obvious fact that people appreciate the aesthetics of biodiversity, but that's a pretty superficial cause to spend millions of dollars to preserve, and one that probably wouldn't drum up enough interest to, for example, save the rain forest (heh).

Yeah, I don't know.  I haven't seen any other major arguments than these, and it raises questions...

I don't have the prompt handy, but I'm pretty sure this addresses it well enough.  This is also pretty excessive for a post, so I guess I should cut it off here.  Bye for now.