Home
Class 12
BIOLOGY
Assertion : Elimination of a competitive...

Assertion : Elimination of a competitively inferior species in a closely related or otherwise similar group is known as competitive exclusion principle.
Reason : If two species compete for the same resource, they could aviod competition by choosing different times for feeding or different foraging patterns.

Text Solution

AI Generated Solution

The correct Answer is:
To solve the assertion-reason question, we need to analyze both the assertion and the reason provided. ### Step-by-Step Solution: 1. **Understanding the Assertion**: - The assertion states that the elimination of a competitively inferior species in a closely related or similar group is known as the competitive exclusion principle. - This principle, formulated by Gause, suggests that two species competing for the same limited resources cannot coexist indefinitely. One species will outcompete the other, leading to the elimination of the less efficient species. 2. **Understanding the Reason**: - The reason provided states that if two species compete for the same resource, they could avoid competition by choosing different times for feeding or different foraging patterns. - This statement highlights a concept known as resource partitioning, where species can coexist by utilizing resources in different ways or at different times, thus reducing direct competition. 3. **Evaluating the Correctness**: - Both the assertion and the reason are correct statements. The assertion correctly describes the competitive exclusion principle, while the reason describes an alternative outcome of competition (resource partitioning) that can occur under certain circumstances. 4. **Determining the Relationship**: - While both statements are correct, the reason does not explain the assertion. Instead, it presents a different perspective on competition. The assertion focuses on the outcome of competitive exclusion, while the reason discusses a strategy that species might employ to coexist. 5. **Conclusion**: - Since both statements are correct but do not support each other, the correct answer is that both the assertion and reason are true, but the reason does not explain the assertion. ### Final Answer: Both the assertion and reason are correct, but the reason does not explain the assertion. ---

To solve the assertion-reason question, we need to analyze both the assertion and the reason provided. ### Step-by-Step Solution: 1. **Understanding the Assertion**: - The assertion states that the elimination of a competitively inferior species in a closely related or similar group is known as the competitive exclusion principle. - This principle, formulated by Gause, suggests that two species competing for the same limited resources cannot coexist indefinitely. One species will outcompete the other, leading to the elimination of the less efficient species. ...
Doubtnut Promotions Banner Mobile Dark
|

Topper's Solved these Questions

  • ORGANISMS AND POPULATION

    NCERT FINGERTIPS ENGLISH|Exercise Organisms And Population|175 Videos
  • ORGANISMS AND POPULATION

    NCERT FINGERTIPS ENGLISH|Exercise NCERT|20 Videos
  • MOLECULAR BASIS OF INHERITANCE

    NCERT FINGERTIPS ENGLISH|Exercise Molecular Basis Of Inheritance|151 Videos
  • PRACTICE PAPERS

    NCERT FINGERTIPS ENGLISH|Exercise Practice paper|150 Videos

Similar Questions

Explore conceptually related problems

Two species competing for the same resource can avoid competition by choosing different habits. This phenomenon is called

To avoid competition species choose different feeding time and different foraging pattern this is called

Knowledge Check

  • Two species competing for the same resource can avoid competition by choosing different habits. This phenomenon is called _____and was supported by _____.

    A
    competitive exclusion, Gause
    B
    competitive exclusion, MacArthur
    C
    resource partitioning, Gause
    D
    resource partitioning, MacArthur
  • Competitive exclusion principle stating that inferior species is eliminated eventually after prolonged competition was given by

    A
    Allen
    B
    Pearl-Verhulst
    C
    Gause
    D
    Darwin.
  • This passage is adapted from Sabrina Richards, “Pleasant to the Touch.” ©2012 by The Scientist. In the early 1990s, textbooks acknowledged that humans had slow-conducting nerves, but asserted that those nerves only responded to two types of Line stimuli: pain and temperature. Sensations of pressure and vibration were believed to travel only along myelinated, fast-signaling nerve fibers, which also give information about location. Experiments blocking nerve fibers supported this notion. Preventing fast fibers from firing (either by clamping the relevant nerve or by injecting the local anesthetic lidocaine) seemed to eliminate the sensation of pressure altogether, but blocking slow fibers only seemed to reduce sensitivity to warmth or a small painful shock. Håkan Olausson and his Gothenburg University colleagues Åke Vallbo and Johan Wessberg wondered if slow fibers responsive to gentle pressure might be active in humans as well as in other mammals. In 1993, they corralled 28 young volunteers and recorded nerve signals while gently brushing the subjects’ arms with their fingertips. Using a technique called microneurography, in which a fine filament is inserted into a single nerve to capture its electrical impulses, the scientists were able to measure how quickly—or slowly—the nerves fired. They showed that soft stroking prompted two different signals, one immediate and one delayed. The delay, Olausson explains, means that the signal from a gentle touch on the forearm will reach the brain about a half second later. This delay identified nerve impulses traveling at speeds characteristic of slow, unmyelinated fibers—about 1 meter/second—confirming the presence of these fibers in human hairy skin. (In contrast, fast- conducting fibers, already known to respond to touch, signal at a rate between 35 and 75 m/s.) Then, in 1999, the group looked more closely at the characteristics of the slow fibers. They named these “low-threshold” nerves “C-tactile,” or CT, fibers, said Olausson, because of their “exquisite sensitivity” to slow, gentle tactile stimulation, but unresponsiveness to noxious stimuli like pinpricks. But why exactly humans might have such fibers, which respond only to a narrow range of rather subtle stimuli, was initially mystifying. Unlike other types of sensory nerves, CT fibers could be found only in hairy human skin—such as the forearm and thigh. No amount of gentle stroking of hairless skin, such as the palms and soles of the feet, prompted similar activity signatures. Olausson and his colleagues decided that these fibers must be conveying a different dimension of sensory information than fast-conducting fibers. Although microneurography can give information about how a single nerve responds to gentle brushing and pressure, it cannot tease out what aspect of sensation that fiber relays, says Olausson. He wanted to know if that same slow nerve can distinguish where the brush touches the arm, and whether it can discern the difference between a goat-hair brush and a feather. Most importantly, could that same fiber convey a pleasant sensation? To address the question, Olausson’s group sought out a patient known as G.L. who had an unusual nerve defect. More than 2 decades earlier, she had developed numbness across many parts of her body after taking penicillin to treat a cough and fever. Testing showed that she had lost responsiveness to pressure, and a nerve biopsy confirmed that G.L.’s quick-conducting fibers were gone, resulting in an inability to sense any pokes, prods, or pinpricks below her nose. But she could still sense warmth, suggesting that her slow-conducting unmyelinated fibers were intact. Upon recruiting G.L., Olausson tested her by brushing her arm gently at the speed of between 2–10 centimeters per second. She had more trouble distinguishing the direction or pressure of the brush strokes than most subjects, but reported feeling a pleasant sensation. When the researchers tried brushing her palm, where CT fibers are not found, she felt nothing. Olausson used functional MRI studies to examine which areas of the brain lit up when G.L.’s arm was gently brushed to activate CT fibers. In normal subjects, both the somatosensory and insular cortices were activated, but only the insular cortex [which processes emotion] was active when researchers brushed G.L.’s arm. This solidified the notion that CT fibers convey a more emotional quality of touch, rather than the conscious aspect that helps us describe what we are sensing. CT fibers, it seemed, specifically provide pleasurable sensations. Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

    A
    Lines 1-4 (“In the . . . temperature”)
    B
    Lines 4-7 (“Sensations . . . location”)
    C
    Lines 12-14 (“blocking . . . shock”)
    D
    Lines 34-36 (“In contrast . . . 75 m/s”)
  • Similar Questions

    Explore conceptually related problems

    Competitive exclusion principle stating that inferior species is eliminated eventually after prologed competition was given by

    Assertion: Competition always occurs between closely related species complete for same resources that are limiting. Reason:- Totally unrelated species could not complete for same resources.

    which of the following states that too closely related species competing for the same resources cannot coexist indefinitely and the competitively inferior one will be eventually eliminated?

    Resource partitioning is a mechanism which has been used to promote co-existence among closely related species rether than exclusion. In MacArthur's studies, e showed that species of warblers living on the same tree avoided competition due to

    Closely related species of warblers avoid competition due to behavioural differences in their foraging activities. This is an example of