Do parasites serve any valid purpose in ecosystems?

>>2178109
I suppose the main purpose for parasites is to keep populations manageable, nature didn't always have responsible humans around to control the population of animals that could have gotten too big for their limited space

More of a balance thing, without something to "cull the herd" populations would likely spike into extreme highs and lows rather than keep at a steady medium

There's gotta be SOMETHING that eats these things too, don't monkeys pick fleas and ticks off other monkeys and eat them?

Some animals eat them.

>>2178109>>2178109
Things don't evolve to full some pre-determined roll, they evolve to exploit a resource that was previously unfilled or evolve to be better than the organism that currently fills that roll. And to answer your other question, populations of animals and plants are kept in check by both predators and parasites. We see the evidence that they're necessary because they've coexisted alongside us forever. If they were removed completely, a link in the food chain would be removed as well.

>>2178129
This

A lot of little niggers love to eat mosquitoes precisely because they drink blood, which is fulla protein and shit for healthy babbies of all kinds

also male mosquitos dont drink blood, and are important pollinators for some flowers

>>2178128

Except that's not true at all.

Many Australian species are completely resistant to ticks, it has no real affect on them.

>>2178131

There's not a whole lot of animals that eat adult mosquitoes.

And the males are pollinators, but they are very easily replaced.

The larvae however, super important food source.

They prey on large, high trophic animals. Those animals have few competitors and are mainly limited by their own ability to acquire resources. Large organisms also require an excess of energy, which is exactly what the parasites are targeting

>>2178109
>purpose

Why limit yourself to the purpose of parasites? What's the purpose of <insert organism here> ? What's your purpose, op?

>>2178175
Not OP, but

While the homo sapiens takes it too far, generally alpha predators are very important for their ecosystems.
Here is a neat little example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

>>2178139
>completely resistant to ticks
Another good point, parasites pressure species into further evolution

You plebs disguts me. The wolves changes rivers has been debunked by Emma Marris. It is much more complicated.

Note also that a lack of apex predators just changes the composition of ecosystems. Some species profit, others not. (In case of Yellowstone, cougars and coyotes did not profit from the wolves: in fact the opposite of profit) The only valid argument is whatever biodiversity increases or not.

Nature is also not in balance but in flux. It self-organizes. There is also no purpose in nature.

Even without parasites, apex predators, diseases there would be limits to a population. Most likely a higher limit but a limit still.

I have a lot to learn, but this board is much worse.

>>2178184
But you are just arguing against strawmen. Nobody said anything like the things you are arguing against

>>2178186
These two: >>2178179, >>2178128

>>2178186
yeah, Im
>>2178179

I didnt say anything you claimed I was saying

>>2178186
Also forgot OP, xe thinks in terms of purpose.

There's only co-evolution in which some species become depedent on eachother.

>>2178189
If I understood you correctly, that is a reply to me. The wolves changes rivers thing and the apex predators stuff I am replying against.

>>2178194
The video was just a simple example and not the sole proof of my point. Of course it is much more complicated. It is a YT clip of nature documentary made for people who dont know shit about the topic, so they present it in a simplified manner.
All your other points have nothing at all to do with anything I said.

>>2178199
>simplified manner.
Actually wrong manner. This kind of stuff keeps perpetuating ecological myths.

My points were directed to several anons and I specified that I was replying against your apex predator stuff and the video you posted.

>>2178211
Well, what was outright wrong in the video?

>>2178217
See:

https://www.beaconreader.com/emma-marris/a-good-story

Not outright wrong though, just wrong.

>>2178226
If anything, that just confirms my statement even more

>>2178109
>What would be the consequences of driving any of these species to extinction in the wild, if any?
Something 10 times worse could replace them. That is what is stopping us from fucking the ever living shit out of mosquitos.

A known enemy and all that stuff.

>>2178109
>steal a living thing's energy for your own replenishment
How is a parasite that much different from a predator catching prey? Unless you live off of a nonliving energy source like the sun or geothermal energy or some shit, how is the parasite any worse than me slaughtering a cow for meat? I guess in terms of farming it's borderline symbiotic: cow gets to live and breed on my dime for a while before I ultimately take its life energy. But still parasites are just another organism trying to grab energy where it can be found, why is that necessarily bad? Undesirable, but still inevitable.

>>2178259
who exactly made that point you are arguing against?

>>2178286
OP more or less

>>2178299
he didnt, tho.
You are arguing against "Parasites are worse than predators" or maybe "Parasites have an inefficient way to gain energy".

Why do people do this?

>>2178109
leeches are cool, which is reason enough to keep them around if you ask me, but we also found out some of them are useful.

Reason-to-exist is a non-issue; it's a rather sentimental pseudo-scientific assumption that things in nature need a "purpose". Actually everything tends toward equilibrium and organisms simply do what they can to thrive under the circumstances.

Consequences of extinction? Who knows? Humans can't even predict the weather. But you can be certain that equilibrium will return somehow. If you want to take a chance, just to see what'll happen, I'd kill off all the fleas first.

>>2178302
>Parasites are worse than predators
Which is implied by the obviously rhetorical

>Do these fuckers have ANY reason to exist?

No?

>>2179088
no

>>2178970
>Consequences of extinction? Who knows? Humans can't even predict the weather. But you can be certain that equilibrium will return somehow. If you want to take a chance, just to see what'll happen, I'd kill off all the fleas first.

The way I see it, all extinction does is change the composistion of ecosystems. It is of course perfectly possible for it to have certain effects, but the idea that nature can collapse because of extinction I deem false.

Certain species depend on one another, so when one goes the other goes as well.

The Ice Age managed to kill of most of Europe's flora (compared to North America and temperate Asia). Humans killed of most of the megafauna. All current habitats are modified in one way or another nowadays by humans.

Nature self-organizes. It will do so again.

Though it might self-organize to be less biodiverse or unsuitable to humans. The desertification in the Middle-East and Australia caused by humans are not effects I am fond of.

Even the Sahara used to be greener, but I am unsure if humans had anything to do with that.

>>2178109
no living organism has a "reason" to exist, they just happened to develop

>>2178128

LOTKA - VOLTERRA motherfucker

Also I would like to point out that it is in the benefit of the parasite to not kill their host (at least not too quickly nor too many).

>>2178131
Except male mosuitos do indeed "drink" blood, I think. Some of them do anyway.

File: bird heard you were talking shit behind it's back.jpg (71KB, 451x599px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 451x599px

>kill all mosquitos
>birds starve
>???

>>2180878

You better be talking about the larvae.

Adult birds do not really eat mosquitoes.