Talk:Mesopredator release hypothesis

Worthy hypothesis or neologism for something trivial?

The mesopredator release hypothesis states that if an apex predator is taken out of an ecosystem, the number of mesopredators (defined as medium-sized predators, such as raccoons, skunks, snakes, cats, and foxes, that often increase in abundance when larger predators are eliminated[1]) will surge and the predation of smaller, more vulnerable prey species will increase.[2]

This is such an elementary conclusion that it verges on the obvious. In fact, the cases when and the reasons why this does not hold would be much more worthy of investigation.

I raise a neologism warning. Due to the large number of references given, I let it remain at a talk entry, and do not explicitly tag the page. 88.77.136.245 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golly I find the idea of food webs, cells, trophic cascades, germ theory and supply and demand so elementary at this point that perhaps we should raise neologisms about them as well. Oh wait....that's the thing about a good hypothesis/model/theory, they eloquent state what is actually happening in the world and summarize it. This hypothesis has been discussed for well over a decade in the field of ecology, and as you say numerous very well respected sources have been given to establish its existence as a "worthy" hypothesis, whatever that may mean. Sorry for the sarcasm, I just think it's funny that anyone would decide to pass judgment about weather such a well established hypothesis is worthy or not based on the fact that it makes so much sense it's obvious. Earthdirt (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor grammar and unsure meaning

It states that as top predators decline in an ecosystem when an increase in populations of mesopredators occurs.

This sentence makes no sense. It's trying to relate two causes without an effect. The grammatical uncertainty is bolded. Which one is supposed to be the effect? If it's the top predators decline, then it should read the top predators will decline. Otherwise it should be an increase in, and leave out the when. 67.193.96.49 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the sentence to: "It states that as top predators decline in an ecosystem, an increase in the populations of mesopredators occurs." Does this make it clear that the cause is the decline of the top predator and that the release of the mesopredator populations is the effect? Earthdirt (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Some examples would be useful in the main body of the article. As it stands there is an opening paragraph that gives 5 example organisms without any discussion of their context or ecosystems; a photograph of a raccoon and a skunk eating spilled food; and then a 'Hypothesis' and a 'Criticism' section that are 100% theoretical, without any mention of particular animals. Discussion of the evidence for a described real-world example, properly sourced, would be a nice addition to help understanding for people who don't know anything about the hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.75.121 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]