Take a typical capital city zoo and remove all barriers between the different animals enclosures.

Say the zoo builds one big outdoor enclosure to house all it’s captive animals. All the animals still have access to the environment of their original enclosure (so there’s a body of cold water for the polar bears, and a body of warm water for the tropical fish, for example) but they are also free to move in to the environments of all the other animals. Animals which the zoo currently holds in cages, tanks, or other sealed enclosures are released to the outdoor enclosure, in to a suitable environment for themselves..

Then we stop feeding them.

There are no humans within the enclosure.

What happens next? What happens in the long term?

I’d guess a lot of the birds an insects would simply fly away. But what about those that stay?

esselte said:

But what about those that stay?

Relative hunger requirements would play a large role in the result.

is there plenty grass and trees
will it all get nicely overgrown
how big enlargened boundary
will’t have ‘nough water’n rain

The baboons will kill everything else.

I’ve been trying to figure out if you have local blood transition. Your language use reminds me of the way the the aborigine apply verbs.

party_pants said:

The baboons will kill everything else.

They are vicious little pricks aren’t they.

there wouldn’t be enough prey animals for the predators. both would die out. depending on the enclosure nsize then some of the smaller animals might survive (island dwarfism)

JudgeMental said:

there wouldn’t be enough prey animals for the predators. both would die out. depending on the enclosure nsize then some of the smaller animals might survive (island dwarfism)

I miss Dodo’s. What a custom made pet they were.

and I miss Black Rhino’s. Rhino’s are as precious as whales. :(

>….local blood……………. verbs.

say ‘em verbs they doin’ words
too like verbin’, adjectivizin’
anything expression do accord

transition said:

>….local blood……………. verbs.

say ‘em verbs they doin’ words
too like verbin’, adjectivizin’
anything expression do accord

Can you sing. I need a singer.

Postpocelipse said:

and I miss Black Rhino’s. Rhino’s are as precious as whales. :(

Please don’t use apostrophes when forming simple plurals.

Superfluous apostrophes

Apostrophes used in a non-standard manner to form noun plurals are known as greengrocers’ apostrophes or grocers’ apostrophes, often called (spelled) greengrocer’s apostrophes and grocer’s apostrophes. They are sometimes humorously called greengrocers apostrophe’s, rogue apostrophes, or idiot’s apostrophes (a literal translation of the German word Deppenapostroph, which criticises the misapplication of apostrophes in Denglisch). The practice, once common and acceptable (see Historical development), comes from the identical sound of the plural and possessive forms of most English nouns. It is often criticised as a form of hypercorrection coming from a widespread ignorance of the proper use of the apostrophe or of punctuation in general. Lynne Truss, author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves, points out that before the 19th century, it was standard orthography to use the apostrophe to form a plural of a foreign-sounding word that ended in a vowel (e. g., banana’s, folio’s, logo’s, quarto’s, pasta’s, ouzo’s) to clarify pronunciation. Truss says this usage is no longer considered proper in formal writing.

The term is believed to have been coined in the middle of the 20th century by a teacher of languages working in Liverpool, at a time when such mistakes were common in the handwritten signs and advertisements of greengrocers (e. g., Apple’s 1/- a pound, Orange’s 1/6d a pound). Some have argued that its use in mass communication by employees of well-known companies has led to the less literate assuming it to be correct and adopting the habit themselves.

The same use of apostrophe before noun plural -s forms is sometimes made by non-native speakers of English. For example, in Dutch, the apostrophe is inserted before the s when pluralising most words ending in a vowel or y for example, baby’s (English babies) and radio’s (English “radios”). This often produces so-called “Dunglish” errors when carried over into English. Hyperforeignism has been formalised in some pseudo-anglicisms. For example, the French word pin’s (from English pin) is used (with the apostrophe in both singular and plural) for collectable lapel pins. Similarly, there is an Andorran football club called FC Rànger’s (after such British clubs as Rangers F.C.), a Japanese dance group called Super Monkey’s, and a Japanese pop punk band called the Titan Go King’s.

Postpocelipse said:

Can you sing. I need a singer.

Or this one Peter Singer

Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He is known in particular for his book, Animal Liberation (1975), a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory. For most his career, he supported preference utilitarianism, but in his later years became a classical or hedonistic utilitarian, when co-authoring The Point of View of the Universe with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek.

PM 2Ring said:

Postpocelipse said:

and I miss Black Rhino’s. Rhino’s are as precious as whales. :(

In this case the inclusion of the apostrophe denotes a (nearly)“past tense” creature. Properly interpret what that indicates and you are left with a measure of the wrath I experience when I observe needless waste. Otherwise I appreciate your instruction on the application of apostrophes.

If the zoo was as big as an African wild life reserve then most of the animals would survive.

If not, the carnivores would eat all the herbivores and then die of starvation.

The omnivores might do all right, and presumably many insects, worms etc would do all right.

Postpocelipse said:

PM 2Ring said:

Postpocelipse said:

and I miss Black Rhino’s. Rhino’s are as precious as whales. :(

In this case the inclusion of the apostrophe denotes a (nearly)“past tense” creature. Properly interpret what that indicates and you are left with a measure of the wrath I experience when I observe needless waste. Otherwise I appreciate your instruction on the application of apostrophes.

I’ll bear that in mind, Po’stpocelip’se.

PM 2Ring said:

Postpocelipse said:

PM 2Ring said:

In this case the inclusion of the apostrophe denotes a (nearly)“past tense” creature. Properly interpret what that indicates and you are left with a measure of the wrath I experience when I observe needless waste. Otherwise I appreciate your instruction on the application of apostrophes.

I’ll bear that in mind, Po’stpocelip’se.

Ooooh really???? May Black Rhino’s carry you from the path of falling Dodo’s. That is all I have to say on the subject of your including apostrophes to this moniker!

the polar bear would kill all the other critters.

Arts said:

the polar bear would kill all the other critters.

ROFLMFUAO HAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahhhaaa!!!

seriously though.. the animals themselves would pretty much keep to themselves, until they get hungry.

- all the animals on specialised diets would die first – so your koalas, numbats, any exotic that has fruit specific diets etc.
- all the animals that can fly will… and away they go. (some birds will remain for nesting purposes, or at least most probably return during nesting season)
- the reptiles will be fine. You can’t keep rats and mice out of zoos, so they will be abundant. Though some feasting on others may occur
- the dog species will start to pack and scavenge. I dare say the painted dogs and the dingos will have goes at each other.
- the hyenas will win any arguments between the large cats and prey.
- the large cats will hunt and hide as they do.
- The water animals will eventually be eaten – with the exception of the Hippo (if there is one)
- the lesser primates will take refuge in the tallest trees and the larger meat eating primates will hunt them for sport.
- the elephants won’t give a shit
- the crocodile will stay in their enclosure for up to eight months before they might get hungry. (depending on the last time they were fed)
- the kangaroos and wallabies should be ok for the most part, plenty of natural vegetation around at ground level.

eventually the water will run out before the food source and that will be the demise of most of the animals.
But apart from some initial pecking order it will work very much like a jungle – provided that you keep supplying water and kill the polar bear (who would just indiscriminately kill anything – though I wonder how a polar bear would go up against a hyena).

hth

the smell of dispersed scats would be horrifying.. all the animals should take lessons from the rhino in scat management (they will only defecate in a certain spot each and every time backing up to that same spot until a big pile of poo is there… very neat )

Arts said:

the smell of dispersed scats would be horrifying.. all the animals should take lessons from the rhino in scat management (they will only defecate in a certain spot each and every time backing up to that same spot until a big pile of poo is there… very neat )

That is why they make ideal pets.

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

the smell of dispersed scats would be horrifying.. all the animals should take lessons from the rhino in scat management (they will only defecate in a certain spot each and every time backing up to that same spot until a big pile of poo is there… very neat )

That is why they make ideal pets.

That and their lack of desire to get on the couch with you.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

AwesomeO said:

Arts said:

the smell of dispersed scats would be horrifying.. all the animals should take lessons from the rhino in scat management (they will only defecate in a certain spot each and every time backing up to that same spot until a big pile of poo is there… very neat )

That is why they make ideal pets.

That and their lack of desire to get on the couch with you.

no shedding either

esselte said:

Take a typical capital city zoo and remove all barriers between the different animals enclosures.

Say the zoo builds one big outdoor enclosure to house all it’s captive animals. All the animals still have access to the environment of their original enclosure (so there’s a body of cold water for the polar bears, and a body of warm water for the tropical fish, for example) but they are also free to move in to the environments of all the other animals. Animals which the zoo currently holds in cages, tanks, or other sealed enclosures are released to the outdoor enclosure, in to a suitable environment for themselves..

Then we stop feeding them.

There are no humans within the enclosure.

What happens next? What happens in the long term?

I’d guess a lot of the birds an insects would simply fly away. But what about those that stay?

That’s surprising, nobody has quoted the sketch with John Cleese and David Frost. So I will.

Director: Now when you joined this Zoo, just three weeks ago, Butterling, It was the second largest Zoo in the whole of Europe. We had over six thousand animals. All we have left are two hyenas, a rhinoceros and a ferret with a wooden leg. Where are the others?
Butterling: I don’t know, Sir.
Director: They’re in the main street, Butterling, the main street! All except for the Water Buffalo.
Butterling: Where’s the Water Buffalo, Sir?
Director: In my bathroom. My wife found it there early this morning, Butterling. She’s a nervous woman. The Police caught her just forty minutes ago. She was over a hundred miles away, still running. She doesn’t remember anything, and she thinks she’s a potato.
Butterling: I’m sorry, Sir.
Director: That’s all right — I didn’t like her anyway. The town, Butterling, it looks like a national game reserve. I mean, Butterling, how does anyone lose giraffes?
Butterling: People take them, Sir.
Director: You’re lying, Butterling, you’re lying. I know all about your little agreement with the sausage factory. And the aviary, Butterling, my little pride and joy, the aviary… What have you done to it?
Butterling: I put all the birds in one cage, Sir.
Director: Well?
Butterling: The Vulture’s looking very well, Sir.

Let’s start by figuring out which animals are in there to start with. Let’s not start with Melbourne Zoo because second last time I was there it had nothing but meercats, big cats, gibbons, gorillas, elephants, giraffes, butterflies, penguins and a few large marsupials and birds.

Let’s start with San Diego zoo

esselte said:

Take a typical capital city zoo and remove all barriers between the different animals enclosures.

Say the zoo builds one big outdoor enclosure to house all it’s captive animals. All the animals still have access to the environment of their original enclosure (so there’s a body of cold water for the polar bears, and a body of warm water for the tropical fish, for example) but they are also free to move in to the environments of all the other animals. Animals which the zoo currently holds in cages, tanks, or other sealed enclosures are released to the outdoor enclosure, in to a suitable environment for themselves..

Then we stop feeding them.

There are no humans within the enclosure.

What happens next? What happens in the long term?

I’d guess a lot of the birds an insects would simply fly away. But what about those that stay?

If the zoo animals were all pitted against one another, who would win?

The answer is not obvious, it could even be that the ultimate winner is something unlikely like the cane toad or turtle, so let’s take this slowly.

Preamble, the ancient Romans would be able to answer this question better than I can. A large part of the entertainment in the Colloseum was watching fights between animals of different species.

Part 1. Predators. The big cats.
The tiger is the ultimate predator in the zoo, not the lion. Lion hunting techniques are not suited to the zoo layout. The tiger’s stealth and ambush would be much more effective. Both lion and tiger would survive for a while, though, as prey is initially plentiful and easy to catch. When lions and tigers have been housed together in some zoos, their offspring (liger or tigon) is bigger and more powerful than both its parents, but not necessarily a better hunter. The leopard would be able to hunt in trees at a height that the tiger couldn’t reach. The panther is not a single species, but a black form of many different species. The cheetah wouldn’t last, it would be easy prey for the bigger cats. The jaguar and cougar would find small creatures to prey on. It’s said that in a battle between the lynx and a lone wolf, the lynx would win, but in a battle between the lynx and a wolf pack, the wolf pack would win. The lizards would be in great danger from the smaller predators.

Part 2. Prey. The easy and not so easy prey.
Flightless birds – kiwi, penguin, rhea, emu, ostrich – couldn’t survive for long against the big predators, we may as well write them off at the start. Also easy prey would be those animals from countries that don’t have tigers or lions. That includes the animals from Australia and New Zealand including kangaroo, koala, wombat and most other marsupials. It includes the animals from Madagascar, notably the lemurs.

Then there’s less easy prey, relatively small animals that are armoured against attack, the hedgehog, porcupine, armadillo, pangolin, tortoise. These can easily protect themselves against small to medium-size predators, but what about larger predators? Quite well, for many. There are species of hedgehog, pangolin and tortoise that share their ranges with the tiger. The procupine and some tortoise species share their range with the lion. The armadillo is doomed.

Part 3. The large herbivores and marine mammals
Elephant, giraffe, dear, antelopes, gnu, zebra, bison, kangaroo, water buffalo
Rhino, hippo
Whale, dolphin, seal, dugong

All of these are essentially doomed. Most would die from starvation. The remainder – the smaller deer, antelopes and kangaroos – would fall prey to predators.

Part 4. Life in the treetops
There is a shortage of treetops in a zoo.
Red panda, possum, opossum, kinkajou
Monkeys and apes

Part 5. Underground battle
Prairie dog, meerkat, pika, bandicoot, rabbit, mole
The fierce little ones: Ferret, mongoose, wolverine, honey badger
Snakes

Part 6. The omnivorous scavengers
Those animals that make their way among human cities have an adaptability that gives them a big advantage.
Raccoon, rat, mouse, brushtail, fox, cat, dog
In from outside: Crow, magpie, pigeon, sparrow

Part 7. Small aquatic mammals
Otter, beaver, platypus.

Part 8. In cold blood
Fish, amphibians, lizards
Cold blooded killers: Crocodile, snake, piranha, shark, pike

mollwollfumble said:

Part 1. Predators. The big cats.
The tiger is the ultimate predator in the zoo, not the lion. Lion hunting techniques are not suited to the zoo layout. The tiger’s stealth and ambush would be much more effective. Both lion and tiger would survive for a while, though, as prey is initially plentiful and easy to catch. When lions and tigers have been housed together in some zoos, their offspring (liger or tigon) is bigger and more powerful than both its parents, but not necessarily a better hunter. The leopard would be able to hunt in trees at a height that the tiger couldn’t reach. The panther is not a single species, but a black form of many different species. The cheetah wouldn’t last, it would be easy prey for the bigger cats. The jaguar and cougar would find small creatures to prey on. It’s said that in a battle between the lynx and a lone wolf, the lynx would win, but in a battle between the lynx and a wolf pack, the wolf pack would win. The lizards would be in great danger from the smaller predators.

Exactly. How can the lion be the king of the jungle? It doesn’t live there. The lion is the king of the plains(meek) ;)

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Part 1. Predators. The big cats.
The tiger is the ultimate predator in the zoo, not the lion. Lion hunting techniques are not suited to the zoo layout. The tiger’s stealth and ambush would be much more effective. Both lion and tiger would survive for a while, though, as prey is initially plentiful and easy to catch. When lions and tigers have been housed together in some zoos, their offspring (liger or tigon) is bigger and more powerful than both its parents, but not necessarily a better hunter. The leopard would be able to hunt in trees at a height that the tiger couldn’t reach. The panther is not a single species, but a black form of many different species. The cheetah wouldn’t last, it would be easy prey for the bigger cats. The jaguar and cougar would find small creatures to prey on. It’s said that in a battle between the lynx and a lone wolf, the lynx would win, but in a battle between the lynx and a wolf pack, the wolf pack would win. The lizards would be in great danger from the smaller predators.

Exactly. How can the lion be the king of the jungle? It doesn’t live there. The lion is the king of the plains(meek) ;)

The lioness is Queen of the plains. The lion is only the Prince Consort.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Part 1. Predators. The big cats.
The tiger is the ultimate predator in the zoo, not the lion. Lion hunting techniques are not suited to the zoo layout. The tiger’s stealth and ambush would be much more effective. Both lion and tiger would survive for a while, though, as prey is initially plentiful and easy to catch. When lions and tigers have been housed together in some zoos, their offspring (liger or tigon) is bigger and more powerful than both its parents, but not necessarily a better hunter. The leopard would be able to hunt in trees at a height that the tiger couldn’t reach. The panther is not a single species, but a black form of many different species. The cheetah wouldn’t last, it would be easy prey for the bigger cats. The jaguar and cougar would find small creatures to prey on. It’s said that in a battle between the lynx and a lone wolf, the lynx would win, but in a battle between the lynx and a wolf pack, the wolf pack would win. The lizards would be in great danger from the smaller predators.

Exactly. How can the lion be the king of the jungle? It doesn’t live there. The lion is the king of the plains(meek) ;)

The lioness is Queen of the plains. The lion is only the Prince Consort.

Nothing is as it seems!!! Woh!

mollwollfumble said:

Part 4. Life in the treetops
There is a shortage of treetops in a zoo.
Red panda, possum, opossum, kinkajou
Monkeys and apes

The monkeys and apes are the kings here. Given enough treetops the monkeys can outclimb and outfox everything else, including cats and small bears. But which monkeys? Gorillas are herbivores, and have much the same problems as other large herbivores. Old world monkeys are all at least partly omnivorous. Orang, chimp, mandrill, baboon, macaques are my best bets for predator survivors, big enough to eat the other monkeys and tree-top dwellers.

mollwollfumble said:

Part 5. Underground battle
Prairie dog, meerkat, pika, bandicoot, rabbit, mole
The fierce little ones: Ferret, mongoose, wolverine, honey badger
Snakes

Underground, the battle actually favours the herbivores. I can’t tell you which of the underground herbivores would out-compete the others, but some would, perhaps the rabbit. Being underground would protect the them from the big cats. If enough underground herbivores survived then at least one of the fierce little ones would as well, perhaps a snake.

mollwollfumble said:

Part 6. The omnivorous scavengers
Those animals that make their way among human cities have an adaptability that gives them a big advantage.
Raccoon, rat, mouse, brushtail, fox, cat, dog, grey squirrel
In from outside: Crow, magpie, pigeon, sparrow

Good chance of initial and even long-term survival

mollwollfumble said:

Part 7. Small aquatic mammals
Otter, beaver, platypus.

Not much hope here. The otter needs a huge amount of fish to keep up its nervous energy, the beaver needs special food, both would starve. The platypus would eventually fall to the tiger or other large swimming predator.

mollwollfumble said:

Part 8. In cold blood
Fish, amphibians, lizards
Cold blooded killers: Crocodile, snake, piranha, shark, pike

Lizards are too easy prey, even the largest of them. How the others fare would depend on how much water there is. Small fish (fry and small species) would have the same problem as always – too deep and the fish eat you, too shallow and the birds eat you. That’s never stopped them in the past. Some freshwater fish can thrive in tiny ponds, eating the algae. Larger ponds are needed for larger fish. Swampy land is needed for many snake and amphibian species. Crocodiles need too much water.

Bears? As for the larger herbivores I see the smaller of these becoming prey and the larger ones starving.

Summary:
After the first set of starvation and predator deaths look to see the survival of:
. Most of the cats, but not the cheetah
. The hedgehog, porcupine, pangolin, tortoise species
. Some of the monkeys and apes, possibly orang, chimp, mandrill, baboon and/or macaque
. Some underground herbivore, possibly rabbit
. A snake
. Some of raccoon, rat, mouse, brushtail, fox, cat, dog, grey squirrel
. External visitors: crow, magpie, pigeon, sparrow, insects
. Small herbivorous fish and possibly larger fish and frogs

The above is short term. In the longer term prey becomes scarcer and all large creatures die out. I don’t think any animal larger than a rabbit, tortoise, brushtail or squirrel would survive long term in an area as small as a zoo.

> Lizards are too easy prey, even the largest of them

I’m going to correct that. The largest would die out but the smallest might survive, such as a small skink, gecko, anole or agama. The greatest risk to them would be the small predators such as the weasel family.

most would die out due to the limited gene pool. we talking a zoo so a lot of the exhibits only have a couple of specimens.

. Most of the cats, but not the cheetah——no, to high a food requirement. breed to slowly.
. The hedgehog, porcupine, pangolin, tortoise species——less food requirement but food for others, probably not.
. Some of the monkeys and apes, possibly orang, chimp, mandrill, baboon and/or macaque——-baboons for a while until the food ran out.
. Some underground herbivore, possibly rabbit——probably.
. A snake——probably
. Some of raccoon, rat, mouse, brushtail, fox, cat, dog, grey squirrel——food for other so probably not.
. External visitors: crow, magpie, pigeon, sparrow, insects——food for other for a while but not really part of the question.
. Small herbivorous fish and possibly larger fish and frogs——some maybe but depending on the location certain species would not survive purely through adverse conditions. others would be predated.

I should also have added before that this question falls within the scope of the science of Island Biogeograpy

As wiki says: “For biogeographical purposes, an insular environment or “island” is any area of habitat suitable for a specific ecosystem, surrounded by an expanse of unsuitable habitat. The theory was originally developed to explain species richness of actual islands, principally oceanic.The field was started in the 1960s by the ecologists Robert H. MacArthur and E. O. Wilson, whose theory attempted to predict the number of species that would exist on a newly created island.”

There are umpteen books on island biogeography, and it is heavily studied in universities.

yeah, i did mention the island dwarfism, or insular dwarfism, before which is a part of the same theory.