Niche Definitions

We need to define niches well, but still leave room for evolution. This means we need to include many factors within a niche's definition that decide what organism can fit in it.
So far the factors are:

Size

Diet (position in food chain, digestive system needed for said position)

Movement

Gas exchange organ

Water retension

That's only four, and for almost all biomes, gas exchange organ will be universal, so it doesn't help much. We need more factors. Brainstorm.
Other possible factors:

Different diets (decomposers, detritivores)

Transience

(more needed)

Some other things I've decided about biomes and niches.

-Omnivores can fill either a carnivorous or herbivorous niche- their extra diet options are simply a + for survival.

-Two or more niches can be covered by one species. This could happen if they are omnivorous or if the species has a long life cycle and the young feed on something other than the adults.

-Niches don't all have to be filled, but they must be filled sequentially (plants before herbivore, herbivore before carnivore)

-Within the food web, there can be special non-food connections. these would represent symbiosis or special breeding habits. For instance, small carnivore 13 must birth its young in the shelter of large plant 4.

Because in the code, Niche = Organism + some, anything stored within an organism can be factored into fitness. In other words, anything an organism has in game can be defined in the niche.

I propose Mass, as well as Size for an attribute. Also, don't forget organism type. Technically, plants can fill animal positions and animals can fill plant positions. It's all arbitrary, so long as it eats what it's supposed to.

Also, we should use SI units for size, so that numbers don't get skewed. (We are coming up with imaginary creatures, after all.) Meters & Kilograms should work fine.

Also, I hope by Gas Exchange Organ you mean Lungs...

roadkillguy wrote:

Because in the code, Niche = Organism + some, anything stored within an organism can be factored into fitness. In other words, anything an organism has in game can be defined in the niche.

I propose Mass, as well as Size for an attribute. Also, don't forget organism type. Technically, plants can fill animal positions and animals can fill plant positions. It's all arbitrary, so long as it eats what it's supposed to.

Also, we should use SI units for size, so that numbers don't get skewed. (We are coming up with imaginary creatures, after all.) Meters & Kilograms should work fine.

Also, I hope by Gas Exchange Organ you mean Lungs...

We're using SI, any other system is silliness. Gas exchange means lungs/gills.

We absolutely need mass.

- mineral resources necessary
- Rate of reproduction. Because some organisms can produce 800 offspring (spiders, anyone?) repeatedly, while others (humans, dolphins, most monkeys/apes...) one every year or so.
- r or k selected. (Basically, is mortality higher as infants or as older creatures.)

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

We absolutely need mass.

- mineral resources necessary
- Rate of reproduction. Because some organisms can produce 800 offspring (spiders, anyone?) repeatedly, while others (humans, dolphins, most monkeys/apes...) one every year or so.
- r or k selected. (Basically, is mortality higher as infants or as older creatures.)

-Rate of reproduction is directly proportional to size.
-r or k selection defines a niche how?
-name one animal that absolutely needs a pure form of a certain mineral from its environment.

~sciocont wrote:

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

We absolutely need mass.

- mineral resources necessary
- Rate of reproduction. Because some organisms can produce 800 offspring (spiders, anyone?) repeatedly, while others (humans, dolphins, most monkeys/apes...) one every year or so.
- r or k selected. (Basically, is mortality higher as infants or as older creatures.)

-Rate of reproduction is directly proportional to size.
-r or k selection defines a niche how?
-name one animal that absolutely needs a pure form of a certain mineral from its environment.

Rate of reproduction is not proportional to size that cleanly. A 50 pound monkey has a single offspring, a 120 pound dog has usually 2-6. A 500 pound aligator has more than 200, though most won't survive.
If you want to do life stages at all, r or k selected is essential. It helps us figure out rate of reproduction, and if "organism x: juvenile" is easier to eat than "organism x: adult" then we need to know that so that other creatures can eat them. Some species will have high rates of reproduction, but a normal population growth because most of those are eaten or die off.
Also, length of offspring care correlates to r and k selection, and that's just essential to species behavior. Also, to resources - they'll need nests or dens or something.

Salt, scio. All mammals need it - ruminants in particular can contract diseases and even die if they become deficient. And while they can get it via their diet, if the plants aren't salty enough they need the mineral form. Pure? No, in nature nothing is ever pure anything. But for our purposes, a cache of salt is just another resource, and we needn't complicate it by throwing in impurities.
And you will need all sorts of minerals for plants, and those hypothetical plant/animal combos, and overall it's just a good idea. You already have us eating rocks for gastroliths - this is even less specific than that.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

We absolutely need mass.

- mineral resources necessary
- Rate of reproduction. Because some organisms can produce 800 offspring (spiders, anyone?) repeatedly, while others (humans, dolphins, most monkeys/apes...) one every year or so.
- r or k selected. (Basically, is mortality higher as infants or as older creatures.)

-Rate of reproduction is directly proportional to size.
-r or k selection defines a niche how?
-name one animal that absolutely needs a pure form of a certain mineral from its environment.

Rate of reproduction is not proportional to size that cleanly. A 50 pound monkey has a single offspring, a 120 pound dog has usually 2-6. A 500 pound aligator has more than 200, though most won't survive.
If you want to do life stages at all, r or k selected is essential. It helps us figure out rate of reproduction, and if "organism x: juvenile" is easier to eat than "organism x: adult" then we need to know that so that other creatures can eat them. Some species will have high rates of reproduction, but a normal population growth because most of those are eaten or die off.
Also, length of offspring care correlates to r and k selection, and that's just essential to species behavior. Also, to resources - they'll need nests or dens or something.

Salt, scio. All mammals need it - ruminants in particular can contract diseases and even die if they become deficient. And while they can get it via their diet, if the plants aren't salty enough they need the mineral form. Pure? No, in nature nothing is ever pure anything. But for our purposes, a cache of salt is just another resource, and we needn't complicate it by throwing in impurities.
And you will need all sorts of minerals for plants, and those hypothetical plant/animal combos, and overall it's just a good idea. You already have us eating rocks for gastroliths - this is even less specific than that.

Excellent points. However, nine of those things help me define a niche. They'll help for population dynamics, but really, there isn't a restriction on birthrate/deathrate for niches.

Salt is everywhere pretty much everything needs it for the proper Na/K ratio. Try again. Either way, minerals don't define a niche either. We shouldn't tell orgs what they need to need. Biomes themselves have resources. If it has all of the right resources, a creature can live in it. if it does not, the creature cannot. Resources are conserved in nature, so requiring resource usage is quite silly.

Another Issue: How do we compare attributes and food sources?

Currently, this is what I do for attributes:

Score = (difference in attributes)^2

1.) 0 1 0 1
2.) 0 1 1 1

1 and 2 have 1 difference, so the score is 1.

3.) 0 1 0 1
4.) 0 1 1 0

3 and 4 have 2 differences, so the score is 4.

What should I do to compare food sources?

roadkillguy wrote:

Another Issue: How do we compare attributes and food sources?

Currently, this is what I do for attributes:

Score = (difference in attributes)^2

1.) 0 1 0 1
2.) 0 1 1 1

1 and 2 have 1 difference, so the score is 1.

3.) 0 1 0 1
4.) 0 1 1 0

3 and 4 have 2 differences, so the score is 4.

What should I do to compare food sources?

If you're saying whether an animal can fit into a niche based on the niche's food requirement, it would simply be a check to see if it has the correct digestive system. There are basically two types of digestive system, one specialized for eating meat, and one specialized for eating plant matter.

Maybe this is discussed elsewhere, but one would think that omnivorism would have some sort of drawback that herbivorism and/or carnivorism do not.

Poisson wrote:

Maybe this is discussed elsewhere, but one would think that omnivorism would have some sort of drawback that herbivorism and/or carnivorism do not.

Yes, but what would it be? Probably a less efficient digestive system, meaning an omnivore would have to eat much more than an herbivore or carnivore.

~sciocont wrote:

Yes, but what would it be? Probably a less efficient digestive system, meaning an omnivore would have to eat much more than an herbivore or carnivore.

Agreed.

Omnivores find it harder to process woody plants - they're more or less restricted to leaves (and only some of those are worth the chewing) fruits and roots.

I'm pretty certain that they're less efficient at meat as well. Approved.

Wouldn't it cause problems if an organism evolved into a niche but didn't eat what the niche said it was supposed to?

roadkillguy wrote:

Wouldn't it cause problems if an organism evolved into a niche but didn't eat what the niche said it was supposed to?

It can't. It has to fit the entire definition to be part of the niche.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Omnivores find it harder to process woody plants - they're more or less restricted to leaves (and only some of those are worth the chewing) fruits and roots.

I'm pretty certain that they're less efficient at meat as well. Approved.

So maybe there would be certain parts of organisms that they can't consume (fiberous flesh, bone, cartilage, etc.) If we aren't going to be tracking the parts of an organism that are being consumed, we could just translate this into eating more, with certain organisms being banned as food (trees for example).

Poisson wrote:

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Omnivores find it harder to process woody plants - they're more or less restricted to leaves (and only some of those are worth the chewing) fruits and roots.

I'm pretty certain that they're less efficient at meat as well. Approved.

So maybe there would be certain parts of organisms that they can't consume (fiberous flesh, bone, cartilage, etc.) If we aren't going to be tracking the parts of an organism that are being consumed, we could just translate this into eating more, with certain organisms being banned as food (trees for example).

I think non-tracking would be better.

You could just make an omnivore more expensive.