#1 is quite true. For example, remove wolves from an area, and the deer overpopulate and start starving for lack of food.
#2 is false, as far as I can tell. I doubt that cockroaches run the same risk as grizzly bears. Animals which live in changing habitat and cannot adapt run a much higher risk of extinction.
Is that an auto vulgarity filter at work? False positive! Still, it does reflect my general opinion of roaches.
I'm sorry, Steve, but our filtering software doesn't distinguish between single words and compound words. One way around it is to put spaces between letters. C O C K R O A C H E S
I would say that both 1 and 2 are true.
1: For example: remove all plants from an ecosystem. Herbivores and most insects would quickly die off, followed by carnivores and insectivores and so on until there is nothing left.
2: No organism is safe from extinction, there are just some that are a little safer than others. Roaches for example are very common but if there was a disease that only affected roaches it could completly wipe out the species. This is currently being seen in Tasmanian Devils. A great example is the passenger pigeon. Before it went extinct it was one of the most common bird species seen in the U.S. It was quickly hunted to extinction because they relied on their flocks that could contain thousands of birds. Once a flock was hunted to around the last 500 the rest of the flock could not survive and they quickly died off. t has been seen in many other animals throughout history from climate change, predation, over population, and disaster. Nothing can survive forever.