Mz: "So basically, alligators dig holes, and this does a bunch of important things, and also they eat one of the main animals that would otherwise destroy wetlands."
Well, that's not what you originally said. Furthermore you're misinterpreting what you quote above too.
FWIW in the U.S. the word "coypu" is rarely used, we use the word "nutria" instead.
First of all, to say
Mz: "...like an alligator making swamps in the American South..."
is like saying that cows make cow pastures, or prairie dogs make grasslands, or oysters make the seabeds that they lie in - it is essentially incorrect.
I lived decades in the American South and have seen my share of alligators. I even raised one awhile and she did not terraform the backyard in any manner whatsoever. Mostly she crapped, irritated the dog, hissed and stood her ground until fed. To read someone speaking of alligators "making swamps in the American South" still has me laughing.
Mz: "Removing alligators from certain swamps would, in fact, significantly impact the swamp and make it much more likely to revert to solid land over time."
No. The swamp would be there with or w/o alligators. For example, Disney is removing alligators from their Disneyland parks. The swampy areas won't dry up as a result.
Swamps are consequences of geography and climate, not of alligators. There are plenty of swamps w/o alligators and alligators w/o swamps (e.g., lakes, rivers, etc.).
Humans are probably the main predators of nutria. Humans introduced nutria to the U.S. for their fur, in some instances, and to control various wild grasses, in others. Were the alligators were all gone, I have no doubt that other predators would easily pick up the slack.
Even if the nutria were allowed to reproduce unencumbered, they would not "destroy wetlands". Firstly the population would, as in the usual predator-prey models, boom then bust. Secondly, as I said earlier, the wetlands are a product not of biology, but of geography and climate. Of course biology diversifies the environment, but it doesn't create it. You could hit Louisiana with a giant neutron bomb, killing every living thing there and the wetlands would remain for eons.
My understanding is that large swamps, like the Everglades would, in fact, shrink and stop being large, stable swamps without alligators. I am not going to try to dig up further supporting links showing that as sediment accumulates, wetlands change.
Your pet alligator failing to terraform your backyard is not evidence that they do not have this impact in the wild. That is like saying "I have seen a single lion in the zoo. I can assure you, they don't hunt in groups."
Anyway, I am done with this discussion. I believe my observation is accurate. If you don't want to believe it, so be it.
In the low-lying swampy terrain of the East Texas river bottom lands through which I traipsed as a child, I observed alligators, snakes, frogs, lizards et al in their natural environment.
There is, literally and figuratively, a world of difference between the real world and the world one reads about. One's grounding in real world knowledge is critical to one's understanding. Simply because something is on the Internet (or in a book) doesn't mean it's true. Getting out into the real world helps one understand, fills in gaps in one's knowledge, and makes the difference.
Earlier on I honestly thought that you were a child or at least a young student, since your knowledge seemed to be exclusively based on a rough interpretation of readings (which did not appear particularly authoritative). However since you state that you are a parent, I am somewhat disappointed to conclude that, in your life, you may have missed out on some experiential information that many, if not most, others share as common knowledge. I regret that I don't know how to communicate that to you. I would only hope that you encourage your child to get out into the world. My best wishes.
Well, that's not what you originally said. Furthermore you're misinterpreting what you quote above too.
FWIW in the U.S. the word "coypu" is rarely used, we use the word "nutria" instead.
First of all, to say
Mz: "...like an alligator making swamps in the American South..."
is like saying that cows make cow pastures, or prairie dogs make grasslands, or oysters make the seabeds that they lie in - it is essentially incorrect.
I lived decades in the American South and have seen my share of alligators. I even raised one awhile and she did not terraform the backyard in any manner whatsoever. Mostly she crapped, irritated the dog, hissed and stood her ground until fed. To read someone speaking of alligators "making swamps in the American South" still has me laughing.
Mz: "Removing alligators from certain swamps would, in fact, significantly impact the swamp and make it much more likely to revert to solid land over time."
No. The swamp would be there with or w/o alligators. For example, Disney is removing alligators from their Disneyland parks. The swampy areas won't dry up as a result.
Swamps are consequences of geography and climate, not of alligators. There are plenty of swamps w/o alligators and alligators w/o swamps (e.g., lakes, rivers, etc.).
Humans are probably the main predators of nutria. Humans introduced nutria to the U.S. for their fur, in some instances, and to control various wild grasses, in others. Were the alligators were all gone, I have no doubt that other predators would easily pick up the slack.
Even if the nutria were allowed to reproduce unencumbered, they would not "destroy wetlands". Firstly the population would, as in the usual predator-prey models, boom then bust. Secondly, as I said earlier, the wetlands are a product not of biology, but of geography and climate. Of course biology diversifies the environment, but it doesn't create it. You could hit Louisiana with a giant neutron bomb, killing every living thing there and the wetlands would remain for eons.