The African savanna display in the zoo, for the most part, accurately reflects the natural ecosystem of the organisms. This particular ecological region generally possesses several structural and functional characteristics that distinguishes it from other ecosystems, many of which the zoo took into consideration when creating the exhibit. One such trait is an extensive grass cover along with scattered trees and shrubs that frequently appear in tropical or subtropical vegetation types. Low soil fertility is common in savannas, and so the lack of richness of dirt in the display area successfully imitates the natural habitat. It makes sense that there should be only a select number of trees per exhibit since the condition of the soil is not favourable for bountiful vegetation.
As the savanna alternates between wet and dry seasons, it would only seem fit that the zoo simulates abundant rainfall for the animas. Visiting in April did rendered it impossible to see whether or not there was any artificial precipitation, as it generally only rains a generous amount in the Southern Hemisphere around October to March. However, the appearance of the dry season seemed to be much like that of the wild. The dehydrated grass even suggested the possibility of dry season fires, fairly common events in the African savanna, despite the great improbability of one spreading out in a public zoo.
However, as it is near impossible of creating an exact replication of the real African savanna, there exists a number of things that distinguishes the display from the actual ecological region. Interacting food chains are an important part of a well-balanced ecosystem and the lack of any contact between the animals of this habitat is hard to overlook. It is perfectly understandable why the zoo would not want to put a zebra and a lion in the same display, however, if it was the wild, there would be no distinct barrier. Another deficiency of the zoo would be the absence of abundant land to roam on. Since birth animals from the African savanna have lived on outstretched grasslands and had the option to go about as they pleased. It cannot be denied that no amount of additions to the display could take the place of that kind of freedom. While there are aspects of the display that do not successfully imitate the ecosystem the organisms are accustomed to in the wild, the exhibit is, all things considered, fairly accurate.
As the savanna alternates between wet and dry seasons, it would only seem fit that the zoo simulates abundant rainfall for the animas. Visiting in April did rendered it impossible to see whether or not there was any artificial precipitation, as it generally only rains a generous amount in the Southern Hemisphere around October to March. However, the appearance of the dry season seemed to be much like that of the wild. The dehydrated grass even suggested the possibility of dry season fires, fairly common events in the African savanna, despite the great improbability of one spreading out in a public zoo.
However, as it is near impossible of creating an exact replication of the real African savanna, there exists a number of things that distinguishes the display from the actual ecological region. Interacting food chains are an important part of a well-balanced ecosystem and the lack of any contact between the animals of this habitat is hard to overlook. It is perfectly understandable why the zoo would not want to put a zebra and a lion in the same display, however, if it was the wild, there would be no distinct barrier. Another deficiency of the zoo would be the absence of abundant land to roam on. Since birth animals from the African savanna have lived on outstretched grasslands and had the option to go about as they pleased. It cannot be denied that no amount of additions to the display could take the place of that kind of freedom. While there are aspects of the display that do not successfully imitate the ecosystem the organisms are accustomed to in the wild, the exhibit is, all things considered, fairly accurate.