To analyze the data and claims, we need to look at the relationship between acorns, chipmunks, and ticks over the years provided. The key aspects to consider include how the food supply impacts the populations of chipmunks and ticks.
Let's evaluate the options:
A. This claim suggests that ticks eat acorns when chipmunk populations decrease. However, ticks are ectoparasites that feed on the blood of animals, not on acorns. This claim is not supported by the ecological relationships presented.
B. This claim implies that the ticks directly cause a decrease in the chipmunk population and that this, in turn, affects acorn production. However, while there may be a correlation between the populations, there's no evidence here to suggest that ticks impact chipmunk populations in such a cascading way, and the connection to oak trees and acorn production is not substantiated in the data.
C. This claim posits a shortage of food (in this case, acorns) leading to fewer chipmunks in the subsequent year, which would then correlate with a lower tick population in the year after that. This idea aligns with the observed data of declines in chipmunk numbers relating to lower acorn counts, which can indirectly affect tick populations.
D. This claim suggests that high acorn availability correlates with higher populations of chipmunks and ticks. This, too, is somewhat consistent with the data, as years with more acorns tend to have more chipmunks, which may support a higher tick population.
After considering all claims, C is the most comprehensive as it provides a direct causal link: a decrease in food sources (acorns) influences the chipmunk population, which in turn affects the tick population. Thus:
C. A shortage of food for chipmunks in a certain year decreases the chipmunk population in the next year and the tick population in the year after that.