(BIO STATS) It has been long observed that large areas have more species than sm
ID: 3326713 • Letter: #
Question
(BIO STATS)
It has been long observed that large areas have more species than smaller areas, whether the areas are habitat patches, islands, counties, or continents. This positive relationship of species richness on area is usually depicted as a double logarithmic plot of the logarithm of number of species on the logarithm of area. In most studies, the slope of this regression falls between 0.2 and 0.4. From this “species-area relationship” some scientists have reasoned that a single large area set aside as a nature reserve would initially contain more species than if several small areas (whose area sums to equal the single large reserve) were set aside as nature reserves. Is this conclusion reasonable? If not why?
Explanation / Answer
Yes this is true that large area has more habitat than the smalll area
This us because the living conditions in the large area is usually better than the smaller one
There is more availability of trees, land and food.. it should be noted that all the areas have some abandoned land(or useless land) and the ratio of this land is more in the smaller areas as compared to the large area. Hence although the sum of the smalll and the large area is exactly same, the chances of a large area having large habitat is higher
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.