A. into a climax community; species replaces another
B. and replaces another; ecosystem becomes stable
C. on unoccupied ground; biological community replaces another
D. and then fails; niche changes
E. intraspecific competition; experiences interspecific competition
Answer:
C. on unoccupied ground; biological community replaces another
Explanation:
Primary succession is a gradual change that occurs on bare rocks or areas that have no life existing on it before. It could take several years to be colonized by living things.
On the other hand, secondary succession are changes that occur when one biological community replaces another as a result of factors such as wild fires, or take place in abandoned farm land. New species of organisms take over the area that has life existing on it already. Secondary succession occurs on areas or land that has been colonized initially before.
<span>When a farmer stops cultivating farmland and abandons
it, the growth of wild grasses and weeds can be considered secondary succession
because of the presence of the existing soil. Secondary succession occurs in ecosystem
when soil have been disturbed or disrupted by humans such in a way of farming. Furthermore, the reason why it cannot be
categorize as primary succession because primary succession only occurs in
essentially lifeless areas, where soil is not capable of sustaining life. Specifically,
this is called old-field succession where wild grasses and weeds represents a new
plant species to colonize a bare soil after the farmer abandon the farmland.</span>
The function of the lens is that it allows light rays to focus into the retina. They are composed of fluids that contains lots of nutrients for the lens to gain from it and cleanses dirt if it comes in contact the eye. Overtime, this lens, will slowly degrade as its fluid will start to lose.
<span>Higher amounts of nitrogenous compounds will increase algal blooms, leading to less available oxygen in the water, and decrease biodiversity.
--------
Let's take a look at each option and consider them in light of our knowledge.
1. These compounds will combine into larger molecules as they interact in the nitrogen cycle and become food for fish and other animals, increasing biodiversity.
* This has some problems. Yes, the fertilizers will cause an increase in the food supply, but that doesn't spontaneously cause an increase in biodiversity. The only way to increase the biodiversity is to introduce new organisms. And this isn't such a mechanism. I won't pick this choice.
2. The water cycle will remove excess fertilizer naturally through evaporation, with no impact on biodiversity.
* There's some issues here as well. Think about how much fertilizer runoff is considered a pollution issue. If this option were true, then we wouldn't be seeing so many news articles complaining about fertilizer running causing pollution problems. So this answer isn't any good either.
3. Nitrogenous compounds will be recycled into carbon compounds to create new organisms and increase biodiversity.
* Still running into the "spontaneous increase in biodiversity" issue here. How would more carbon compounds suddenly increase the biodiversity? This answer isn't any good either.
4. Higher amounts of nitrogenous compounds will increase algal blooms, leading to less available oxygen in the water, and decrease biodiversity.
* This is a real problem. Some might think that "Algae is a plant. Plants produce oxygen. Why would more algae cause the oxygen supply to decrease?" Well, the answer is pretty simple. Individual algae cells don't live very long. So you have a log of algae being produced. Releasing oxygen to the air, and then dying. And the dead algae then proceeds to decay, which does consume dissolved oxygen in the water. Which does cause the death of fish and other animals that are dependent upon that dissolved oxygen. And that does reduce the biodiversity in the area. So this is a reasonable and correct answer.</span>
