It has been long observed that large areas have more species than smaller areas,

Question

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 usally depcited 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

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.