2. What is one difference scientists noticed in parts of Zion National Park that had higher species diversity compared with regions with lower species diversity? a. Areas with lower diversity had higher rates of erosion. b. Areas with higher diversity had less rainfall. c. Areas with lower diversity had less rainfall. 3. Choose the sentence that best explains the statement “Tropical rain forests have the highest biodiversity of any place on earth.” a. Tropical rain forests have more species of organisms than any other place on earth. b. Tropical rain forests have the highest number of salamander species on earth. c. Tropical rain forests have more abiotic factors than other place on earth.|||not sure about the first one i would have to say 1a as i do not see how low biodiversity could affect abiotic factors. as biodiversity tends to be affected by them. not vice versa. soil eroision makes sense as there are less species helping to maintain the soil equilibrium of nutrients biodiversity (as measured on the simpsons index) is a measure of the number of species and the population of each species found therefore 3a is the best answer|||2>c. Areas with lower diversity had less rainfall. Less rainfall, like in a desert, leads to homogenous species outcomes, as you have a hugely strong selecting factor. Not many things can live in it and you get selection for a thin number of organisms. 3>a.Tropical rain forests have more species of organisms than any other place on earth This is just semantics. The statement simply doesn't match the other two answers. We can solve this through cross outing other answers B. is simply wrong. You can't conclude that from the statement. C. has to do with nonliving factors. The rainforest vast diversity may be due to biotic, living, factors selecting for lots of diversity. A goes hand in hand with the statement, but I'll admit that the questions sucks for this one.

火车采集器