1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
katrin2010 [14]
4 years ago
15

Is studying how the mayfly population affects the number of trout in a stream called ecology

History
1 answer:
lidiya [134]4 years ago
5 0
Yes, studying how mayfly population affects the number of trout in a stream is ecology.
Ecology seeks to unveil how different organism relate with one another as well as their environment.
Ecology is basically the study of distribution,abundance and relation of organisms and their interaction with their environment.
You might be interested in
2. Were there difference in Americans responses to the Supreme Court decisions
Sedbober [7]

Answer:No

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Arkansas could not pass legislation undermining the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign. According to the decision rendered by Chief Justice John Marshall, this meant that Georgia had no rights to enforce state laws in its territory.

Cherokee Nations v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the U.S. state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits. It ruled that it had no original jurisdiction in the matter, as the Cherokees were a dependent nation, with a relationship to the United States like that of a "ward to its guardian," as said by Justice Marshall.

Explanation:

In June 1830, a delegation of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross (selected at the urging of Senators Daniel Webster and Theodore Frelinghuysen) and William Wirt, attorney general in the Monroe and Adams administrations, were selected to defend Cherokee rights before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Cherokee Nation asked for an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislation had created laws that "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society." Georgia pushed hard to bring evidence that the Cherokee Nation couldn't sue as a "foreign" nation due to the fact that they did not have a constitution or a strong central government. Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law" and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. Wirt asked the Supreme Court to void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee lands on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.

The Court did hear the case but declined to rule on the merits. The Court determined that the framers of the Constitution did not really consider the Indian Tribes as foreign nations but more as "domestic dependent nation[s]" and consequently the Cherokee Nation lacked the standing to sue as a "foreign" nation. Chief Justice Marshall said; "The court has bestowed its best attention on this question, and, after mature deliberation, the majority is of the opinion that an Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign state in the sense of the constitution, and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States." The Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee "in a proper case with proper parties".

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that "the relationship of the tribes to the United States resembles that of a 'ward to its guardian'." Justice William Johnson added that the "rules of nations" would regard "Indian tribes" as "nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither rules nor government beyond what is required in a savage state."

Justice Smith Thompson, in a dissenting judgment joined by Justice Joseph Story, held that the Cherokee nation was a "foreign state" in the sense that the Cherokee retained their "usages and customs and self-government" and the United States government had treated them as "competent to make a treaty or contract". The Court therefore had jurisdiction; Acts passed by the State of Georgia were "repugnant to the treaties with the Cherokees" and directly in violation of a congressional Act of 1802; and the injury to the Cherokee was severe enough to justify an injunction against the further execution of the state laws.[

6 0
3 years ago
Which of the following events changed American public opinion about entering the war and led the United States to declare war on
erica [24]
The passenger ship Lusitania was sunk with civilians aboard
5 0
3 years ago
Who all contributed to Italy's unification? *
Aloiza [94]

The correct answer is "All of the Above", because <u><em>Count Camillo di Cavour </em></u>participated in the Italy's unification carrying out the first phase with Napoleón III's help, where they together defeated the north austrians and started to create an Italian confederation. Then <em><u>Giuseppe Garibaldi </u></em>decided to unify the peninsula's south, conquering Sicilia and Nápoles, achieving the Italy's unification second phase. Afterwards in 1860, Garibaldi resolved to give the conquered territories to <u><em>Victor Emmanuel II</em></u>, who in a year later (1861) thanks to the Italy's Unification, becomed in the first Italy's king.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What ends the Great Depression in America
Oksana_A [137]

Answer:

A combination of the New Deal and World War II lifted the U.S. out of the Depression.

Pls mark me brainliest thx it took a while to find this 4 u hope it helps

5 0
3 years ago
In looking at the impact of tche bombing of Hiroshima, if you had to make the decision, would you have used the atomic bomb duri
miv72 [106K]
Yes I would of done it because with out the bombs Japan would of never surrendered and the war would of probably lasted months longer with many more casualties on both sides.

I would of also done it as a show of force to the ussr I see it as a way to show them the destructive power of the us and her allies a way of saying don’t mess with the bull or you get the horns
7 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why is the Holy Land an important site for your faith?
    13·2 answers
  • The social scientist most likely to read the text on ancient Chinese oracle bones would be?
    9·1 answer
  • How can a citizen help benefit her/his society politically
    8·2 answers
  • Why was the development of the Bessemer process important? HELP
    13·1 answer
  • What was the trail of tears?
    8·2 answers
  • Describe and explain roman architecture?
    6·1 answer
  • People protest outside a state prison on the day a prisoner is to be executed. To which principles does this connect?
    8·1 answer
  • What did prehistoricals use before metal
    13·1 answer
  • Why would the average life span of a child laborer in the city be so much shorter than a rural resident?
    5·1 answer
  • Will be brainlisted for the correct answer!!!
    10·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!