Usually plants rely on animals or the wind to pollinate them. When animals such as bees, butterflies, moths, flies, and hummingbirds pollinate plants, it's accidental. They are not trying to pollinate the plant. When they move to another flower to feed, some of the pollen can rub off onto this new plant's stigma.
These are the three explanations that give reasons that scientists are considering renewable source of energy:
1. Renewable sources are assets implies they are old and reliable sources.
2. Most renewable sources are effectively accessible in nature.
3. Renewable resources are cost-effective in contrast with non-renewable resources.
A renewable energy source implies energy that is feasible, that can't run out, or is unending, similar to the sun. It is additionally named 'alternative energy'. These assets are fit for recovery. The recovery of these sources includes a few biological cycles on a time scale. Sun, water, air, and heat from the earth are sustainable sources that we can use to make solar-based, tidal, wind, and geothermal energy. Renewable energy is additionally called green or eco energy.
Learn more about renewable resources here,
brainly.com/question/13258110
#SPJ4
Explanation:
Any process by which plants and other photoautotrophs convert light energy into chemical energy is photosynthesis.
Hope it will help :)❤
Shortness of breath or difficulty in breathing is also called dyspnea and can be acute or chronic. It has various causes, but mainly can be caused by a problem in the heart or the lungs. Since your heart and lungs are both involved in the transportation of the oxygen to the tissues and the removal of carbon dioxide, any problems occurring to these systems can affect breathing.
B-type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) reflect the systolic and diastolic activity of the heart and its blood levels can show any heart failure. A BNP test and can help the nurse decide whether the cause of the dyspnea is a heart failure or some respiratory problem.
<span> For a start, when you have a question that needs answering in science, you formulate a null hypothesis. That is a negative statement which you then set out to prove or disprove. This is just a convention. So if your initial question is for example, "Does sugar dissolve in water?"
Your null hypothesis will be "Sugar does not dissolve in water."
You then set up your experiment and get some data.
Now if your data doesn't support your null hypothesis then you reject it and make the statement ,"Sugar does dissolve in water." As you can see from this simple example, a non-result is still a result so the idea of formulating new tests as mentioned by another answerer isn't necessary and in some ways is the incorrect thing to do. In science, hypotheses are often not supported by data and i would argue that this is the case a lot of the time. A non-result is still a result and you will have plenty to write about whichever way it goes. </span>
