Answer:
It would certainly make a difference.
Explanation:
The mass of a planet determines how thick the planets atmosphere would be, if it can even sustain an atmosphere. If all the masses are the same, all of the large planets would not be able to sustain life, while all of the smaller, denser planets still have a chance.
The mass of a planet also affects it’s gravitational pull. If all of the planets had the same mass, they would all have the same gravitational pull, meaning that they would all attract the same amount of asteroids, meteors, and other spacial objects.
Overall, the simulation would certainly be different, for many, many reasons. The above are only two, and if you would like more, just add a comment and I can give you more.
The answer is B. It will increase blood pressure because the heart is contracting faster
Hi!
The correct option would be A. There's lower biodiversity among birds
Biodiversity refers to the variety of organisms (species) that inhabit a particular place, such as in our case different species of birds.
From the graph we can see that over time, the bird species are declining. From roughly 1700 bird species, the number has fallen to about 200 bird species by the middle of the fourth year.
Hence, we can deduce, and it would be accurate to say, that there is a relatively lower biodiversity amongst the birds with regard to that in the beginning.
Option B is incorrect because if the birds had a higher reproductive rate, they would be able to make up for the loss of bird species from the habitat. From the graph, we can assume that there's a moderately low reproductive rate among the birds.
Option C is incorrect because we do not know the affect of this pollution on the producers (photosynthesizing plant lifeforms). It may be possible that they might be declining, but we cannot conclude that solely from the graph.
Hope this helps!
The population crashes since its capacity is maximized
