What you should do in this case is to divide one large square in four smaller ones. Then on the line above the upper left square put the letters 'IA'. Next, on the line above the upper right square write the letter 'i'. In the same way, on the left side of the upper left square write the letters 'IB' and under it, left from the bottom left square write the letter 'i'. This gives you something like a table. In each of the blank squares you connect the corresponding letters together, from the upper and the left side to see the possible genotypes of the children.
Meaning, their genotypes would be: 25% IAIB, 25% IAi, 25% IBi, and 25% ii
Hope this helps :)
Answer:
<h2>ᒪOᗯ EᑎEᖇGY ᗪEᑎᔕEᗪ ᖴOOᗪ</h2>
ᒪIKE ᐯEGGIEᔕ, ᖴᖇᑌITᔕ, ᗪᗩIᖇY ᑭᖇOᗪᑌᑕTᔕ ᗩᑎᗪ OTᕼEᖇ ᕼEᗩᒪTᕼY ᗪIET ᖴOOᗪᔕ GIᐯE YOᑌ EᑎEᖇGY ᗩᑎᗪ ᕼEᒪᑭ YOᑌ ᖴEEᒪ ᔕᗩTIᔕᖴIEᗪ ᗩᖴTEᖇ EᗩTIᑎG.
IT ᗰEᗩᑎᔕ ᗪEᗩᑎᔕEᗪ ᖴOOᗪᔕ ᑕᗩᑎ EᗩᔕE Oᑌᖇ ᕼᑌᑎGEᖇ ᗷEᑕᗩᑌᔕE ᗯE ᑕᗩᑎ ᗷE ᔕᗩTIᔕᖴIEᗪ.
None of the provided options are reasonable. <span>comparing nutrient concentrations between the photic zone and the benthic zone can not tell you whether differences in concentrations between the photic and benthic zone are due to uptake by phytoplankton or because nutrients are sinking to the sea bottom and ocean stratification is preventing mixing. The approach of c</span><span>ontrasting nutrient uptake by autotrophs at different locations under different temperatures would not provide useful information on limiting nutrients. but rather uptake rates at different temperatures. It is likely that e</span>xperimentally enriching some areas of the ocean and compare their productivity to that of untreated areas can provide an indication of limiting nutrients, but this is not advisable, as it would have to be done on a large scale, and one cannot be sure of the ecological consequences. Also, because it would not be a controlled experiment, other factors could create 'noise' in the data. The last option, <span>observe antarctic ocean productivity from year to year to see if it changes, also does not help, as there is no correlation between nutrient concentrations using this approach. The best approaches would be either the last approach, but with the additional monitoring of nutrient concentrations, or under a controlled laboratory experiment.</span>
The particles in a hot pan have greater kinetic energy than the particles in a cool oven mitt.
This is because as the temperature of an object increases, the particles gain more energy and therefore move faster, increasing kinetic energy.
I hope this helps, feel free to ask any questions you may have
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation:
Yes, small plants began to grow along the remaining soil because of the presence of seeds in the soil that sense suitable environmental condition and come out of the soil. The ashes of burn trees have huge amount of nutrients in the form of minerals that triggers the growth of small plants. After the destruction of forest, new plants grow on that land, this type of phenomenon is called ecological succession.