Biodiversity has a fundamental value to humans because we are so dependent on it for our cultural, economic, and environmental well-being. Some argue that it is our moral responsibility to preserve the Earth’s incredible diversity for the next generation. Others simply like knowing that nature’s great diversity exists and that the opportunity to utilize it later, if need be, is secure. Scientists value biodiversity because it offers clues about natural systems that we are still trying to understand. Arguably, the greatest value to humans, however, comes from the ?ecosystem services? it provides.
Biodiversity forms the backbone of viable ecosystems on which we depend on for basic necessities, security, and health. By breaking down plant and animal matter, for example, insects and other invertebrates make nutrients available to plants and are integral to the carbon and nitrogen cycles. Other species pollinate crops, an essential service for farmers. Healthy ecosystems can mitigate or prevent flooding, erosion, and other natural disasters. These ecosystem services also play a hand in the functioning of our climate and in both air and water quality.
Ionic bond<span>, also </span>called<span> electrovalent </span>bond<span> , type of linkage </span>formed<span> from the electrostatic </span>attraction between oppositely charged ions<span> in a chemical compound.
</span>
Answer:
Here's what I get
Explanation:
(a) Intermediates
The three structures below represent one contributor to the resonance-stabilized intermediate, in which the lone pair electrons on the heteroatom are participating (the + charge on the heteroatoms do not show up very well).
(b) Relative Stabilities
The relative stabilities decrease in the order shown.
N is more basic than O, so NH₂ is the best electron donating group (EDG) and will best stabilize the positive charge in the ring. However, the lone pair electrons on the N in acetanilide are also involved in resonance with the carbonyl group, so they are not as available for stabilization of the ring.
(c) Relative reactivities
The relative reactivities would be
C₆H₅-NH₂ > C₆H₅-OCH₃ > C₆H₅-NHCOCH₃
Answer:
Assume that the sack was initially close to the sea level. Its weight will increase even though its mass stays the same.
Explanation:
The weight of an object typically refers to the size of the planet's gravitational attraction (a force) on this object. That's not the same as the mass of the object. The weight of an object at a position depends on the size of the gravitational field there; on the other hand, the mass of the object is supposed to be same regardless of the location- as long as the object stays intact.
Let 
denote the strength of the gravitational field at a certain point. If the mass of an object is 
, its weight at that point will be 
.
Indeed, 
on many places of the earth. However, this value is accurate only near the sea level. The equation for universal gravitation is a more general way for finding the strength of the gravitational field at an arbitrary height. Let 
denote the constant of universal gravitation, and let 
denote the mass of the earth. At a distance 
from the center of the earth (where
.
The elevation of many places in Bhutan are significantly higher than that of many places in India. Therefore, a sack of potato in Bhutan will likely be further away from the center of the earth (larger ) compared to a sack of potato in India.
Note, that in the approximation, the value of is (approximately, because the earth isn't perfectly spherical) inversely proportional to the distance from the center of the planet. The gravitational field strength
On the other hand, the weight of an object of fixed mass is proportional to the gravitational field strength. Therefore, the same bag of potatoes will have a smaller weight at most places in Bhutan compared to most places in India.
