In a home, living things include microorganisms (e.g., bacteria), pets and humans, whereas non-living things may include water, viruses, etc.
<h3>What is a living thing?</h3>
A living thing is any biological system composed of cells, which are the fundamental unit of life.
Viruses do not have cells and therefore they can be considered non-living parasitic entities, whereas abiotic factors such as water are also considered non living things.
In conclusion, living things include microorganisms and humans, whereas non-living things include water.
Learn more about biotic factors here:
brainly.com/question/12689972
#SPJ1
Answer: erosion. Erosion is the process in which a natural agent removes material from one location to another location. Another answer could be humans. A good example is the great wall of china! The great wall of china is slowly crumbling because so many tourists step foot on it which could carry the wall's rocks or just destroy the wall. This is technically erosion but man-made.
Explanation:
Answer:
This question has created a stir among conservation biologists and ecologists that has lasted for 15 years. New insights into the debate are critically reviewed in an editorial by the editors of the international scientific journal Biological Conservation, and a separate article in the same journal. The evidence affects the core tenets of conservation biology: How do humans influence biodiversity? And how do we set and measure conservation goals?
Many recent ecological studies have found the surprising result that the number of species (i.e., species richness) at sites around the world has remained stable on average or is even increasing. These sites include wide range of species and habitats-plants and animals; and forests, grasslands, freshwaters, and oceans.
"These findings highlight the need for conservation biologists to avoid oversimplification when making the case for conservation and selecting indicators of success," says Dr. Richard Primack, lead author of the editorial and an editor at Biological Conservation. "'More species is good' is a seductively straightforward and attractive argument. However, it ignores scale (biodiversity can increase locally, but decline globally), it ignores ecological processes and interactions, and it ignores many other aspects of biodiversity-such as changes in ecosystem services and loss of genetic variation-less obvious to non-biologists. It also misses the ethical, cultural, and aesthetic values of certain species and ecological communities, such as monarch butterflies and redwood forests. These aspects of biodiversity can still be damaged or lost, even as species richness remains steady or increases."
Some ecologists argue that the trends should not be considered as true "global" patterns of changes in local biodiversity. The reason is that the studies exclude sites that were paved, turned to farmland, or recovering from past disturbance (e.g., abandoned farmland returning to forests), and include sites that are not evenly distributed around the world. These ecologists argue that a fair analysis would conclude that biodiversity is generally declining both globally and locally.