The two factors about the ecology of the great plains did farmers fail to understand
The role the native grasses played in the environment
That local weather patterns were subject to periodic drought
<h3>What factors about the ecology of the great plains did farmers fail to understand?</h3>
- Environmental change has been significantly less drastic than the two-thirds of the grassland that farmers were unable to successfully plow for crops.
- The majority of such area still has native vegetative cover, despite the fact that virtually all of it has been extensively grazed by cattle and in much smaller amounts by sheep and horses.
- Two key climatic gradients—an east-west gradient of increasing precipitation and a north-south gradient of increasing temperature—which both produce drought—control the spread of both natural ecosystems and land use management.
Learn more about the great plains with the help of the given link:
brainly.com/question/17750038
#SPJ4
Answer:
The correct answer is Option C. The wing of a bat.
Explanation:
Homologous structure to the human forearm is the wing of a bat. The human forearm has the same internal structure to wing of a bat.
Forearm of both human and bat contains two bone named ulna and radius. It contains muscle like flexors and extensors which helps in the movement of forearm. Internally the structure is same but look different in appearance from outside.
Answer: probability is used to predict the chance that an event is likely to occur at a particular chosen level of significance.
Null hypothesis is accepted in biology when the p value is less than 1%, statistically, when the value of p<0.01
Explanation:
Determing the significance level is decided by the researcher, often times, scientists commonly use the 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001 probability levels as cut-off values. For instance, in the example experiment, you used the 1% probability. Thus, P ≥ 0.01 can be interpreted to mean that chance likely caused the deviation between the observed and the expected values (i.e. there is a greater than 1% probability that chance explains the data).
If instead we had observed that P ≤ 0.01, this would mean that there is less than a 1% probability that our data can be explained by chance. There is a significant difference between our expected and observed results, so the deviation must be caused by something other than chance.
Answer:
2.ln the analysis you calculate heart rate average over 15 second and instaneous
