Answer:
Because water exhibits cohesive behavior.
Explanation:
Cohesive behavior can be explained as a behavior where molecules are attracted to each other.
And this means that, water molecules are attracted to each other because of their cohesive behavior. This makes them to be attracted to other substances, such as the walls of the xylem of plants.
In this case, it is believed that the water molecules behave this way because they are polar, that is, there is an electronegativity difference between the bonded atoms. And this enables it to move from the roots to the leaves of the plants.
During mission planning, hazards are identified by the applying <span>mission, enemy, terrain, troops, time and civilians</span> framework.
This framework is usually referred to as METT-TC.
This framework is set to help military commander prioritize what they need to analyze during the planning of a mission.
Usually the civilian analysis is considered when the mission is to take place in an urban terrain.
Silt, clay, and Sand would be more likely to find the sediment near location A, while cobble and boulder would be more likely to find the sediment near location B in the diagram of the stream.
<h3>What are Sediments?</h3>
Sediments may be defined as naturally occurring elements or materials that are broken down into small pieces of fragments due to weathering and erosion.
The sediments of silt are found in soil along with other types of sediments such as clay, gravel, and sand. While cobble and boulders are those sediments that are found in the mountainous part of the geographical locations.
Thus, it is well described above.
To learn more about Sediments, refer to the link:
brainly.com/question/6110024
#SPJ1
Answer:
Statement D is not correct.
Explanation:
a. Lobsters are rival but not excludable: This is correct, as lobster is a common resource to which everybody can get access to with no need to pay for it. Besides, a person can consume only one animal.
b. The lobster population is an example of the tragedy of the commons: This is correct, since people, acting by their own needs or interests, may exceed the capture of too many lobsters, affecting their population and, therefore, other users.
c. Reducing the quota on the number of lobsters any fisher can catch would have a protective effect on the lobster population: This is correct, since reducing the number of lobster catches will allow the animal population to reproduce more, leaving offspring capable of reaching sexual maturity, mating and reproducing again, and thus increasing the population size and stabilizing it.
d. If left unregulated, the lobster population will likely <u>increase</u>: This is <u>not correct</u>. There need to be some regulation or management, because if not these animals will continue to be caught, even in the reproductive season, not allowing the population to stabilize. In this case, the population will likely decrease, rather than increase.
I would wait for a second opinion, because the question is phrased in such a way that is confusing.
None of the statements contain scientific evidence except for the last one, but the last statement is false.
If you were being scientifically accurate, you would answer the first statement as true and the rest false.
The second statement actually has evidence to back it up, but the evidence provided is incorrect.