1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Step2247 [10]
2 years ago
5

The polygons in each pair are similar. Find the scale factor of the smaller figure to the larger. Please give explanation.

Advanced Placement (AP)
1 answer:
prohojiy [21]2 years ago
5 0

Answer:

2

Explanation:

8 to 16, so the smaller figure's measures double in order to match the larger. Therefore, x2, the scale factor.

You might be interested in
Why is a light-year a more useful measurement in astronomy than a meter is?
Greeley [361]
It covers a more understandable distance that can be determined by a more reasonable unit of measure.
8 0
2 years ago
Which statement does NOT describe a characteristic of squatter settlements?
koban [17]

Answer:

A

Explanation:

A

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Write a thesis statement for your argumentative paper based on the prompt: What can we do to improve society?
Fittoniya [83]

Answer:

Society today is fraught with depression, prejudice, judgements, self-serving hatred, and low self image, and we must take great strides to achieve a society where everyone is appreciated and accepted.

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
What is dispersal and elevation ?​
Kobotan [32]
Little is known about how mutualistic interactions affect the distribution of species richness on broad geographic scales. Because mutualism positively affects the fitness of all species involved in the interaction, one hypothesis is that the richness of species involved should be positively correlated across their range, especially for obligate relationships. Alternatively, if mutualisms involve multiple mutualistic partners, the distribution of mutualists should not necessarily be related, and patterns in species distributions might be more strongly correlated with environmental factors. In this study, we compared the distributions of plants and vertebrate animals involved in seed‐dispersal mutualisms across the United States and Canada. We compiled geographic distributions of plants dispersed by frugivores and scatter‐hoarding animals, and compared their distribution of richness to the distribution in disperser richness. We found that the distribution of animal dispersers shows a negative relationship to the distribution of the plants that they disperse, and this is true whether the plants dispersed by frugivores or scatter‐hoarders are considered separately or combined. In fact, the mismatch in species richness between plants and the animals that disperse their seeds is dramatic, with plants species richness greatest in the in the eastern United States and the animal species richness greatest in the southwest United States. Environmental factors were corelated with the difference in the distribution of plants and their animal mutualists and likely are more important in the distribution of both plants and animals. This study is the first to describe the broad‐scale distribution of seed‐dispersing vertebrates and compare the distributions to the plants they disperse. With these data, we can now identify locations that warrant further study to understand the factors that influence the distribution of the plants and animals involved in these mutualisms.

Introduction
A central problem in ecology is to understand the patterns and processes shaping the distribution of species. There is a preponderance of studies of species richness at broad geographic scales (Hawkins et al. 2003, Rahbek et al. 2007, Stein et al. 2014, Rabosky and Hurlbert 2015) that has facilitated our understanding of why species are found where they are, a central tenet within the domain of ecology (Scheiner and Willig 2008). Most commonly, these studies find species distributions to be correlated with resource availability and use environmental variables (e.g. temperature and productivity; Rabosky and Hurlbert 2015) to explain putative determinants of the distributions. Environmental variables are only one determinant of species’ distributions. Another, species interaction, is a key and understudied determinant of species’ distributions (Cazelles et al. 2016). In fact, in some cases species interactions may be more important for determining distribution than environmental variables (Fleming 2005).

When species interact, we expect their geographic distributions to be correlated – either positively or negatively – depending on the effect (or sign of the interaction) of one species on the other (Case et al. 2005). For pairwise interactions, where one species benefits from another species, a positive relationship is expected between the distribution and abundance due to the increase in the average fitness of the benefitting species where they overlap (Svenning et al. 2014). Furthermore, most species interactions are not simply pairwise, but diffuse, consisting of multiple interacting species, here referred to as guilds (with guilds referring to species that use the same resource). It therefore follows that where one guild benefits from another guild, a positive relationship is expected between the distribution and richness of the guids. This should be true in the case of mutualisms, where both sides of the interaction share an increase in average fitness from being together (Bronstein 2015), and there is some evidence for correlated geographic distributions of mutualists in the New World (Fleming 2005). One example of a mutualism where both sides of the interaction have a fitness advantage in each other's presence is animal‐mediated seed dispersal. Because both interacting species and guilds in seed dispersal mutualism benefit from the relationship we would predict that the richness of animal‐dispersed plants ought to be correlated with the richness of their animal dispersers and vice versa. To our knowledge, this prediction has never been tested on a large geographic scale.
3 0
3 years ago
There is 3/4 of a pizza left over from the night before how many 1/8 portions are there
mart [117]
6 because you would take 3/4 / 1/8 and then continue to follow the reciprocal to get 24/4 which is 6.
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Many lands in the Arabian Peninsula have been transformed into agricultural zones due mainly to
    6·2 answers
  • What is considered the most significant transformation in the human condition?
    9·1 answer
  • If nominal interest rate equals 5 percent and expected inflation is 3 percent, then the new nominal and real interest rates are
    11·1 answer
  • Identify whether each assessment tool is a value inventory or an interest inventory. Strong Interest Inventory
    5·2 answers
  • What are two functions of lighting?<br> a. b.
    11·2 answers
  • (This is PC, I don't know what to put it in as a subject.)
    12·2 answers
  • * WILL PAY GIVE CASH APP *In the middle school band, there are 5 flutes for every 2 tubas. Write the ratio of flutes to tubas in
    11·2 answers
  • Need help need help hellllllllllllppppppppppppp
    14·1 answer
  • Flag football questions
    6·1 answer
  • What is your opinion on how the coppolino case was handled?
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!