Skip to content
New summer mock series is live Attempt timed papers for SSC, banking, and engineering entrances with updated syllabi for this season. View exams

#biodiversity conservation

11 public questions tagged with this topic.

Which is a less prone trait to extinction?

“Low trophic status” for which is a less prone trait to extinction. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. Human-driven habitat conversion, exploitation, introduced enemies, pollution, and climate change often interact rather than acting independently. Traits such as slow reproduction or ecological specialization can magnify vulnerability. The remaining alternatives—“High homozygosity”, “Small population size”, “High variability”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. Extinction risk rises when abundance, geographic range, or genetic variation becomes small because demographic chance, environmental fluctuations, inbreeding, and rare catastrophes then have disproportionate effects. Correlated losses among subpopulations further weaken regional persistence. This distinction matters because similar surface patterns can arise through different mechanisms, whereas ecological prediction depends on identifying the mechanism that actually changes rates. The cited framing is therefore most useful when treated as a conditional biological claim, with assumptions about scale and environmental context kept explicit.

Ref: Conservation Biology, Primack & Sher, 6th Ed., Ch. 7

Organisms with poor dispersal ability are more prone to extinction because:

“They cannot colonize new habitats” for organisms with poor dispersal ability are more prone to extinction because. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. Human-driven habitat conversion, exploitation, introduced enemies, pollution, and climate change often interact rather than acting independently. Traits such as slow reproduction or ecological specialization can magnify vulnerability. The remaining alternatives—“They attract more predators”, “They breed slowly”, “They migrate often”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. Extinction risk rises when abundance, geographic range, or genetic variation becomes small because demographic chance, environmental fluctuations, inbreeding, and rare catastrophes then have disproportionate effects. Correlated losses among subpopulations further weaken regional persistence. The cited framing is therefore most useful when treated as a conditional biological claim, with assumptions about scale and environmental context kept explicit.

Ref: Conservation Biology, Primack & Sher, 6th Ed., Ch. 7