7 public questions tagged with this topic.
Habitat fragmentation leads to isolation of populations and increased edge effects, which can negatively impact species survival.
Ref: NCERT Class 12 Biology Chapter 11: Organisms and Populations Population Interactions - Parasitism and Commensalism
“Lower species richness” for smaller fragments typically have. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. Larger islands usually support more habitats and larger populations, lowering extinction risk; less isolated islands receive colonists more readily and may experience rescue effects. These mechanisms also apply to habitat fragments that function as ecological islands. The remaining alternatives—“Higher genetic diversity”, “Increased species richness”, “Stable species populations”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. At equilibrium, species identities can continue to turn over even when richness is approximately stable. The model predicts a balance of rates, not an absence of colonization or extinction. The cited framing is therefore most useful when treated as a conditional biological claim, with assumptions about scale and environmental context kept explicit. Linking the wording to measurable consequences for fitness, abundance, or flux gives the conclusion its scientific meaning and prevents a purely mnemonic interpretation.
Ref: The Theory of Island Biogeography, MacArthur & Wilson, Ch. 2-4
“Decreased species richness” for fragmentation generally leads to. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. At equilibrium, species identities can continue to turn over even when richness is approximately stable. The model predicts a balance of rates, not an absence of colonization or extinction. The remaining alternatives—“Increased genetic diversity”, “Increased species richness”, “No ecological changes”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. Island biogeography explains species richness as a dynamic balance between immigration and extinction. Immigration generally declines as an island fills with species, whereas extinction rises as more species divide finite area and maintain smaller populations. The cited framing is therefore most useful when treated as a conditional biological claim, with assumptions about scale and environmental context kept explicit. Linking the wording to measurable consequences for fitness, abundance, or flux gives the conclusion its scientific meaning and prevents a purely mnemonic interpretation.
Ref: The Theory of Island Biogeography, MacArthur & Wilson, Ch. 2-4
“Decreased species richness” for fragmentation typically leads to. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. Island biogeography explains species richness as a dynamic balance between immigration and extinction. Immigration generally declines as an island fills with species, whereas extinction rises as more species divide finite area and maintain smaller populations. The remaining alternatives—“Increased connectivity”, “Increased genetic variation”, “Increased immigration”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. Larger islands usually support more habitats and larger populations, lowering extinction risk; less isolated islands receive colonists more readily and may experience rescue effects. These mechanisms also apply to habitat fragments that function as ecological islands. Linking the wording to measurable consequences for fitness, abundance, or flux gives the conclusion its scientific meaning and prevents a purely mnemonic interpretation.
Ref: The Theory of Island Biogeography, MacArthur & Wilson, Ch. 2-4
“Islands” for fragmented habitats are compared to. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. Larger islands usually support more habitats and larger populations, lowering extinction risk; less isolated islands receive colonists more readily and may experience rescue effects. These mechanisms also apply to habitat fragments that function as ecological islands. The remaining alternatives—“Oceans”, “Continents”, “Mountains”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. At equilibrium, species identities can continue to turn over even when richness is approximately stable. The model predicts a balance of rates, not an absence of colonization or extinction. The cited framing is therefore most useful when treated as a conditional biological claim, with assumptions about scale and environmental context kept explicit. Linking the wording to measurable consequences for fitness, abundance, or flux gives the conclusion its scientific meaning and prevents a purely mnemonic interpretation.
Ref: The Theory of Island Biogeography, MacArthur & Wilson, Ch. 2-4
“Increased connectivity among patches” for which factor leads to reduced dispersion distance among patches. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. Mechanistic support comes from showing how resource limitation, enemies, mate availability, or physiological stress changes demographic performance. A descriptive association alone does not establish regulation or causation. The remaining alternatives—“Increased resource availability”, “Higher isolation among patches”, “Smaller patch size”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. Population ecology links individual births, deaths, immigration, and emigration to changes in abundance. Per-capita rates determine the direction of change, while density dependence creates feedback when crowding alters survival or reproduction. 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: Campbell Biology, Urry et al., 12th Ed., Unit 8 Ecology
“Are at higher extinction risk” for poor dispersers in fragmented habitats. This relationship follows from the ecological mechanism represented by the terms in the item, not merely from an association between their names. The mechanism should be evaluated across both local and global scales. Local disappearance can be reversed by recolonization, whereas global extinction is irreversible and requires the loss of every surviving population. The remaining alternatives—“Adapt well to new environments”, “Easily migrate”, “Show higher reproductive rate”—refer to different states, processes, or scales and therefore do not express the same causal relationship. 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 cited framing is therefore most useful when treated as a conditional biological claim, with assumptions about scale and environmental context kept explicit. Linking the wording to measurable consequences for fitness, abundance, or flux gives the conclusion its scientific meaning and prevents a purely mnemonic interpretation.
Ref: Conservation Biology, Primack & Sher, 6th Ed., Ch. 7
