The rainforest has more water and plants and can support more animals than a desert.
Yes it is to extreme for some animals.
Because it has extreme climate
The short growing season limits the number of herbivores that support carnivores.
Because it has extreme climate
Because of its permafrost, the plants in the tundra are very small. These include grass, mosses, and small shrubs and trees. The animals in the tundra includes artic fox, and polar bears.
Plants produce food Herbivores eat plants Carnivores eat herbivores Thus to keep everyone fed there have to be more plants than there are herbivores to eat them (or the herbivores would starve) and more herbivores than carnivores (or the carnivores would starve).
In order for a food chain to be stable, there must always be less biomass as you go up in trophic levels (i.e. from plants to herbivores to carnivores). This is basically because energy is always lost as it is transferred to each successive level, since herbivores use some of the energy they get from plants to stay alive (leaving less for carnivores who eat them), and so there will always be fewer carnivores than herbivores.
-- smaller -- warmer -- closer to the sun -- more dense -- greater population of living things -- fewer moons -- fewer rings -- faster orbital speed
if there wasn't a producer there would be no energy being transferred. then the animals would weaken and start getting eaten by the carnivores. soon the herbivores species would be gone. then the carnivores all dieing. after all the animals would be dead.
predators and tundra in the carnivores and the jungle
Because of its permafrost, the plants in the tundra are very small. These include grass, mosses, and small shrubs and trees. The animals in the tundra includes artic fox, and polar bears.
Plants produce food Herbivores eat plants Carnivores eat herbivores Thus to keep everyone fed there have to be more plants than there are herbivores to eat them (or the herbivores would starve) and more herbivores than carnivores (or the carnivores would starve).
No, only a tiny minority live in the North and even fewer in Tundra or Arctic regions. About 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the USA border, many below the 49th parallel.
With more individuals reproducing there will be more varied mutations that will occur. This gives nature more to work with in selecting survivors in changing environments. When species are reduced to fewer and fewer individuals there are fewer mutations for nature to choose from for survival and and the species may go extinct in a changing environment.
Rural regions typically have fewer large cities compared to urban areas. This is because large cities tend to develop as central hubs for economic, cultural, and social activities, which are more common in urban environments. Rural regions often have smaller population densities and fewer infrastructure resources, leading to less urbanization and fewer large cities.
Fewer Job Opportunities. Limited Access to Healthcare. Fewer Education Opportunities. Fewer Entertainment Options. Limited Services and Conveniences. Unique Dangers. Isolation. Hard Work.
fewer came to the Americas because conditions in England began to improve
there were fewer manufacturing jobs
There were fewer indentured servants in the colonists .
In order for a food chain to be stable, there must always be less biomass as you go up in trophic levels (i.e. from plants to herbivores to carnivores). This is basically because energy is always lost as it is transferred to each successive level, since herbivores use some of the energy they get from plants to stay alive (leaving less for carnivores who eat them), and so there will always be fewer carnivores than herbivores.
The region that had fewer people living in emergency and transitional shelters in 1990 than in 2000 is not specified in the question. A specific region or dataset is needed to provide an accurate answer.