soem of the remaining animals are likley to become immune to the disease but it is posible for extinction by other diseases and preditors and deforestation.
When the space where animals live becomes smaller a couple of things could happen. It is likely that disease will spread quickly and it could devastate the population.
Economic productivity would decline.
Economic productivity would decline.
Y
the plankton population would decrease
Most likely increase, due to removing a predator of the krill would decrease the number of them dying from seal predation. also other organisms that eat krill population will increase due to less competition.
Y
Animals will loose their home and try to survive , most likely they wont.
If a disease significantly reduces the owl population, which are natural predators of shrews, the shrew population is likely to increase. With fewer owls to control their numbers, shrews can thrive, leading to a potential overpopulation. This surge could result in increased competition for food and habitat among shrews, and possibly lead to ecological imbalances in their environment. Over time, other factors such as food availability and disease among shrews may eventually regulate their population.
Several things could happen. Some animals might migrate to more hospitable land, the animals who enjoy the wetter climate might expand their populations, and some animals (over time) might adapt to a wetter climate.
The world as we know it would probably be overrun with the disease, because if you live in a place where rabies is a major disease, human life population would most likely be cut in half. It would also make domesticating animals, especially dogs, nearly impossible.
Actually variation helps, because it increases diversity within the population increasing chances of survival of the population in the cases of environmental disaster, disease, etc. Some individual organisms in the population die and some live, more diversity the more likely some will live through whatever may happen.