The rainforest has more water and plants and can support more animals than a desert.
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).
Extreme environments such as deserts, polar regions, and high mountaintops tend to have lower species diversity due to harsh conditions that limit the ability of many organisms to survive and thrive. Island environments, particularly remote and isolated ones, can also have fewer species compared to mainland areas.
In the Arctic, herbivores generally outnumber carnivores. The primary herbivores in this region include species like caribou, muskoxen, and various migratory birds that feed on vegetation. Carnivores, such as polar bears, Arctic foxes, and wolves, are fewer in number as they rely on herbivores for food. Thus, the ecological balance favors herbivores in this harsh environment.
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 tundra has low biodiversity due to its extreme cold temperatures and short growing season. Plant diversity is limited to low-growing shrubs, grasses, mosses, and lichens. Animal diversity is also low, with species such as musk oxen, reindeer, Arctic foxes, and polar bears adapted to the harsh conditions.
predators and tundra in the carnivores and the jungle
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).
Extreme environments such as deserts, polar regions, and high mountaintops tend to have lower species diversity due to harsh conditions that limit the ability of many organisms to survive and thrive. Island environments, particularly remote and isolated ones, can also have fewer species compared to mainland areas.
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.
A hot desert climate, characterized by extreme temperatures, low humidity, and minimal vegetation, typically has fewer people living in it due to the harsh living conditions.
fewer came to the Americas because conditions in England began to improve
Rapidly moving freshwater environments can be more physically demanding and challenging for organisms to inhabit due to factors like turbulence and fluctuations in water flow. This limits the types of species that can adapt and survive in these conditions, resulting in fewer species diversity compared to slower moving waters where a wider range of organisms can thrive.
There were fewer indentured servants in the colonists .
there were fewer manufacturing jobs
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.
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.