No.
1000
Extinction of species may greatly affected by man made change to the ecological system. There are troubles in measuring the actual extinctions increased by man. With the extincted species we got newly adapted species to replace. By average, living species live for 10 MYr average and we hardly measure the increase rate of extinction since we can hardly estimated a correct background extinction rate. For what scientist can say is, human existence become major factor of species natural selection process. Those that can adapt to coexist with human had greater chance of survival.
It is the fate of most living things eventually to go extinct. standard commonplace rate of extinction not associated with a mass extinction.
False it is not decreasing significantly maybe a little
It is estimated that about 150-200 species go extinct every week. This rate is significantly higher than the natural background extinction rate. Loss of habitats, climate change, pollution, and other human activities are some of the main reasons for this high extinction rate.
No.
The rate of extinction is faster.
The rate of extinction is faster.
The rate of extinction is faster.
A background extinction is the continuous extinction of individual species caused by climate change, disease, loss of habitat, and competitive disadvantages against other species. Background extinctions occur at a slow rate over time, affecting only a few species at one time.
1000
Currently, the rate of extinction is significantly higher than the rate of species formation on Earth. Human activities, such as habitat destruction, climate change, and pollution, have accelerated the extinction rate. This imbalance in the rates of extinction and species formation is leading to a loss of biodiversity at an alarming rate.
Extinction of species may greatly affected by man made change to the ecological system. There are troubles in measuring the actual extinctions increased by man. With the extincted species we got newly adapted species to replace. By average, living species live for 10 MYr average and we hardly measure the increase rate of extinction since we can hardly estimated a correct background extinction rate. For what scientist can say is, human existence become major factor of species natural selection process. Those that can adapt to coexist with human had greater chance of survival.
The extinction rate is much higher than it would be without humans, therefore most animals would have not gone extinct had it not been for human intervention.
The food chain, sometimes animals cannot find any food so die which can decrease the popularity.
Because the extinction rate is conservatively 100 to 1,000 times higher because of humans. So if it wasn't for us the natural rate would be such that the environment could recover from it. It is true that we are a natural part of extinction, but we have also benefited many species of animal that we deem to have favourable characteristics. Cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry exist in huge numbers due to human activity. If an animal is not useful to humans, and is co-existing in the same habitat, its numbers will decline. Cuckoos invade the nests of other birds, substitute it's own eggs for the hosts, and lets them raise it's young. Is this wrong? Or is this nature at work? Humans are also nature at work, and we should only be concerned if a species benefiting us is in decline.
Do your own hw