Please answer this: I have a new situation: Kim and Jane inherited some land. Kim inherited some grassland, while Jane inherited a forest. They both took good care of their properties. But I can use this background: In grassland, much of the organic matter added to the soil is from the deep, fibrous, grass root systems. By contrast, tree leaves falling on the forest floor are the principal source of soil organic matter in the forest. Another difference is the frequent occurrence in the grasslands of fires that destroy large amounts of aboveground material but stimulate even greater contributions from roots. Also, the much greater acidity under any forests inhibits the action of certain soil organisms that otherwise would mix much of the surface litter into the mineral soil. As a result, the soils under grasslands generally develop a thicker A horizon with a deeper distribution of organic matter than in comparable soils under forests, which characteristically store most of their organic matter in the forest floor (O horizon) and thin A horizon. What is an answer for this question: Which person inherited a parcel where the soil had a higher acidity?
++++++++
Answer: Jane

Please answer this: I have a new situation: Two teams of researches studied Antarctica's climate. The team studied two different regions. The US team studied East Antarctica, while the Swiss team studied West Antarctica. But I can use this background: Some of Antarctica has been warming up; particularly strong warming has been noted on the Antarctic Peninsula. A study by Eric Steig published in 2009 noted for the first time that the continent-wide average surface temperature trend of Antarctica is slightly positive at >0.05 C (0.09 F) per decade from 1957 to 2006. This study also noted that West Antarctica has warmed by more than 0.1 C (0.2 F) per decade in the last 50 years, and this warming is strongest in winter and spring. This is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica. There is evidence from one study that Antarctica is warming as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, but this remains ambiguous. The amount of surface warming in West Antarctica, while large, has not led to appreciable melting at the surface, and is not directly affecting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet's contribution to sea level. Instead the recent increases in glacier outflow are believed to be due to an inflow of warm water from the deep ocean, just off the continental shelf. The net contribution to sea level from the Antarctic Peninsula is more likely to be a direct result of the much greater atmospheric warming there.In 2002 the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen-B ice shelf collapsed. Between 28 February and 8 March 2008, about 570 km2 (220 sq mi) of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the southwest part of the peninsula collapsed, putting the remaining 15,000 km2 (5,800 sq mi) of the ice shelf at risk. The ice was being held back by a "thread" of ice about 6 km (4 mi) wide, prior to its collapse on 5 April 2009. According to NASA, the most widespread Antarctic surface melting of the past 30 years occurred in 2005, when an area of ice comparable in size to California briefly melted and refroze; this may have resulted from temperatures rising to as high as 5 C (41 F).A study published in Nature Geoscience in 2013 (online in December 2012) identified central West Antarctica as one of the fastest-warming regions on Earth. The researchers present a complete temperature... What is an answer for this question: Which team learned about a region that doesn't show signs of appreciable melting despite the large amount of surface warming?
++++++++
Answer: Swiss

Please answer this: I have a new situation: Bob works for a data storage company. He has now three projects, project A, project B, and project C, simultaneously going on. All of them involves storing XML data. Project A has small volume of data, but project B and project C has large volume of data. He applied Fast Infoset format for project B, but didn't apply that format for project C. But I can use this background: Storing large volumes of data When storing XML to either file or database, the volume of data a system produces can often exceed reasonable limits, with a number of detriments: the access times go up as more data is read, CPU load goes up as XML data takes more power to process, and storage costs go up. By storing XML data in Fast Infoset format, data volume may be reduced by as much as 80 percent. What is an answer for this question: Would project C have higher or lower access times compared to project A?
++++++++
Answer:
higher