I read this background article the other day: Scientists think that the earliest flowers attracted insects and other animals, which spread pollen from flower to flower. This greatly increased the efficiency of fertilization over wind-spread pollen, which might or might not actually land on another flower. To take better advantage of this "animal labor," plants evolved traits such as brightly colored petals to attract pollinators. In exchange for pollination, flowers gave the pollinators nectar. I am facing a new situation today: Last week, John visited the national park near his city. He saw many flowers. His guide explained him that there are two categories of flowers, category A and category B. Category A flowers spread pollen via wind, and category B flowers spread pollen via animals. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Would category B flower have higher or lower efficiency of fertilization than category A flower?
Ans: higher

I read this background article the other day: Declines in population size can result in a loss of genetic diversity, and owing to genetic variation's role in the evolutionary potential of a species, this could in turn result in an observable Allee effect. As a species' population becomes smaller, its gene pool will be reduced in size as well. One possible outcome from this genetic bottleneck is a reduction in fitness of the species through the process of genetic drift, as well as inbreeding depression. This overall fitness decrease of a species is caused by an accumulation of deleterious mutations throughout the population. Genetic variation within a species could range from beneficial to detrimental. Nevertheless, in a smaller sized gene pool, there is a higher chance of a stochastic event in which deleterious alleles become fixed (genetic drift). While evolutionary theory states that expressed deleterious alleles should be purged through natural selection, purging would be most efficient only at eliminating alleles that are highly detrimental or harmful. Mildly deleterious alleles such as those that act later in life would be less likely to be removed by natural selection, and conversely, newly acquired beneficial mutations are more likely to be lost by random chance in smaller genetic pools than larger ones.Although the long-term population persistence of several species with low genetic variation has recently prompted debate on the generality of inbreeding depression, there are various empirical evidences for genetic Allee effects. One such case was observed in the endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The Florida panther experienced a genetic bottleneck in the early 1990s where the population was reduced to 25 adult individuals. This reduction in genetic diversity was correlated with defects that include lower sperm quality, abnormal testosterone levels, cowlicks, and kinked tails. In response, a genetic rescue plan was put in motion and several female pumas from Texas were introduced into the Florida population. This action quickly led... I am facing a new situation today: Bobby and Will were two friends attending a genetics course. Bobby studied a small, isolated group of mammals. Will studied a large, healthy population of the same species. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which person didn't observe a 'genetic bottleneck'?
Ans: Will

I read this background article the other day: Huge amounts of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, are applied to farm fields (see Figure below ). Some of the chemicals are picked up by rainwater. Runoff then carries the chemicals to nearby rivers or lakes. Dissolved fertilizer causes too much growth of water plants and algae. This can lead to dead zones where nothing can live in lakes and at the mouths of rivers. Some of the chemicals can infiltrate into groundwater. The contaminated water comes up in water wells. If people drink the polluted water, they may get sick. I am facing a new situation today: Lucy and Sarah are two people who each own a lake that they enjoy spending time at. They have to take care of the lake though and make sure everything is healthy so that the lake can continue to thrive and people will want to visit it. Sarah says she heard a secret that if you dump fertilizer into your lake, the fish will grow twice as large. Sarah says she has just started doing it this past week and can't wait to see the results. Lucy is skeptical and waits to see what happens at Sarah's lake. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Is Sarah's lake more or less safe to drink than Lucy's?
Ans: less

I read this background article the other day: Habitat destruction has played a key role in extinctions, especially in relation to tropical forest destruction. Factors contributing to habitat loss include: overconsumption, overpopulation, land use change, deforestation, pollution (air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination) and global warming or climate change.Habitat size and numbers of species are systematically related. Physically larger species and those living at lower latitudes or in forests or oceans are more sensitive to reduction in habitat area. Conversion to "trivial" standardized ecosystems (e.g., monoculture following deforestation) effectively destroys habitat for the more diverse species that preceded the conversion. Even the simplest forms of agriculture affect diversity through clearing/draining land, discouraging weeds and "pests", and encouraging just a limited set of domesticated plant and animal species. In some countries lack of property rights or lax law/regulatory enforcement necessarily leads to biodiversity loss (degradation costs having to be supported by the community).A 2007 study conducted by the National Science Foundation found that biodiversity and genetic diversity are codependentthat diversity among species requires diversity within a species and vice versa. "If any one type is removed from the system, the cycle can break down and the community becomes dominated by a single species." I am facing a new situation today: In recent years Indonesia has seen widespread habitat destruction. At the eastern part of Indonesian islands lies the country of Papua New Guinea. Fortunately, Papua New Guinea has avoided mass destruction of habitat. Using the knowledge I acquired from the background article, how should I answer correctly the following question regarding my new situation: Which coutry would have seen less extensive farming, Indonesia or Papua New Guinea?
Ans: Papua New Guinea