A scientist is studying the biodiversity of an ecosystem that has a cool climate. The scientist counts the number and types of organisms in a 5 foot by 5 foot area. She finds that the ecosystem has very low biodiversity. Another scientist studies the same ecosystem. He counts the number and types of organisms in a 1,000 foot by 1,000 foot area and finds that the ecosystem has high biodiversity. What likely caused these different results?

Suppose, If an area of 5 foot by 5 foot is taken, there are high chances that the scientist may not find even a single animal/plant is such small area of reference. Thus in this scenario the biodiversity of 5 foot by 5 foot area will be negligible.

Now, when the scientist has increased the area of reference to 1,000 foot by 1,000 foot , there are high chances that he may find several varities of animals/plants in this area at a given point of time. Thus, diversity could be visualized up to some extent in this large area.

Hence it can be quoted that the biodiversity of a larger area with few animals is higher than the biodiversity of a small area (with negligible animals)

Arclight Arclight · Answer 2 · 2019-11-07T08:48:02+01:00

Answer:

Area of the ecosystem made the difference

Explanation:

Suppose in any ecosystem the number of species "X" are very sparse which means the the probability of finding species X in a small area is very low.

Thus if scientist starts counting organisms in a 5 foot by 5 foot area, then there are high chances that they may not find any organism belonging to species X , then in such case the ecosystem density will become very low.

While in case the scientist start counting the number of species "X" in larger area then the number of species "X" may reach a substantial count there by causing an increase in the ecosystem density.

Thus area of ecosystem will make the larger difference.