Before the 1960s, most ecologists thought that the number of producers in an ecosystem was the only variable that limits the number of herbivores. The idea was that every level was regulated by the amount of food from the trophic level below it.

The complete question is as follows:

1. How did the green world hypothesis differ from this “bottom-up” view?

2. Imagine a simple food chain: Grass -> Grasshoppers -> Mice. If snakes that eat mice are added to the ecosystem, how would you redraw the food chain to represent this change?

3. After the snakes are added, would you expect the amount of grass to increase or decrease? Explain your reasoning.

1. The green world hypothesis states that plants or producers are consumed in less quantity by herbivores due to predators and other conditions which is different from the hypothesis as it says the number of the herbivores are regulated by the organism above them in the food web instead of below.

2. before adding snake: Grass →Grasshoppers →Mice ( arrow towards predator)

After adding the sakes: Grass →Grasshoppers →Mice→Snakes. (as snakes eat mice so they will be added after mice)

3. The grasses will decrease as there would be fewer mice due to snakes and the number of grasshoppers will be high which leads to the decrease in the amount of grass.

picture a world where computers are building made-to-order personalized robotic arms and synthetic organs, drones are circulating above mars! due to the rapid growth of technology, the future has never been more unpredictable, and it presents a huge challenge in education: we are teaching students how to work in a future that we have never been unsure of. it is widely predicted that in eight years’ time, there will be more jobs in the fields of science, mathematics, technology and engineering than in any other discipline. and, as the technology continues to develop, it will soon become clear that addressing social problems will involve more innovative thinking, and analytical and technical knowledge than ever before. undeniably, there are no subjects that encourage innovative and creative thinking, deep thought, problem solving and independence more than the stem subjects. while it is widely commented on that there is a need to reimagine the ways stem subjects are taught in schools by embracing a more interactive and innovative approach to appeal to more students, it should come as no surprise that some of the most reputable educational organizations in the world are already implementing changes to embrace stem. harvard, for example, announced in 2014 that they were increasing their computer science faculty by over 50% and has since introduced computer science as a core subject for all freshmen. the urgency of supporting stem subjects at a young age is becoming more relevant than ever, as adopting a keen interest in the curricula needs to happen early. however, beyond the age issue is one of gender.

let me know if you need more