This is due in a few mins pls help ;-;

they each offer a fresh glut of resources to the organisms that can arrive and exploit them. as individuals and new species continue to appear, they actively and passively alter the environment. competition for shared resources increases, local abiotic and biotic conditions shift, and the relative abundances of species change accordingly. the process is called ecological succession, and it is one of the earliest and most well-known concepts in ecology.

i believe it would cause an increase of percipitation, though i could be wrong. so i would say b is the answer.

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."

srxdctfvygbuhinjmok,plkmojnhbgvfctdrft6gyfcgvhbuinjok