One advantage of preserving more than one population of an endangered species at more than one location is
a. A lower risk of extinction of the entire species if a catastrophe strikes one location
b. Higher levels of inbreeding in each population
c. Higher rates of genetic drift in each population
d. Lower numbers of heterozygotes in each population
e. Higher rates of habitat fragmentation in the different locations

Question

One advantage of preserving more than one population of an endangered species at more than one location is

a. A lower risk of extinction of the entire species if a catastrophe strikes one location

b. Higher levels of inbreeding in each population

c. Higher rates of genetic drift in each population

d. Lower numbers of heterozygotes in each population

e. Higher rates of habitat fragmentation in the different locations

Accepted Answer

Hi everyone. Let's look at our next problem. It says small populations of an endangered species can be saved from extinction if a disaster strikes in a single location by. So a key thing to focus on here is this phrase single location. If you have a disaster in the area where your endangered species lives, you could eliminate the risk of this species being all the members being killed or being exposed to this disaster by having populations in other locations. Well, we're talking about endangered species. There's not a large number of them to begin with. So these would necessarily be small populations. And um so this is the rationale behind having captive populations of endangered species scattered about in different locations, eliminating that risk of a disaster, wiping out the whole species. So with that in mind, let's look at our answer choices. Choice. Um A says preserving them in that location. Well, that would not be our answer choice because if this disaster strikes in the location where the wild animals live, the animals you've preserved will also be exposed to that disaster. So Choice A. Is not our answer. Choice B. Says preserving more than one population of the species in multiple locations. So as we've discussed, multiple locations eliminates that risk of disaster. So because you preserve these small populations elsewhere that won't be affected. So Choice B is going to be our correct answer here. But let's just look at the remaining answers here. Choice C. Says relocating the survivors of the disaster to a new location. Well notice again we have here at location singular. So we've relocated are few survivors of this disaster, but there's still in a single location that could be subject to some other disaster disease or another natural disaster. So Choice C. Isn't going to necessarily preserve our endangered species, so we'll eliminate Choice C. And finally, Choice D. Says, transferring some of the organization organisms to a zoological park in a nearby location and allowing them to reproduce, reproduce. Again, we've got location, singular, says nearby location. So again, if we're talking about a disease, other risk to that location, you still have your entire endangered species in a single location. So Choice D. Is not our correct. Answer. The key here is multiple locations. Now, if these populations and other locations remain very small, you still have the risk of severe loss of genetic diversity, which will threaten that population or can threaten them. So are small populations of endangered species can be saved from extinction If a disaster strikes in a single location, by its choice, be preserving more than one population of the species in multiple locations. See you in our next video

Verified video answer for a similar problem:

Key Concepts

Population Viability

Genetic Diversity

Habitat Fragmentation