Supercontinent and Biodiversity.

>>7772907

Probably the most fundamental important idea that should be taught to biology students today is that biodiversity is overrated.

>How does a Supercontinent effect the biodiversity of the organisms living upon it?

Affect. Not effect. Honestly, it doesn't really matter. It could increase biodiversity, and it could lower biodiversity. Do you mean locally, or for the planet? Local biodiversity could drop in a location, but the total diversity of life on Earth could increase.

But ultimately it doesn't matter. Life doesn't care about biodiversity. You have to understand that originally the biodiversity of life, assuming a common ancestor, was 1. One. There was no biodiversity. So, the idea that biodiversity is important in some abstract sense is a non sequitur. You can get biodiversity from zero biodiversity, n=1.

>(Both plants and animals) You're missing 3 kingdoms here. Life involves more than just plants and animals.

>What would the biodiversity in the OCEAN be like?

You can make hypotheses, like coastline in relation to latitude, and say that longer coastlines nearer to the equator = more biodiversity, but again, who cares? Your professor might care, but nature doesn't give a shit. The real question you should ask is, "What's wrong with less biodiversity?"

Biodiversity and conservation at this moment are in a very sad place.

>>7773003
Ignore this retard.

>>7772907
A good place to start would be to start looking at how continents moving around affected biodiversity.

Supposedly South America was full of marsupials and large animals until it collided with North America, at which point all of the marsupials were wiped out along with lots of other animals in general.

>How does a Supercontinent effect the biodiversity of the organisms living upon it?

Biodiversity will drop.

>What would the biodiversity in the OCEAN be like?

Same with the supercontinent.

Checking in on the thread.

>>7773003
Not exactly what I wanted, but thank you either way.

>>7773044
>South America was full of marsupials and large animals until it collided with North America, at which point all of the marsupials were wiped out along with lots of other animals in general.

Thanks, definitely something to think about.

We don't know. There's a lot about ecology that we don't know and a lot that we think we know but frequently gets proven false. We're not really sure why the amazon has such high biodiversity, we're not really sure why biodiversity drops at higher altitudes. We can make predictions all day but I would wager that if we went 250 million years back and studied the ecology of pangea we would probably be proven wrong with every discovery. Remember ecology is a very young field and it studies very long term processes

>>7775701
>We can make predictions all day but I would wager that if we went 250 million years back and studied the ecology of pangea we would probably be proven wrong with every discovery.

Although it wasn't what I was looking for that certainly gives me something to think about.
Thank you!