Before You Begin
Question #46675
The Question
Paul Ehrlich’s 'Rivet Popper Hypothesis' illustrates ecosystem stability, while the concept of co-extinction highlights obligate dependencies. If a novel pathogen causes the extinction of the specific cyanobacterial partner of a pioneer lichen during primary succession on a bare rock, which of the following statements is INCORRECT regarding the ecological consequences?
Options
- A.
The fungal partner will undergo co-extinction, acting as the loss of a 'crucial rivet' that terminates the entire successional sere.
- B.
The absence of the pioneer species prevents the secretion of organic acids, thereby halting pedogenesis and the establishment of bryophytes.
- C.
The ecological disturbance will immediately trigger a secondary succession pathway, allowing herbaceous plants to bypass the pioneer stage.
- D.
This scenario demonstrates that in early seral stages, specific biodiversity is a prerequisite for successional progression, not just a product of it.
Check Your Answer
Correct Answer
Step-by-Step Solution
Explanation
How the Examiner Thinks
Regulatory_Failure
Understand how NOT, EXCEPT, and logical constraints are used to manipulate exam results.
Concepts Behind This Question
Phosphorus Cycle|Sedimentary Rock|Decomposition Rate Modifiers
Why This Question Is Tricky
Common Mistakes
Conceptual Pivot: The absolute prerequisite for secondary succession.
Students often misinterpret 'ecological disturbance' as a universal trigger for secondary succession, forgetting the strict NCERT mandate that secondary succession requires pre-existing soil.
Furthermore, this question tests the high-order synthesis of three distinct NCERT concepts: Co-extinction, the Rivet Popper Hypothesis, and Seral Facilitation.
Quick Facts About This Question
Question Information
| Subject | Biology |
| Chapter | Ecosystem - Class 12 |
| Concept | Nutrient Cycling Reservoirs |
| Difficulty | 8 |
| Cognitive Load | 5 |
| Target Solve Time | 120 sec |
| Access | Free |