Quote (Forg0tten @ Jul 23 2017 11:07am)
Your last sentence was spot on, I couldn't have said it any better. Too bad nowaday research is done in such a way that negative results are generally not even published because no University would like to build its name on having done studies with outcomes that differ from their non-zero hypothesis (welcome to Green Paper world T_T).
But alas, in the most general sense of the question, then here are my thoughts of the subject. Prior to answering my question, I'll nuance them first. I am not educated in the subject. Instead of telling you about all the things I haven't been educated in, I'd much rather just have you know that I work in the paramedical health care setting as a physiotherapist and aim to study medicine in a few months (the MCAT prepping is what you saw those threads from me for in this subforum). I do have a large affinity with scientific research.
I suppose that you're looking for inspiration rather than a pinpoint answer, since you emphasize the broadness of your question.
Now that you know I'm the least valid person to have an answer from, let's get to my general thoughts on the matter ;D
So far most of the studies readily available to the public without deeper access to proper databanks containing ecological studies aim towards a specific environment and thus they are but a piece of the jigsaw puzzle that we aim to complete. Once completed, we can come up with a model that helps us fully exploit and/or preserve ecosystems. Knowing human nature we'll be sure to exploit it economically and thus ruin its ability to preserve and develop itself. Sweeping out humans as a factor, nature will always advance to a habitat most suitable for its location. Assimilation (of neighbouring land) at a specific location will thus, eventually, always result in the same ecology. The time it takes for that to happen depends on the ecology that's being assimilated.
I still stand by my earlier statement with respect to your proofing of heteroskedasticity that your questions are too "deep" into a subject. The odds of finding someone properly educated in the subject on d2jsp are astronomical.
Just like last topic you made, I will hang up a note that says, "looking forward to see other answers!"
GL :)
Even though 101 teaches you those things, you don't want to keep what I bolded as an ingrained thought. Exploiting something is unethical and leads to long term repercussions via court, this is why actuary science on insurance rates and policies aren't exploiting it, because the penalty of reducing a major factor to create an exploit for yourself can and will eventually be audited. When you calculate risk in these theorems, the penalty becomes a threshold similar to a price roof.
I don't think nature adjusts itself as fast as developments destroy ecosystems, and actually very critical factors can ruin an ecology. A great example of what I said is coral bleaching and projects to recover it, however that is probably the most global damaging ecosystem services that's occuring right now, since corals major enemy is global warming.
A few studies on assimilation rates being changed are carbon pockets trapped near seagrass that get opened due to construction of bridges throughout key west and everglades. Essentially these attribute to large amounts of carbon emission which doesn't become internalized by the construction companies (or the architects, etc.)
Still curious on what people may know about assimilation rates though.