I think no, because if there were no abiotic or non living things in the ecosystem then life would have generally become boring. even though non-living things are lifeless, they also play an important role in the existentialism and continous survival of those who are living.
Hey ARMY! I hope this answer helps you out! Pls Mark me as the brainliest if you like my answer..Borahae!!
No, because if there is no abiotic things (non-living things) like houses, and roads and bridges and dams we would not get good facilities to live.
No, because if there is no abiotic things (non-living things) like houses, and roads and bridges and dams we would not get good facilities to live. Like without houses we won't have place to live. If there are no roads, than we would not be able to walk and ride.Withoutabioticthings,wewon'tbe able to live our life comfortably.
Answers & Comments
I think no, because if there were no abiotic or non living things in the ecosystem then life would have generally become boring. even though non-living things are lifeless, they also play an important role in the existentialism and continous survival of those who are living.
Hey ARMY! I hope this answer helps you out! Pls Mark me as the brainliest if you like my answer..Borahae!!
Verified answer
Explanation:
No, because if there is no abiotic things (non-living things) like houses, and roads and bridges and dams we would not get good facilities to live.
No, because if there is no abiotic things (non-living things) like houses, and roads and bridges and dams we would not get good facilities to live. Like without houses we won't have place to live. If there are no roads, than we would not be able to walk and ride. Without abiotic things, we won't be able to live our life comfortably.