The green data point at June 2011 shows a proportional change of about , which means that the native fish population by about percent when 95 percent of the lionfish was removed. In contrast, the orange data point at June 2011 shows a proportional change of about , which means that the native fish population by about percent when only a quarter of the lionfish were removed.

Fill the blanks with below mention information.

70
1.7
0.5
20
increased
decreased
50
1.2`

The appropriate information that will be used to fill the blanks includes the following respectively:

-1.7

- increased

-70%

- 0.5

- decreased

- 50%

Explanation:

The green (topmost) data point at June 2011 shows a proportional change of about 1.7, which means that the native fish population INCREASED by about 70 percent when 95 percent of the lionfish were removed. In contrast, the orange data point at June 2011 shows a proportional change of about 0.5, which means that the native fish population DECREASED by about 50 percent when only a quarter of the lionfish were removed (a result that was almost the same as when none of the lionfish were removed).

The native fishes are being haunted by the lion fish, from the results, removing just few of the invasive lion fish will not make a difference. In other to help the native fish survive, many of the lion fish has to be removed.

answer: wheres the options

explanation:

economic impact of malaria is estimated to cost africa $12 billion every year. this figure factors in costs of health care, absenteeism, days lost in education, decreased productivity due to brain damage from cerebral malaria, and loss of investment and tourism.