To identify which option would NOT result from the loss of the Easter Island palm, let's analyze each choice:
A. an increase in the islanders' consumption of land and migratory birds, resulting in a decrease in the bird population
- The loss of the Easter Island palm would likely lead to increased reliance on other food sources, which could include birds. This suggests a potential decrease in the bird population, making this option plausible.
B. the loss of pollinating birds to the island, resulting in a decrease in the variety of plant life on the island
- If the palm was a food source or habitat for pollinating birds, its extinction could indeed lead to a decline in these birds, affecting pollination and plant variety. This option is plausible.
C. a decrease in the temperature, leading to decreased biodiversity
- The loss of a tree species, like the Easter Island palm, would not directly cause a decrease in temperature; rather, it could lead to changes in local climate conditions but not necessarily a cooling effect that would result in decreased biodiversity. This makes this option unlikely.
D. the erosion of topsoil, leading to decreased crop production
- The extinction of a tree species can lead to soil erosion, especially if there are fewer roots to hold topsoil in place, which could indeed affect crop production. This option is plausible.
Thus, the answer is C. a decrease in the temperature, leading to decreased biodiversity, as it is the outcome that is least likely to result from the loss of the Easter Island palm.