The ratio of kittens with black fur to kittens to white fur is 3:1. Since the recessive phenotype is shown in the offspring, we know that both of the parents are carriers of the recessive genotype and are thus both heterozygous, Bb.

Each parent will contribute one allele at random from each of the two genes. The odds of having brown fur, given the parental genotypes, is 100% because all children will receive a dominant allele for brown fur (B) from the first parent. This means that the odds of having brown straight fur will depend only on the odds of having straight fur. Having straight fur requires one recessive allele (c) from each parent. The second parent will always contribute a recessive allele while the first will contribute a recessive allele half the time. Thus, the odds of straight fur is 50%, as are the odds of straight, brown fur. Alternatively, a Punnett square may be used. The square below shows the 50% offspring combinations with straight, brown fur highlighted in red.

For simplicity, we will assign the letter "a" for the gene of interest. Thus, the heterozygous genotype is Aa. You may sketch a punnet square of the cross: Aa x Aa to help illustrate that the combinations result in 50% chance of heterozygous offspring.

Arbitrarily, we may assign the letter "b" for the gene of interest. The cross then is as follows: Bb x Bb. Each parent has a 50% chance of donating a recessive (b) allele to the offspring. We must multiply these probabilities to get the chance of a homozygous recessive offspring. 

This question requires that we do a dihybrid cross. The cross in question is AaBb x AaBb, using A to represent dominant green color and B to represent dominant long shape. The parents are heterozygous for both traits, meaning they will carry one dominant color allele and one dominant shape allele.

The result of a punnet square for a dihybrid cross is: 1 AABB, 3 Aabb, 8 AaBb, 3 aaBb, 1 aabb.

This gives a total of sixteen different offspring. Two different genotypes carry dominant alleles for both traits: AABB and AaBb. There are a total of nine offspring between these two genotypes. The probability of an offspring being dominant for both traits is thus nine out of sixteen.

Commensalism is the type of relationship between two organisms in which one benefits while the other remains neutral. One such example of this is the relationship between whales and barnacles. The barnacles benefit, as they are able to gain mobility and feed off the current generated by movement of the whale. The whale, however, remains neutral; it gains no advantage or disadvantage from the presence of the barnacles.

Cohabitation relationships imply that both species remain neutral, while symbiotic and mutualistic relationships imply that both species gain benefit. In symbiosis, the two species depend on each other for survival. Parasitism implies benefit of one species, at the harm of the other.

Saprotrophs are decomposers that are capable of breaking down dead or dying organisms. Because of this, saprotrophs can obtain energy directly from any other organisms in an ecosystem.

Producers are autotrophs, and do not require organic input to create energy. Carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores are loose classifications of organisms based on diet. Carnivores typically feed on heterotrophs, while herbivores generally feed on autotrophs. Omnivores typically feed on both autotrophs and heterotrophs.

In a mutualistic relationship, both organisms benefit from the relationship. In this example, the human host benefits because (s)he gains access to nutrients and is at a lower risk of hosting dangerous E. coli, while the bacteria species benefits because it gains access to a habitat.

A competitive relationship exists when two species share a predator, are competing for the same resources, or otherwise interfere with one another.

Predation refers to an organism eating another organism; animals can prey on animals, or on plants.

In a parasitic relationship, one species benefits while the other is negatively impacted.

In a commensal relationship, one species benefits while the other is not impacted. 

Though all of these statements are true, the fact that species can occupy different trophic levels depending on what they're eating is not a consequence of the fact that only 10% of all stored energy can ascend from one trophic level to the next. These facts are related, but one does not cause the other.

Food chains only have four or five trophic levels at maximum because the food chain is rapidly depleted of stored energy after each trophic level increase. Logically, producers always have the most biomass of any trophic level because they must produce all of the energy that will sustain the trophic levels above them. Finally, it makes sense that fluctuating population sizes threaten the stability of longer food chains because if even one trophic level suffers a population decrease, then all of the trophic levels above it are potentially jeopardized. 

For a species to be a producer, it must be an autotroph and must be able to convert light or chemicals into storable chemical energy, usually as a form of sugar. Green plants are some of the most familiar producers, but some species of plankton (phytoplankton) are also able to engage in photosynthesis and supply energy to fuel food chains/webs.

As decomposers, all species of fungi are heterotrophs, rather than producers (autotrophs). Ants are also not producers, as they also cannot convert light or chemicals into sugars.