Which option describes a potential outcome if animal carcasses are not destroyed properly?

The potential outcome of not properly destroying animal carcasses is indeed related to the risk of spreading poison to non-target species. When animal remains are not disposed of correctly, there is a high likelihood that toxic substances, such as pathogens or chemicals present in the carcasses, can enter the environment. This can lead to unintended poisoning of scavengers or other wildlife that come into contact with or consume the contaminated remains.

For example, if carcasses are not incinerated or buried properly, they may attract scavengers, including birds of prey or mammals that are not the intended recipients of any poison that may have been present in the deceased animal. This can lead to a chain reaction in the ecosystem, affecting not only the non-target species directly consuming the carcasses but also potentially impacting larger predators higher up in the food chain.

In contrast, the other options suggest outcomes that do not align logically with the improper disposal of animal carcasses. Decreasing wildlife presence is unlikely since improperly managed carcasses might attract more scavengers and other wildlife. Similarly, there would not be an increase in food resources as decaying carcasses can lead to disease and ecological imbalance, not a positive enhancement of food availability. Lastly, the idea that ecosystem health would improve contradicts the