Which factor is NOT a consequence of habitat destruction?

In the context of habitat destruction, increased carbon sequestration is not a consequence. Habitat destruction often refers to the loss of forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other ecosystems which directly leads to negative outcomes such as the loss of biodiversity, as species lose their homes and food sources. Displacement of animal populations occurs as they are forced to migrate in search of suitable habitats due to the destruction of their original environments. Additionally, ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling, water purification, and soil formation can be severely degraded as a result of habitat loss.

On the other hand, carbon sequestration involves the process by which carbon dioxide is absorbed and stored, typically in forests and other healthy ecosystems. When habitats are destroyed, particularly forests, the potential for carbon sequestration diminishes, as fewer trees and plants are available to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Therefore, the idea that habitat destruction leads to increased carbon sequestration does not hold true, making it the option that is not a consequence of habitat destruction.