Text 1
Beaver reintroduction programs are increasingly promoted as a primary, low-cost method for restoring degraded freshwater ecosystems. Proponents highlight that the physical dams constructed by beaver colonies reduce stream velocity, decrease erosion, and create wetland habitats that support a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial species. By recharging groundwater reservoirs and raising local water tables, beaver dams are believed to buffer vulnerable riparian ecosystems against drought, thereby establishing self-sustaining environments that require minimal ongoing human management or intervention.
Text 2
Ecologist Sarah Vance and her colleagues agree that beaver dams can increase localized biodiversity in the short term, but they caution against viewing reintroduction as a comprehensive ecological cure-all. Their research indicates that in many stream systems, beaver dams block critical migration routes for native fish and trap sediment to the point of altering downstream nutrient flows. Additionally, the impounded water behind dams can absorb solar radiation, raising stream temperatures to levels that threaten sensitive cold-water species. Thus, Vance argues that without careful, case-by-case site assessment and active human oversight, reintroductions can degrade habitats for the very species conservationists aim to protect.
Based on the passages, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize the view of the "proponents" presented in Text 1?
- As overly generalized because it neglects how stream-specific variables can necessitate continuous human monitoring and management.Cevap
- BAs completely unfounded because beaver dams do not actually provide long-term benefits to terrestrial or aquatic wildlife.
- CAs scientifically flawed because it exaggerates the degree to which beaver dams can slow stream velocity and reduce erosion.
- DAs highly accurate because both texts agree that beaver reintroduction is the most cost-effective method for ecological restoration.