Text 1
Many conservationists advocate for active forest restoration, arguing that planting a diverse mix of native tree species is essential to accelerate canopy recovery and prevent soil erosion in degraded lands. According to this view, relying solely on natural regeneration is risky and slow, as invasive weeds and altered soil chemistry often stall the growth of native species. Consequently, intensive human intervention—such as soil preparation and seedling planting—is presented as the only reliable path to restore functional, resilient forest ecosystems in a reasonable timeframe.
Text 2
Conversely, ecologists like Dr. Clara Alvarez caution against the widespread preference for active restoration. Alvarez argues that natural regeneration—allowing forests to recover on their own—frequently yields ecosystems that are more genetically diverse and better adapted to local microclimates than those planted by humans. Furthermore, active restoration projects often favor fast-growing species that may not support the complex web of local wildlife, leading to homogenous forests. Alvarez suggests that instead of immediately planting trees, managers should first remove barriers to natural recovery, such as livestock grazing, and allow the land to heal itself.
Based on the texts, how would Dr. Clara Alvarez (Text 2) most likely respond to the claim in Text 1 that intensive human intervention is the only reliable path to restore functional forest ecosystems?
- ABy claiming that natural regeneration is completely risk-free and will always occur faster than active restoration.
- By arguing that intensive human management can lead to ecologically uniform habitats that lack the resilience of naturally recovered areas.Cevap
- CBy agreeing that active intervention is necessary but suggesting that it should focus exclusively on restoring soil chemistry before planting.
- DBy suggesting that livestock grazing should be encouraged to help disperse native tree seeds across degraded lands.