Over the last 150 years, large stretches of salmon habitat have been eliminated by human activity: mining, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and agriculture as well as recreational and urban development. The numerical effect is obvious: there are fewer salmon in degraded regions than in pristine ones; however, habitat loss also has the potential to reduce genetic diversity. This is most evident in cases where it results in the extinction of entire salmon populations. Indeed, most analysts believe that some kind of environmental degradation underlies the demise of many extinct salmon populations. Although some rivers have been recolonized, the unique genes of the original populations have been lost.
Large-scale disturbances in one locale also have the potential to alter the genetic structure of populations in neighboring areas, even if those areas have pristine habitats. Why? Although the homing instinct of salmon to their natal stream is strong, a fraction of the fish returning from the sea (rarely more than 15 percent) stray and spawn in nearby streams. Low levels of straying are crucial, since the process provides a source of novel genes and a mechanism by which a location can be repopulates should the fish there disappear. Yet high rates of straying can be problematic because misdirected fish may interbreed with the existing stock to such a degree that any local adaptations that are present become diluted. Straying rates remain relatively low when environmental conditions are stable, but can increase dramatically when streams suffer severe disturbance. The 1980 volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens, for example, sent mud and debris into several tributaries of the Columbia River. For the next couple of years, steelhead trout (a species included among the salmon ) returning from the sea to spawn were forced to find alternative streams. As a consequence, their rates of straying, initially 16 percent, rose to more than 40 percent overall.
Although no one has quantified changes in the rate of straying as a result of the disturbances caused by humans, there is no reason to suspect that the effect would be qualitatively different than what was seen in the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption. Such a dramatic increase in straying from damaged areas to more pristine streams results in substantial gene flow, which can in turn lower the overall fitness of subsequent generations.
The author mentions the "aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption" most likely in order to
provide an example of the process that allows the repopulation of rivers whose indigenous salmon population has become extinct
indicate the extent to which the disturbance of salmon habitat by human activity in one stream might affect the genetic structure of salmon populations elsewhere
provide a standard of comparison against which the impact of human activity on the gene flow among salmon populations should be measured
show how salmons' homing instinct can be impaired as a result of severe environmental degradation of their natal streams
show why straying rates in salmon populations remain generally low except when spawning streams suffer severe environmental disturbance
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 E。
因为作者提及了 Mount Saint Helens eruption 的后果,主要是为了展示为什么河流中鲑鱼的流转速度一般是低的,除非繁殖河流遭受严重的环境破坏。文章指出,Mount Saint Helens eruption 导致钢鲑鱼被迫寻找其他河流,这样会导致它们返游率从本来的 16% 上升到 40% 以上,因此可以看出,环境损害会增加鲑鱼流转速度,而且也暗示出,一般情况下鲑鱼的流转速度会比较低。
最后一段说虽然人类活动对迷失率的影响不能量化,但是【没理由相信这个作用和火山喷发的后果有什么实质性的不同】。言外之意就是说,不能量化没关系,但人类活动的影响和火山喷发的影响从本质上是一样的。
C就是说提供了一个可以用来衡量人类活动对迷失率影响的参照标准(即火山喷发这个标准)。
文章说eruption就是为了说human activities,句子说二者没有实质性的差别,之前又详细说了eruption对gene的影响,所以就是在为两者作类比,从而支撑人类活动影响gene的这个结论
Although no one has quantified changes in the rate of straying as a result of the disturbances caused by humans, there is no reason to suspect that the effect would be qualitatively different than what was seen in the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption. 火山喷发是自然灾害导致环境退化,第三段说,虽然现在还没有人量化人为原因导致环境恶化对salmon的影响,但没有理由怀疑这有任何本质上的差别。
故以火山喷发自然灾害造成的影响为例,提供了一个衡量人为因素造成的影响的衡量标准
B选项错在不是human activity
这不对啊,我们没有理由怀疑那就是我们坚信,我们坚信两者不同,然后答案是C,这逻辑碎一地啊
看全一点,句子说的是我们没有理由怀疑两者是不同的
我也觉得逻辑不通,除非suspect表示正向的意思, no reason to suspect the effects are different, --> there is reason to believe the effects are different
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
提供了一个衡量标准(衡量人类活动对鲑鱼gene flow的影响)——他们没有qualiative difference
原文句子中有than说明是在比较某两件事情,所以是一种标准
there is no reason to suspect that the effect would be qualitatively different than what was seen in the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption.
意思是没有理由怀疑人类的影响与火山喷发的影响有实质的差别。即2者之间没有实质上的差别。
哇 看到你的头像开心
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
这是一个标志性事件,为了对比
B选项说的是human activity in A place will in what degree affect the gene.. in B place(totally not the key)
Volcano Eruption is used to support the claim that when the environmental conditions change dramatically, salmon habitants suffer severely and gene flow will increase. Besides, there is no qualitatively different means the author is making a comparison.
B: the extent to which the disturbance of salmon habitat by human activity in ONE STREAM MIGHT AFFECT...=>the volcano example talks about the environmental conditions change..=>kill B
仔细看B
there is no reason to suspect that the effect would be qualitatively different than what was seen in the aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption
Volcano Eruption is used to support the claim that when the environmental conditions change dramatically, salmon habitants suffer severely and gene flow will increase. Besides, there is no qualitatively different means the author is making a comparison.
B: the extent to which the disturbance of salmon habitat by human activity in ONE STREAM MIGHT AFFECT...=>the volcano example talks about the environmental conditions change..=>kill B