3 . A wolf in the Hoh Xil Nature Reserve, Northwest China’s Qinghai Province, has gained weight as a result of regular feeding by visitors in vehicles, according to a video recorded by a netizen. The fat wolf swings its tail at passing vehicles and even rolls on its back to appeal for food in the video. The video rapidly spread, causing an Internet debate.

In July this year, a woman shared a video of her encounter with a wolf while traveling through HohXil. She got out of her car to give the hungry wolf some beef jerky, noting how thin the animal seemed. She expressed her sympathy for it and did not hesitate to feed it. In other videos posted by netizens, the wolf can be seen wandering near cars on the roadside, and even lying in front of one of them. The new video claims the wolf in Hoh Xil has been fed by humans for a long time.

It caused a heated discussion among netizens, with some finding the wolf very cute and funny, and joking that it no longer wanted to work hard. But others expressed concern that such feeding would disrupt the natural order, and have a negative impact on the wolf and its ecosystem.

Dai Qiang, a researcher at the Chengdu Institute of Biology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who has been studying wild animals such as pandas and wolves for a long time, disagrees with the practice of feeding wild wolves. He believes that such behavior, may also cause the animals to become dependent, and have adverse(不利的)results. Dai says that such behavior may cause risks to both human beings and wild animals.

“Wild animals, especially injured ones, may carry bacteria. Wolves are fierce animals after all, and it is hard to know whether they are aggressive(进攻性的)or not, so it is better to keep a safe distance,” says Dai. “On the other hand, unless the species is endangered, artificial intervention(人为干预)is not recommended,” he adds.

1. What can we say about the wolf in Hoh Xil?

A．It turned to a woman for help.	B．It has been given food by people.
C．It wandered regularly near visitors.	D．It lost weight in the nature reserve.

2. What does the underlined word “disrupt” in paragraph 3 probably mean?

A．Protect.

B．Maintain.

C．Upset.

D．Adjust.

3. What will probably happen if wild animals are fed according to Dai?

A．They may hurt people.	B．They may gain weight.
C．They may leave reserves.	D．They may become extinct.

4. What is the author’s purpose in writing the text?

A．To inform people of wolves’ habits.	B．To call on people to protect wolves.
C．To entertain readers with a wolf story.	D．To warn people of risks in feeding wolves.

4 . 短文改错

Last week I visited a small village to see the brown bears, what come to the villages at night to look at food. I waited with some tourist. As it grew dark, we see the huge black shapes of the bears. Those clever bears knew where to go for its dinner: the rubbish where there was lots of food people have thrown away. Although it’s wonderful to see the bears in the village, but it can only mean one thing: their habitat is disappearing. They would prefer to stay hiding in the mountain forests, but the trees have cut down for firewood. However, they cannot find enough food any more.

5 . Masses of ocean plastic are providing artificial habitat (栖息地) for otherwise coastal species, according to a new study published in Nature Communications. The study’s authors observed floating water bottles, old toothbrushes and waste fishing nets. The possibility exists that species may be evolving to better adapt to life on plastic.

A decade ago, marine researchers believed coastal species could not survive a trip across the inhospitable open ocean. Yet Japan’s 2011 tsunami (海啸), which sent some 300 species of Asian marine life riding floating plastic garbage onto North American shores, disproved that assumption.

Ocean plastic is “creating opportunities for coastal species’ biogeography to greatly expand beyond what we previously thought was possible”, Linsey Haram, a researcher and co-author of the study, said in a report.

The concept of species-covered plastic may sound like the story of ocean species’ victory in spite of human pollution. But that’s not quite the case, explains Juan José Alava, PhD, an expert at the University of British Columbia. In addition to transporting non-native species to new habitats where they may become invasive and destructive, the plastic is “basically an ecological trap”, says Alava. “That’s because small species on the floating structure may attract bigger animals to come for food. When these creatures enter garbage areas for food, they run a high risk of eating and/or becoming caught in plastic and dying.”

While scientists have found some types of bacteria (细菌) are able to break down plastic, thereby cleaning up garbage, it’s unlikely that the marine animals will have any such effect. “The 2021 UN report was clear that the increasing plastic pollution is putting the health of all the world’s oceans and seas at risk,” says Alava.

1. What does the underlined word “inhospitable” in Paragraph 2 mean?

A．Easy-to-spot.	B．Up-to-standard.
C．Down-to-earth.	D．Hard-to-stay.

2. What effect would ocean plastic have on coastal species according to Linsey?

A．Putting them at greater risk.

B．Causing them to grow bigger.

C．Enabling them to live in new habitats.

D．Freeing them from getting endangered.

3. What does Alava think of ocean plastic in Paragraph 4?

A．It increases some creatures’ curiosity.

B．It causes damage to all marine species.

C．It creates habitats for larger creatures.

D．It leads to the death of some creatures.

4. What would the author most probably agree with?

A．Ocean plastic must be dealt with.

B．It’s OK to throw plastic into the ocean.

C．Marine life may adapt to ocean plastic.

D．Ocean plastic may be cleaned up soon.

8 . Though fireworks (烟花) on bonfire night bring joy to many people, it is likely to be a night of fright and pain for the UK’s geese (鹅).

Research by Anglia Ruskin University has found that fireworks displays (表演) cause wild birds to suffer significant pain, and researchers have recommended that displays should not take place in areas with large wildlife populations. A study, published in the journal Conservation Physiology, is one of the first carried out into the effects of fireworks on wildlife. It found that the heart rate (率) of geese increases by 96% when they are influenced by fireworks displays.

The study involved 20 wild grey lag geese fitted with recorders to record their heart rate and body temperature, which are measures of physiological stress. Claudia Wascher, who led the research, found that the average heart rate increased from 63 to 124 beats per minute, and their average body temperature increased from 38℃ to 39℃, in the first hour of fireworks displays. It took the geese about five hours before the birds displayed normal body temperatures, with average readings returning by 5 am.

“Ours is one of the first scientific studies to examine whether fireworks disturb wildlife. There have been previous studies showing that fireworks can cause anxiety in pets, for example in dogs, but little research has been done into how animals in the wild react. We need to carry out further research to conclusively tell whether the geese are reacting to the noise or the light pollution from the fireworks, or a combination of both. Many people get a lot of enjoyment from fireworks but it’s important that we consider animals both pets and wildlife — whenever planning a display,” Wascher said.

1. What advice do researchers give according to the findings of the study?

A．Geese should be protected especially at night.

B．Great attention should be paid to the UK’s geese.

C．Fireworks displays should be held without harming wildlife.

D．Fireworks displays should take place to bring joy to people.

2. Why were 20 wild grey lag geese fitted with recorders?

A．To compare the heart rates between them.

B．To make them safe and sound in the wild.

C．To keep their body temperature normal.

D．To measure their physiological stress.

3. How long do the geese need to get over the effect of fireworks displays on body temperature?

A．About five hours.	B．About four hours.
C．About two hours.	D．About one hour.

4. What may Wascher’s further research about?

A．The relations between light pollution from fireworks and geese.

B．The effects of noise and light pollution from fireworks on geese.

C．Whether fireworks influence other wild animals.

D．The influence of a display on pets and wildlife.

9 . A smoke bomb from a party started a major blaze (火焰) near Los Angeles in September,just one of many recent wildfires ignited (引燃) by people. Now, an analysis of satellite data shows human-caused blazes spread much faster and kill more trees than ones ignited by lightning.

Fire has always been a part of California’s natural history. But several centuries of human settlement have created new conditions that promote its spread.Studies have shown human ignition is to blame for 84% of all wildfires in the United States,and 97% of all those that threaten homes.

Human-caused fires always seemed more extreme, says Stijn Hantson,a fire ecologist at the University of California,Irvine,who led the new research. But measurements of how fast they spread and their impacts on ecosystems (生态系统) in California had not been explored, he notes.

To examine those differences, Hantson and his colleagues analyzed satellite data for 214 wildfires in California between 2012 and 2018.Human-caused fires typically spread about 1.83 kilometers per day, more than twice as fast as lightning-ignited burns,the team reports.The faster spreading fires also burned more violently and killed “double or triple” the trees as lightning-caused ones.

However, there is no fundamental difference in the chemistry of a human-caused blaze. “A fire is a fire” Hantson says. “It’s the surrounding things that matter.” Causes of fires ranging from improperly thrown cigarettes to sparking (冒火花) power lines could ignite a blaze on any given day, he says, while lightning strikes and dry thunderstorms only happen seasonally.

The researchers tracked meteorological data and found that human-caused fires were more likely to start on days with extreme weather conditions,and were more associated with drier,less-forested landscapes. This adds to scientists’ understanding of how humans are extending the fire season, says Nathan Mietkiewicz, an ecologist with the National Ecological Observation Network.

1. The author uses some data in paragraph 2 to show that ________.

A．wildfires are mostly caused by humans

B．most wildfires threaten people’s homes

C．wildfire is a part of California’s natural history

D．wildfires break out frequently in the United States

2. What’s the purpose of Hantson’s research?

A．To prove how extreme human-caused fires are.

B．To find out the causes and solutions of wildfires.

C．To explore the speed and effects of wildfires caused by humans.

D．To examine the differences between a human-caused blaze and a nature-caused one.

3. How is the result presented in paragraph 4?

A．By giving examples.

B．By making comparisons.

C．By analyzing cause and effect.

D．By giving definitions.

4. What can be inferred from the last two paragraphs?

A．Human-caused fires and lightning-caused fires are basically different.

B．Lightning strikes and thunderstorms can always lead to wildfires.

C．Wildfires only happen in dry,less-forested areas.

D．Humans are to blame for the extended fire season.