1 . A handful of healthy soil could contain great numbers of living organisms. However, poisonous pesticides (杀虫剂) are causing harm and destruction to them, according to a recent analysis.
For the analysis, researchers looked through nearly 400 published studies including over 2,800 experiments on how pesticides affect soil organisms. They found that pesticides harmed organisms critical to maintaining healthy soils, but these harms have never been considered in the safety reviews of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).Poisonous pesticides are driving factors in the sharp decline of many soil organisms, such as ground beetles. They have been identified as the most significant driver of soil biodiversity loss in the last ten years.
However, that research has always been ignored. The EPA, which is responsible for pesticide supervision(监管)in the country, openly acknowledges that somewhere between 50 and 100 percent of all agriculturally applied pesticides end up on the soil. Yet, to assess pesticides’ harms to soil species, the agency just uses a single test species, the European honeybee, to estimate risk to all soil organisms. It spends its entire life above ground in artificial boxes.
Worse still, as soil health gain popularity globally, pesticide companies have jumped up to green wash and promote their products. Every major company is now advertising its role in improving soil health, such as advocating planting cover crops. As general beliefs, these practices are indeed good for soil health and, if adopted responsibly, are a great step to take. But companies know that these practices are often accompanied by increased pesticide use. Chemicals and pesticides have to be applied more frequently to kill weeds before crops are planted.
The long-term environmental cost can no longer be overlooked. Soils are some of the most complex ecosystems on Earth, containing nearly a quarter of the planet’s biodiversity. Protecting them should be a priority, not an afterthought.
1. What does the underlined word “They” refer to in Paragraph 2?| A．Soil organisms. | B．Ground beetles. |
| C．Artificial boxes. | D．Poisonous pesticides. |
| A．The honeybee is a typical species living in nature. |
| B．The assessment of pesticides’ harms is one-sided. |
| C．Less than half of applied pesticide go to the soil eventually. |
| D．The EPA attaches great importance to pesticide inspection. |
| A．To obey the EPA’s rules. |
| B．To increase their product sales. |
| C．To protect the environment. |
| D．To shoulder their social responsibility. |
| A．Soil: essential to agriculture. |
| B．Pesticides: harmful to soil health. |
| C．Organisms: significant to harvest. |
| D．Pollution: destructive to biodiversity. |
2 . With no special equipment, no fences and no watering, two abandoned agricultural fields in the UK have been rewilded (重新野化), in large part due to the efforts of jays, which actually “engineered” these new woodlands. Researchers now hope that rewilding projects can take a more natural and hands-off approach and that jays can shed some of their bad reputations.
The two fields, which researchers have called the New Wilderness and the Old Wilderness, had been abandoned in 1996 and 1961 respectively. The former was a bare field, while the latter was grassland—both lay next to ancient woodlands. Researchers had suspected that the fields would gradually return to wilderness, but it was impressive to see just how quickly this happened, and how much of it was owed to birds.
Using aerial data, the researchers monitored the two sites. After just 24 years, the New Wilderness had grown into a young, healthy wood with 132 live trees per hectare, over half of which (57%) were oaks. Meanwhile, the Old Wilderness resembled a mature woodland after 39 years, with 390 trees per hectare.
“This native woodland restoration was approaching the structure (but not the species composition) of long-established woodlands within six decades,” the researchers explained in the study.
Part of this reforestation was done by the wind, and researchers suspect that previous ground disturbance may have aided the woodland establishment—which is good news, as it would suggest that agricultural areas may be reforested faster than anticipated. However, animals—Eurasian jays, thrushes, wood mice, and squirrels—also played an important role in helping the forests take shape. This handful of species provided much of the natural regeneration needed for the forest to develop. Jays, in particular, seem to have done a lot of heavy lifting.
1. What does the underlined word “shed” in Paragraph 1 refer to?| A．Be opposed to. |
| B．Be ashamed of. |
| C．Get used to. |
| D．Get rid of. |
| A．The scale of the woodlands. |
| B．The diversity of the fields. |
| C．The rate of the changes. |
| D．The frequency of the wilderness. |
| A．The woodland restoration was approaching the structure of long-established ones. |
| B．Much of the wilderness of the fields was owed to birds. |
| C．Previous ground disturbance aided the woodland establishment. |
| D．How quickly the fields returned to wilderness over time. |
| A．The essential role of humans in the reforestation. |
| B．The factors that contribute to the reforestation. |
| C．The importance of woodland establishment. |
| D．The threats faced by a handful of wild animals. |
3 . Flower scents (香味) help pollinators (传粉者) locate their favorite plants. Scientists have established that air pollutants change those scents, throwing off the tracking abilities of such beneficial insects as honeybees. But new lab experiments are the first to confirm that one pollinator, the tobacco hawkmoth, can quickly learn that a pollution-changed scent comes from the jasmine tobacco flower that the insect likes.
Chemical ecologist Markus Knaden and colleagues focused on one pollutant-ozone, the main element in smog. In the lab, his team blew an ozone-changed scent from a tiny tube into a tunnel, with a moth (飞蛾) awaiting at the far end of the tunnel. Usually, when the moth smells the unchanged scent, it flies upwind and uses its long, skinny mouthparts to probe the tube the way that it would a flower. The researchers expected that the changed scent might throw the moth off a little. But the insect wasn’t attracted at all.
In addition to scent, tobacco hawkmoths track flowers visually, so Knaden’s team used the feature, along with a sweet snack, to train the moth to be attracted to a pollution-changed scent. The researchers wrapped a brightly-colored artificial flower around the tube to trick the moth back across the tunnel, despite the unfamiliar scent. And the team added sugar water to the artificial flower. After a moth was given four minutes to taste the sweet stuff, it was attracted to the new smell when sent into the tunnel 15 minutes later, even when neither the sugar water nor the visual signal of the artificial flower was present.
This study focused on only one moth species, but Knaden’s team is now working on planning experiments with other pollinators that are easier to follow than tobacco hawknoths. While he guesses honeybees might also be as adaptable as the moth was, that won’t be true of every pollinator. “The situation can become very bad for insects that are not as clever or cannot see that well. I don’t want the take-home message to be that pollution is not a problem.”
1. What does the underlined word “probe” in paragraph 2 mean?| A．Surround. | B．Favour. | C．Access. | D．Examine. |
| A．not all moths were attracted to ozone-changed scent as expected |
| B．the current research conducted by Knaden is pioneering and wide-ranging |
| C．not all pollinators are adaptable to human-driven changes to their environment |
| D．the moth didn’t like the new smell without sugar water and artificial flower |
| A．Positive. | B．Cautious. | C．Unclear. | D．Critical. |
| A．A moth can be rid of the tracking ability to locate its favourite plants. |
| B．A moth is able to establish a relationship between pollution and scents. |
| C．A moth may outsmart smog by learning to like pollution-changed scent. |
| D．A moth is born with an ability to adapt to the changes in the environment. |
