GWD1---12

熏依草

Over the last 150 years, large

       stretches of salmon habitat have

       been eliminated by human activity:

Line       mining, livestock grazing, timber

  (5)      harvesting, and agriculture as well

as recreational and urban devel-

opment.  The numerical effect is

obvious:  there are fewer salmon

in degraded regions than in pris-

 (10)      tine 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

 (15)      populations.  Indeed, most

analysts believe that some kind

of environmental degradation

underlies the demise of many

extinct salmon populations.

 (20)      Although some rivers have

       been recolonized, the unique

       genes of the original populations

have been lost.

      Large-scale disturbances in

 (25)      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

 (30)      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

 (35)
                       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

 (40)     repopulated should the fish

there disappear.  Yet high rates

of straying can be problematic

because misdirected fish may

interbreed with the existing stock

 (45)      to such a degree that any local

adaptations that are present

become diluted.  Straying

rates remain relatively low when

environmental conditions are

 (50)      stable, but can increase dramati-

cally when streams suffer severe

disturbance.  The 1980 volcanic

eruption of Mount Saint Helens,

for example, sent mud and debris

 (55)      into several tributaries of the

Columbia River.  For the next

couple of years, steelhead trout

(a species included among the

salmonids) returning from the

 (60)      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

 (65)      overall.

      Although no one has quantified

changes in the rate of straying

as a result of the disturbances

caused by humans, there is no

 (70)      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 dra-

 (75)      matic 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.

Q12:

The author mentions the “aftermath of the Mount Saint Helens eruption” (lines 73-74) most likely in order to

 

1. provide an example of the process that allows the repopulation of rivers whose indigenous salmon population has become extinct
2. 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
3. provide a standard of comparison against which the impact of human activity on the gene flow among salmon populations should be measured
4. show how salmons’ homing instinct can be impaired as a result of severe environmental degradation of their natal streams
5. show why straying rates in salmon populations remain generally low except when spawning streams suffer severe environmental disturbance

直接不明白什么意思，NN帮忙一下吧

熏依草

没人理？自己顶一下

熏依草

答案不确定，有选B的有选C的，到底答案是哪个

djvivid

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.

请问这句话应该怎么理解？

“no reason to suspect”,没有理由怀疑，所以应该是“非常确定”，"that the effect would be qaulitatively different than..."人类的影响和"火山...的影响"应该是本质上不一样的。

连在一起就是“确定两者的影响本质上是一样的”，可是别人的理解好像都不是这样的，所以请问应该如何理解这句话？另外句子里有一个“than”，这个than前面为什么没有比较级？