ChaseDream
搜索
12下一页
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 3618|回复: 12
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[考古] Dam and fish 雪菲吐血考古 遇到这篇谁都要做到全对!!!!to 小狼:骨灰都挖粗来了Σ(っ °Д °;)っ

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2013-1-12 05:27:37 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |正序浏览 |阅读模式
1.1.7 大坝*
V1
月度就是一个是大坝,说移动大坝有什么坏处。一个是考古题,科学家证明为什么在该地点没有发现文物。


V2
一看第一个月度就知道悲剧鸟 讲得是大坝  
第一段说因为大坝有什么什么坏处 所以应该把一些地方的大坝拆掉
第二段说尽管如此 拆掉大坝也会造成坏影响怎么怎么样
后面不记得了

V3
第二篇
第一段 美国拆除了一些阻断水流自然流动的大坝,有一些积极影响:比如usually降低水温,清洁水体(第一题,注意“usually”是关键词,是解题关键)以及其他的一些好处。。
第二段转折,但是这种做法也有一些负面影响。。。
第三段进一步阐述 面对某些负面影响的一些解决办法,但是这个办法的有效性还有待检验(有题,问文章main idea)
V4
里的大坝,第一段第一句先说大坝不好,列举了不好的影响,有题;第二句说很多科学家开始移走大坝;第三句以后说移走大坝也不好。第二段第三段都说的是拆掉大坝的不好,以及科学家的弥补措施,但并不一定有效。有一个题,是问这三段为了主旨都采取了怎样的论证方法。
v5
第一段 : 介绍说美国 开始拆大坝。 因为大坝对生态的不好之处。。。拆除大坝会对生态有什么好处 : 比如 减少Nonative fish 的数量, 降低水流的温度等。 注意这些例子。
第二段: 拆大坝也有风险 。 比如:sediment(沉积物)本来被堵在大坝后面,你把坝拆了他们流下来堵住河道 ,所以就出现先清除污泥沉积物,再拆大坝的情况。还有什么风险,实在想不起来。。。
第三段:略长,主要也是阐述拆大坝的弊端。最后说解决拆大坝弊处的一个办法 。具体记不清了。。。
题目: 一道主旨题,2道貌似关拆大坝 利处和弊处的细节题 。
V6
P1:水坝造成环境问题(ecology impact):主要是会堵塞水道(clog/choke the waterway)(有一道题,问Dam会造成什么问题, 不要选blocking the migration of nonnative fish, 整篇文章是要保护native fish为前提)。因为水坝把水拦起来了,水温会上升,含氧量也会变化, 就会在Dam的reservoir里面繁殖出nonnative fish。如果把水坝拆了(decommission the dam),水温下降了,环境回到原来的样子, 这些nonnative fish就会变少, 甚至消失.
P2:拆除水坝造成的问题:
A.水坝后面的淤泥(sediment behind the dam, or sediment in the reservoir)可能会堵塞水道(有题目问拆除水坝会造成什么问题),所以很多工程师先用推土机和pipe运走淤泥再拆除水坝(这里又考了,问工程师拆除水坝的时候会干什么)
   B.会使得一些不受欢迎的鱼溯江而上危害生态
   C.由于大坝上游积累的淤泥中有很多毒素,拆除大坝也会时这些毒素随淤泥流向下游。这些毒素(poison), 可能会杀死native fish吃的algae. (有题目问the engineer will most likely do which of following? 答案是 use a pipe to suck the sediment behind the dam off the river, 题目喜欢用behind the dam, under the dam表示位置, 很多干扰选项位置都不对, 例如一个干扰选项是use poison at the reservoir behind the dam 是错的, 因为大坝拆了以后, 毒素流到下游就毒死native fish了).
P3:举了美国Arizona一个大坝的例子,工程师想拆了水坝而且不影响native fish和保留某个特定的青蛙品种。于是他们想出一种方法:保留水坝后面的湖,把水改道(可能为了疏通迁徙吧),往大坝下游投毒杀死crayfish[一种非当地鱼种](再拆除大坝放生这些保护物种。但是毒杀crayfish的效果并不明显。最后这个工程的结果还有待观察(still have to be seen)。

考题汇总:
主旨:評估一項工程對生態環境的影響
Q1 拆除水壩的危害:淤泥/沉積物(sediment)可能會堵塞水道
Q2 工程帥拆除水壩前會做什麼:移走淤泥/沉積物(sediment)
Q3 如果最後一段再發展下去最不可能是下列何選項
Q4 水壩的usually effect
V7dam要不要拆除?
第一段说水坝造成环境问题,主要有阻拦鱼类migration(后面某道题问水坝有什么问题,其中提到阻拦Nonnative的鱼migration,是干扰答案,因为这里应该指的是native的鱼的迁移), 造成 nonnative的鱼入侵等等。然后就后者展开描述:因为水坝把水拦起来了,水温会上升,含氧量也会变化,有些合适这种条件的非本地鱼就会过得很开心。如果把水坝拆了,水温下降了,一些喜欢冷水的鱼(如trout)就会重返这里。
第二段说除掉水坝也有问题,主要是淤泥(sediment)可能会堵塞水道(choke the waterway—此处考到了,问的是拆除水坝的危害),然后也提到里面会有毒素。所以很多工程师先用推土机和pipe运走淤泥再拆除水坝(这里又考了,问工程师拆除水坝的时候会干什么)
第三段就是arizona的例子了,总之就是为了保护青蛙小鱼各种物种,搞了很多复杂的方式,又要保留水坝后面的湖,又把水改了道(可能为了疏通迁徙吧),又投毒杀死crayfish(此处我没有看太明白,但是没有影响后面的做题)。
说拆除大坝可以拯救一种什么青蛙,但同时又会时一些危害鱼类得以跑到上游。于是科学家们想了种方法,就是把想要保护的青蛙鱼类的给捕起来,然后往大坝下游放毒药先毒死那些危害鱼类再拆除大坝放生这些保护物种。但是结果却是那些危害鱼类没给完全毒死
V8
第一题:移动大坝有什么影响
第二题:科学家移动大坝前做什么:选抽淤泥
第三题:忘记了
V9 by yangmili 710
1.第一段作用。介个题木有在jj中看见。我选了半天,木有特别心水的选项。最后选是介绍拆大坝的几个好处吧,原句可能稍微比介个温婉一点。错误选项有,给出点东西被下文详细解释。给出点东西被第二段展开。2.infer题。我纠结于 algae..和拆了dam下游会有毒两个选项之间。最后我选大坝导致水有毒。其他我是在infer不出来。错误选项包括,frog,各种nonnative fish。。此题研究的有三分钟。 3.usually题。跟JJ说的一样。注意那些小词。
考古  brendaqian
v1:"  我现在好象觉得在哪里看到过,不过当时没印象。
第一段讲的是 DAM建造了有很多不好的后果,  主要是ECOLOGY方面的,  这里有一个题目。
第二段和第三段都讲的是,  其实拆了DAM也会有其它的不好的情况发生。 很多细节题目。有个题目是问,文章接下来的一段最没有可能出现什么内容(我越写越觉得做过,  大家翻翻GWD)。
"

V2"第一段说DAM不好,好像是它会使水温保持在一个什么温度上,让本来不是这里的鱼喜欢这里的环境威胁到本来就在这里生活的鱼类。如果拆除那些外来的鱼就会离开,保护本地的鱼类
第二段说DAM拆了也不好,说有什么沉积物之类的对生态有影响(没看太懂)
第三段也是说拆除得不好
"

V3"第一段是说DAM造成生态损害,所以拆除DAM会有很多好处,举了几个好处的例子
第二段是说贸然拆除DAM也会有很多损害,比如会使得一些不受欢迎的鱼溯江而上危害生态,还有由于大坝上游积累的淤泥中有很多毒素,拆除大坝也会时这些毒素随淤泥流向下游,还有其它例子
第三段举了美国Arizona那边一个大坝的例子,说拆除大坝可以拯救一种什么青蛙,但同时又会时一些危害鱼类得以跑到上游。于是科学家们想了种方法,就是把想要保护的青蛙鱼类的给捕起来,然后往大坝下游放毒药先毒死那些危害鱼类再拆除大坝放生这些保护物种。但是结果却是那些危害鱼类没给完全毒死
最后大概是说具体结果还要WAIT AND SEE。过了两天,再细节就记不大清了,大概只记得这些了,抱歉
收藏收藏1 收藏收藏1
13#
发表于 2013-1-15 18:25:24 | 只看该作者
辛苦你了~~雪菲!!感激不尽
12#
发表于 2013-1-15 18:10:35 | 只看该作者
谢谢雪菲!幸苦了!
11#
发表于 2013-1-12 13:57:00 | 只看该作者
雪菲好辛苦,感谢你啊么么
10#
发表于 2013-1-12 13:53:37 | 只看该作者
雪菲,辛苦你了!爱你爱你!好心疼你啊!
9#
发表于 2013-1-12 12:26:11 | 只看该作者
雪菲太厉害了……教教我怎么考古吧……我下次也想帮你一起考古……
8#
发表于 2013-1-12 11:05:41 | 只看该作者
我的妈呀。。。看不完了TAT
7#
发表于 2013-1-12 10:37:14 | 只看该作者
。。。这篇真是啊。。。 骨灰都快被数干净。。。

雪菲雪菲我爱你~
6#
 楼主| 发表于 2013-1-12 07:00:55 | 只看该作者
参考文章

The Elwha Dam
On September 17, 2011, the removal of two large hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River in Washington State, which have blocked migrating salmon from reaching their spawning grounds for almost 100 years, will begin. While this is the largest dam removal project in U.S. history, it is just one of several major dam removals planned for this year that exemplify the growing river restoration movement.


Most of the 45-mile long Elwha River, which flows into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, is located in Washington’s Olympic National Park on the Olympic Peninsula. The river is home to all five species of Pacific salmon, including Chinook, Coho, Chum, Sockeye and Pink, and three species of trout. Before the dams were built, 400,000 salmon returned to the river to spawn each year, but now fewer than 3,000 return to the 5 miles of habitat that lie below the first dam—90% of their native habitat is unreachable. Even if expensive fish passages had been added to the dams to help salmon migrate upstream, the dams’ other environmental effects would still have prevented the salmon species from recovering. The indigenous Lower Elwha Klallam tribe, whose creation site was flooded when the dams were built and who once depended on the salmon for survival, opposed the dams from the beginning.

The 108-foot high Elwha Dam, completed in 1913, was constructed to supply power to the city of Port Angeles and a lumber mill. Power generated by the 210-foot high Glines Canyon Dam, built further upstream in 1927, supported additional economic growth on the Olympic Peninsula. But today, the two dams provide less than half the power needed by a local paper mill.

In 1992, the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act provided for the restoration of the Elwha through the removal of its two dams. The project’s $325 million price tag includes the acquisition of the two dams and hydroelectric plants from their former owner, and construction of two water treatment plants, flood protection facilities, a fish hatchery and a greenhouse to grow native plants for revegetation.

Different techniques will be used to remove the two dams. At the Elwha Dam, which is broad and relatively short, the reservoir water level will first be lowered through existing spillways. Cofferdams, temporary enclosures, will be built to divert water into interim channels so that the river’s original channel can be excavated. After the powerhouse and other structures are removed, the diversion channel will be filled in and the river will be returned to its natural path. The dismantling of the taller Glines Canyon Dam will involve the construction of temporary spillways on either side of the dam to drain the reservoir, then layers of the dam will be removed as the water level drops. Finally, what’s left will be blasted away to restore the river’s natural flow.

The dam removal process will take 2 ½ to 3 years because 15 million cubic yards sediment have collected behind the dams; the release of this sediment must be carefully controlled to protect a downstream fish hatchery, the Lower Elwha reservation, and the Port Angeles drinking water supply. Once the nutrient rich sediment flows downstream, however, it will help restore the estuary, salmon habitats, and beaches.


The upper Elwha
The return of the salmon, which will convey nutrients from the ocean and be a source of food when they die, will also support 100 other wildlife and aquatic species. The area will be replanted to prevent erosion and restore native ecosystems. And the Lower Elwha Klallam tribe will finally have their sacred sites and the salmon, the basis of their culture, restored.

The U.S. is home to 2 million dams of various sizes. Bruce Babbitt, former Secretary of the Interior, remarked, “On average, we have constructed one dam every day since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has inventoried 75,000 dams larger than 6 feet and tens of thousands of smaller ones.

Dams have been built to provide recreation, flood control, fire protection, irrigation, water supplies, or hydroelectric power. Most were built for recreation and flood control and only 2,210 generate hydropower. Today, however, many U.S. dams have outlived their original purpose and over 4,000 have been deemed unsafe. By 2020, 85% of U.S. dams will be over 50 years old, the average life of a dam.

Over time some dams become less economically viable. As sediment accumulates behind a dam, the reservoir cannot hold as much water; sediment can block water going to the turbines, or hamper a flood control dam’s ability to capture floodwaters efficiently. The cost of regular maintenance, upgrading machinery to meet regulatory requirements, or liability risk may not make economic sense. In the end, dam removal is often less expensive than trying to maintain or repair an older dam. The decision to remove a dam is usually made by its owner; many dams are privately owned, with the rest owned by the federal, local or state government, or public utilities. Dam removal is paid for by the dam’s owners, federal, state or local governments, or multiple stakeholders.


Removal of the Briggsville Dam 2010. Photo credit: Green Massachusetts
Often a dam is removed in order to undo the multiple detrimental impacts it has on the environment and biodiversity. Dams divert water from rivers for power, reducing the supply of water available to keep downstream ecosystems healthy. Dams obstruct the migration of fish and wildlife; for example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 91% of the migratory fish habitat in northern New England is blocked by dams. Dams also prevent nutrient rich sediments and woody debris needed for habitats from flowing downstream. Dams slow the flow of rivers, which allows sediment to collect on the river bottom and bury spawning habitat. The slowed flow also disorients fish species whose lifecycles evolved to take advantage of the swiftness and natural seasonal variations of a river’s flow. The warmer temperature of reservoir water sitting behind a dam may discourage cool-water fish species from reaching their upstream spawning habitat. Water that is released from the bottom of the reservoir is much colder and contains less oxygen than river water, which can affect the reproductive processes of some fish species; and when water with decreased oxygen is released, it can kill downstream fish. In addition, the creation of reservoir lakes favors species better suited to lake-like conditions, which often harm native fish species. The sediment and silt trapped by dams can accumulate heavy metals and pollutants. And turbines at hydropower dams may injure fish.


Fish ladder at the John Day Dam on the Columbia River
At dams with fish ladders, fish are often injured or killed swimming up ladders, or become too exhausted or stressed by the warmer water temperatures to spawn successfully even if they reach their destination.

Dam removal restores a river’s natural flow and helps increase biodiversity because vegetation and habitats are restored. Wetlands are revitalized, creating alcoves that serve as nurseries for aquatic species, and enhancing plant growth along riverbanks that provide habitat and food for additional wildlife species. Dam removal replaces warmer water species with the native species that are adapted to colder water such as salmon, trout, shad, river herring, etc., and enables fish to migrate freely upstream and downstream, improving their chances for successful reproduction.

Dam removal may, however, stir up sediments as they are carried down a free flowing river and this resuspension can damage spawning grounds and habitat, and affect water quality, especially if the sediments contain toxins and pollutants. When the Fort Edward Dam on New York’s Hudson River was removed in 1973, sediments behind the dam had not been tested. As a result, tons of sediment laden with toxic PCBs that had been dumped by General Electric (GE) were washed downstream, affecting human and wildlife health. GE is now in the process of dredging the polluted sediments. But in most cases, resuspension problems are temporary. For example, silt and sediment from the Grangeville and Lewiston Dams on Idaho’s Clearwater River washed downstream in a week after the dam removals in 1963 and 1973 respectively; sediment from the Milwaukee River in Wisconsin settled six months after the Woolen Mills Dam was removed in 2007.  And there are strategies to minimize resuspension problems: timing the release of sediments to avoid spring runoff, slowly drawing down the reservoir first, trapping sediment in screens, and dredging the sediments in the reservoir.

The Open Rivers Initiative, begun in 2005 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in partnership with American Rivers and others, provides communities with funding and technical expertise to remove dams and restore rivers and streams. In the last 50 years, over 600 U.S. dams have been removed. NOAA itself has removed 90 dams and stream blockages, and opened up 1,700 miles of river habitat for migratory fish.


Spawning Coho salmon. Photo credit: Dan Bennett
In addition to restoring habitat, re-establishiing river ecosystems, opening access to spawning grounds, and improving water quality, dam removals can provide new recreational opportunities and potentially even bring back commercial fishing.

American Rivers, which works to remove outdated dams as part of its Restoring Rivers program, calls 2011 the “year of the river” because several notable dams are scheduled for removal. Besides the Elwha River dams, removal of the 95-year-old Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in Washington will begin in October. The Veazie and Great Works Dams on the Penobscot River in Maine will be dismantled this year. Deconstruction is ongoing at the Union and Simkin Dams on the Patapsco River in Maryland. And removal of the Pawtuxet Falls Dam in Rhode Island is the state’s largest dam removal project ever. These removal projects will open up countless miles of habitat for migratory fish.

While there are plans to remove many smaller dams around the country this year as well, not all dams are good candidates for dam removal—less than 1% of all U.S. dams are being considered for removal.

Despite mounting pressure to reduce our use of fossil fuels, American River contends that damming more rivers for hydropower is not the answer. The focus should instead be on maximizing the efficiency, improving the operation, and reducing the environmental impacts of the hydropower dams that already exist. This can be accomplished by updating equipment, adding hydropower to dams that are in place, and recognizing that dams have a limited life span and preparing a decommissioning plan that includes river restoration. American Rivers argues against the building of new dams because the best river locations already have dams, because dams damage rivers, and because we need healthy rivers and ecosystems as natural defenses against the increased droughts, floods and waterborne diseases that climate change will inevitably bring.
5#
 楼主| 发表于 2013-1-12 06:44:36 | 只看该作者
第四版

1: 拆除大坝对生态系统的影响8{"|3cs%V&fA:G,B
Q-bau!Ehm-|
版本一:讲的是DAM要不要拆的问题,
{*eT_|Z.[.Y,@ 我现在好象觉得在哪里看到过,不过当时没印象。第一段讲的是 DAM建造了有很多不好的后果,主要是ECOLOGY方面的,这里有一个题目。第二段和第三段都讲的是其实拆了DAM也会有其他的不好的情况发生。
TUT'J"sRc{c $Lz#d+LA\%w8T
版本二:第一段说DAM不好,好像是它会使水温保持在一个什么温度上,让本来不是这里的鱼喜欢这里的环境威胁到本来就在这里生活的鱼类。如果拆除那些外来的鱼就会离开,保护本地的鱼类
-ze v$cLR~/[ 第二段说DAM拆了也不好,说有什么沉积物之类的对生态有影响(没看太懂)
FK%@AHI 第三段也是说拆除得不好 -x,Ju3P P9VxH
4} }1w%Y7cK
版本三:第一段是说DAM造成生态损害,所以拆除DAM会有很多好处,举了几个好处的例子
PvNO%A1oo
0D8@;|fDES 第二段是说贸然拆除DAM也会有很多损害,比如会使得一些不受欢迎的鱼溯江而上危害生态,还有由于大坝上游积累的淤泥中有很多毒素,拆除大坝也会时这些毒素随淤泥流向下游,还有其他例子 i0zpW#q
,k?&nJ(Ze
第 三段举了美国Arizona那边一个大坝的例子,说拆除大坝可以拯救一种什么青蛙,但同时又会时一些危害鱼类得以跑到上游。于是科学家们想了种方法,就是把想要保护的青蛙鱼类的给捕起来,然后往大坝下游放毒药先毒死那些危害鱼类再拆除大坝放生这些保护物种。但是结果却是那些危害鱼类没给完全毒死
HY7Z'ktf
%R$?'pVc'k 版 本四: 关于大坝拆迁,我做到的是那个最后一段有青蛙的,问题里有涉及到 大坝的usually effect,没太看明白,因为每个选项都是文中说的影响,大概关键在于usually吧。还有一个题是说最后一段如果再继续写下去最不可能的是哪个选项,还有一个题是关于沉积物的,说engineer随敏感的是什么当他们再移走大坝之前,我选的是移走沉积物。
8f'z-R~4U vdl?r;_ 8kY4m"N3k#q4Ut
版本五: (b[5B;Aa'{-C"r5^

D PC~0aLM;J P 第一段说水坝造成环境问题,主要有阻拦鱼类migration(后面某道题问水坝有什么问题,其中提到阻拦Nonnative的鱼migration,是干扰答案,因为这里应该指的是native的鱼的迁移), 造成
#z7`%Hy6D    nonnative的鱼入侵等等。然后就后者展开描述:因为水坝把水拦起来了,水温会上升,含氧量也会变化,有些合适这种条件的非本地与就会过得很开心。如果把水坝拆了,水温下降了,一些喜欢冷水的鱼(如trout——记得这个名字因为我最爱吃trout,呵呵)就会重返这里。
X?1N0}?,x     /~M9_8_l8Z(E2u X8n
第二段说除掉水坝也有问题,主要是淤泥(sediment)可能会堵塞水道(choke the waterway——此处考到了,问的是拆除水坝的危害),然后也提到里面会有毒素。所以很多工程师先用推土机和pipe运走淤泥再拆除水坝(这里又考了,问工程师拆除水坝的时候会干什么) N6j0svFl9\DN|

&G4v)kG'c!]1~&~}VB 第三段就是arizona的例子了,总之就是为了保护青蛙小鱼各种物种,搞了很多复杂的方式,又要保留水坝后面的湖,又把水改了道(可能为了疏通迁徙吧),又投毒杀死crayfish(此处我没有看太明白,但是没有影响后面的做题)。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-12 20:20
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部