The reading is talking about solutions that can help golden frogs to be protected from fungus and provides three possible reasons to claims this idea. However, the professor in the lecture disagrees with this idea and refutes each of the points made in the reading.
First, the reading mentions that by colonizing one specific kind of bacterium on the skin of golden frog, this frog can be saved from fungus by a chemical substance that is produced by bacterium. The professor opposes this idea and explains that this bacterium does not last for a long time on the frog's skin and after a while it will die. Moreover, the bacterium produces this fetal chemical only in first steps of its colonization. Therefore, after a while the bacterium will not be able to protect golden frogs for a long time.
Second, the reading claims that by keeping frogs in captivity we can help them to grow and breed in a healthy invironment and then realese them to their habitats. However, the professor refutes this idea and believes that after we release captive frogs to their chief habitat, where sick frogs have already died, these frogs are not totaly immune to the fungus. This is due to the fact that, there are still other species of animals that had contact with the fungus and can spread the disease amoung the captive frogs' population.
Third, the reading mentions that there is a possibility that frogs can protect themselves against fungus by a mechanism in which they increase their body temperature and prevent fungus from growing. This contradicts the professor's statement. He mentions that if frogs try to increase their body heat, it will take out a great amount of energy from them and this in turn, will make these animals weaker. Consequently, these frogs will die either because of fungus or other polutions in their habitat. So, this way does not seem to work efficiently in saving frogs from fungus.
The
reading
is talking about solutions that can
help
golden
frogs
to
be protected
from
fungus
and provides three possible reasons to claims this
idea
.
However
, the professor in the lecture disagrees with this
idea
and refutes each of the points made in the reading.
First
, the
reading
mentions that by colonizing one specific kind of
bacterium
on the skin of golden
frog
, this
frog
can
be saved
from
fungus
by a chemical substance that
is produced
by
bacterium
. The professor opposes this
idea
and
explains
that this
bacterium
does not last for a long time on the frog's skin and after a while it will
die
.
Moreover
, the
bacterium
produces this fetal chemical
only
in
first
steps of its colonization.
Therefore
, after a while the
bacterium
will not be able to protect golden
frogs
for a long time.
Second, the
reading
claims that by keeping
frogs
in captivity we can
help
them to grow and breed in a healthy
invironment
and then
realese
them to their habitats.
However
, the professor refutes this
idea
and believes that after we release captive
frogs
to their chief habitat, where sick
frogs
have already
died
, these
frogs
are not
totaly
immune to the
fungus
.
This is due to the fact that
, there are
still
other species of animals that had contact with the
fungus
and can spread the disease
amoung
the captive frogs' population.
Third, the
reading
mentions that there is a possibility that
frogs
can protect themselves against
fungus
by a mechanism in which they increase their body temperature and
prevent
fungus
from growing. This contradicts the professor's statement. He mentions that if
frogs
try to increase their body heat, it will take out a great amount of energy from them and this in turn, will
make
these animals weaker.
Consequently
, these
frogs
will
die
either
because
of
fungus
or other
polutions
in their habitat.
So
, this way does not seem to work
efficiently
in saving
frogs
from
fungus
.