The material discusses certain consequences of the human population growth on the number of birds. While the reading looks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges the points outlined in the reading passage.
First, the author mentions that increasing the human population will reduce birds' natural habitats. On the other hand, the professor opposes this and states that expanding urbanization could be bad for some birds' types, but it could be better for other species. The lecturer explains that increasing the human population could increase the number of some birds, such as peogions and therefore, the number of hawks and falcons would increase. The speaker adds that there is no uniform story of declining, some types will shrink; however, other types will grow.
Second, the writer points out that the human population growth could increase agriculture and diminish wilderness areas. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this and posits that in the US, less and less lands are used every year. The professor explains that there is an introduction of new more productive crops, which could produce more foods per unit of land, so it would not affect the wilderness areas.
Third, the reading states that humans use chemical pesticides to cultivate crops, which harm birds and decline their populations. Conversely, the lecturer contradicts this and mentions that humans became more aware of the bad consequences of pesticides, so they follow two strategies. The professor contends that first, they use less toxic pesticides. Second, they grow more pests resistant crops. The speaker explains that these crops will not attract pests, so these crops would not harm birds at all.
The material discusses certain consequences of the
human
population
growth on the number of
birds
. While the reading looks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges the points outlined in the reading passage.
First
, the author mentions that increasing the
human
population
will
reduce
birds' natural habitats.
On the other hand
, the professor opposes this and states that expanding urbanization could be
bad
for
some
birds' types,
but
it could be better for other species. The lecturer
explains
that increasing the
human
population
could increase the number of
some
birds
, such as
peogions
and
therefore
, the number of hawks and falcons would increase. The speaker
adds
that there is no uniform story of declining,
some
types will shrink;
however
, other types will grow.
Second, the writer points out that the
human
population
growth could increase agriculture and diminish wilderness areas.
On the contrary
, the lecturer refutes this and posits that in the US, less and
less
lands are
used
every year. The professor
explains
that there is an introduction of new more productive
crops
, which could produce more foods per unit of land,
so
it would not affect the wilderness areas.
Third, the reading states that
humans
use
chemical pesticides to cultivate
crops
, which harm
birds
and decline their
populations
.
Conversely
, the lecturer contradicts this and mentions that
humans
became more aware of the
bad
consequences of pesticides,
so
they follow two strategies. The professor contends that
first
, they
use
less toxic pesticides. Second, they grow more pests resistant
crops
. The speaker
explains
that these
crops
will not attract pests,
so
these
crops
would not harm
birds
at all.