The material discusses that the growth of the human population affects the number of birds. While the reading claims that birds in the future will be fewer and fewer, the professor challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
First, the author says that exploit wildlife by humans will decline birds' numbers. On the other hand, the lecturer refutes this and states that urban growth may affect some birds' species, but it could provide better habitats for others. The professor mentions that there is no uniform story that could affect all birds' species. To put it in other words, some species will shrink; however, others will grow.
Second, the writer mentions that increasing agriculture could also destructive birds habitats. On the contrary, the lecturer contradicts this and points out that it is true that agriculture could affect birds' numbers, but in the US, people stated to cultivate less and less land. The speaker adds that people now cultivate new crops that use less land and give more harvests.
Third, the reading posits that using pesticides in agriculture could poison birds. Conversely, the listening contradicts this and contends that the point about pesticides is incorrect. The lecturer explains that people started to be aware of pesticides' consequences, so they follow two strategies. First, people use new much less toxic pesticides. Secondly, the professor adds people cultivate pests resistant crops, which do not need pesticides. The lecturer adds that these crops could not harm birds at all.
The material discusses that the growth of the human population
affects
the number of
birds
. While the reading claims that
birds
in the future will be fewer and fewer, the professor challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
First
, the author says that exploit wildlife by humans will decline
birds'
numbers. On the
other
hand, the
lecturer
refutes this and states that urban growth may
affect
some
birds'
species,
but
it could provide better habitats for others. The professor mentions that there is no uniform story that could
affect
all
birds'
species. To put it in
other
words,
some
species will shrink;
however
, others will grow.
Second, the writer mentions that increasing agriculture could
also
destructive
birds
habitats.
On the contrary
, the
lecturer
contradicts this and points out that it is true that agriculture could
affect
birds'
numbers,
but
in the US,
people
stated to cultivate
less
and
less
land. The speaker
adds
that
people
now
cultivate new crops that
use
less
land and give more harvests.
Third, the reading posits that using
pesticides
in agriculture could poison
birds
.
Conversely
, the listening contradicts this and contends that the point about
pesticides
is incorrect. The
lecturer
explains
that
people
started
to be aware of pesticides' consequences,
so
they follow two strategies.
First
,
people
use
new much
less
toxic
pesticides
.
Secondly
, the professor
adds
people
cultivate pests resistant crops, which do not need
pesticides
. The
lecturer
adds
that these crops could not harm
birds
at all.