The professor casts doubt on this by explaining that the new opportunities for the small trees to grow that are the ideal for the little animals such as rabbits and this make the food chains more strong. Second, the author asserts the decline in the food chains as a result of the burning of the small animals who did not have a chance to escape from the fire and the corresponding effect on the large animals like deer. He says this enhance the opportunity of growing and replacing the damage plants with the new species and also benefits to the seeds which have new land to grow and spread. While the speaker encounters this points by telling that the fire is creative and not the only damage and there are the good things that may result after a fire such as the vegetations became more diverse. On the other hand, the professor counters these specific points and presents clues to call into the information the passage, He refuses each of the author’s reasons.įirst, the reader addresses the disaster damage that happened in the Yellow park to the trees and vegetations together especially the small trees. And the necessity of replacing the let it burn policy with the extinguishing of the forest fire as soon as it happens. The reader claims the three possible theories that discuss the massive effect of the fire, that occurred in the Yellow stone bark in 1988.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |