Insects are disappearing. The world has 25 per cent fewer terrestrial insects now than in 1990. This includes those we rely on to pollinate our crops and clean our rivers. If we don’t solve this problem very soon, some species will disappear.
There are many causes for the insect decline, but insecticides (杀虫剂) are a major part of the problem. Those used today are longer lasting and up to 10,000 times more toxic than some that were banned in the 1970s. Adding to the problem is that these pesticides are now applied to crops prophylactically (预防地) and used whether pests are present or not.
Overall, the amount of pesticide applied to the land is decreasing, but this is a grossly misleading statistic. A recent paper found that, between 2005 and 2015, there was a 40 per cent reduction in the amount of pesticide applied to crops measured by weight. But because modern insecticides are so much more toxic, the global toxicity of treated land to pollinating insects has more than doubled in the same period.
Governments and regulating agencies are aware of the problem, and some parts of the world have moved to ban the use of certain insecticides outdoors in an attempt to help bees survive. But the pesticides used instead are just as toxic.
One often-touted approach is to use pesticide-free pest control methods. These varied techniques are gathered under the name of integrated pest management (IPM) and have been around for decades. They offer effective crop protection and include methods such as crop rotation and the use of natural predators. But their adoption has been incredibly slow, because spraying pesticides is viewed as an easier option. As a result, IPM methods are unfortunately seldom used today
Neither changing insecticides nor shifting to IPM is a quick fix. We argue instead that we need a subtle shift in focus, away from killing pests and towards protecting crops.
By using the minimal dose we need to protect crops, we could reduce the amount of insecticide to a fraction of what is used today. Farmers would benefit from these changes. They would spend less money on pesticides and improve crop production by keeping health pollinator insects about. Reducing insecticide doses won’t solve the insect decline problem but it is a move that could win us time to make food production more sustainable and reconcile (使和谐) farmlands and the natural ecosystems we crucially depend on. And that will allow insects to recover.
【小题1】According to the passage, which of the statements is NOT true about the insect decline?A.Currently-used pesticides are much more toxic than before. |
B.Pesticides have played a key role in reducing the number of insects. |
C.The amount of pesticides used is much more than before. |
D.The toxicity in pesticides lasts longer than before. |
A.Broadly-publicized. | B.Recently-created. |
C.Frequently-criticized. | D.Generally-proved. |
A.To protect crops rather than killing out insects. |
B.To raise large-scale natural predators of insects. |
C.To search and develop new pesticides. |
D.To shift to the IPM pesticide-controlling method. |
A.Insects control — there is still a long way to go |
B.Insects decline! Take measures right now |
C.New findings in the field of insects control |
D.Shift in pesticide use could help insects recover |
There is an English saying:“
Tests were carried out to study the effects of laughter on the body. People watched funny films while doctors checked their hearts, blood pressure, breathing and muscles. It was found that laughter has similar effects to physical exercise.
Other tests have shown that laughter appears to be able to reduce the effect of pain on the body. In one experiment doctors produced pain in groups of students who listened to different radio programs. The group that tolerated(忍耐) the pain for the longest time was the group which listened to a funny program.
A.Laughter is the best medicine. |
B.The reason why laughter can reduce pain seems to be that it helps to produce a kind of chemicals in the brain which diminish both stress and pain. |
C.Although laughter helps cure the disease, doctors still can not put this theory into clinic practice. |
D.Laughter can prolong one's life. |
E.As a result of these discoveries, some doctors in the United States now hold laughter clinics in which they help to improve their patients' condition by encouraging them to laugh. |
F.They have found that laughter really can improve people's health. |
G.It increases blood pressure, the heart beating and breathing;it also works several groups of muscles in the face, the stomach and even the feet. |
When you were at school, were you ever told to stop daydreaming and concentrate? It was easy for your mind to wander if you weren’t interested in what you were learning or if you had better things to think about.
Scientists have looked at what makes us delay and found a number of ways to help us stay in the zone.
But according to Science Focus magazine, distraction isn’t all bad. “If we were always so focused that we never got distracted, we’d miss potential changes, such as threats, in our environment.
A.Distraction is vital for survival. |
B.Staying focused can avoid dangers. |
C.Performing visual tasks makes us concentrate. |
D.One of the most obvious things is removing noise. |
E.Staying focused can still be a challenge in adult life. |
F.There are more practical tips to keeping your mind focused. |
G.Another possible cure for a short attention duration is brain training. |
Having friends is obviously good for countless reasons. And showing the world that you have lots of friends, for example on social media, seems like a winning strategy. If that is the truth, your goal is to expand your social network. Once people see how popular you are, they'll want to join that popular circle, perhaps in the hope that some of your popularity will rub off on them.
Nevertheless, can a person even have too many friends at the same time? It’s always been a misconception that if you have more friends, people will be more likely to want to be friends you.
In fact, a new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology shows that having too many friends may work against you. In a series of experiments. the authors prove that people usually prefer to befriend those who have fewer friends than they do, rather than those with more friends. The authors call this phenomenon the “friend-number paradox(悖论)”, which is also the title of their new paper.
Social ties are obviously important. Having more of these connections suggests greater social value, and more potential possibilities. So it seems reasonable to assume that people will focus their social energies on befriending people who have lots of friends already.
But the problem is that these social ties are only valuable if there’s reciprocity(互惠) involved. Friendship goes hand in hand with certain responsibilities and expectations. And people with lots of friends may not be able to fulfill those responsibilities—especially those with too many friends.
In other words, “friendship quality” matters as much, if not more, than only the number of friends you have. Having lots of friends means your precious social resources become dilute (稀释了的), making you less able to be a good friend. And other people take that into account consciously(有意识地)or unconsciously when deciding whether to befriend you. They don’t want to spend their valuable social resources on someone who is unlikely to pay it back.
【小题1】What do the underlined words “rub off on” in paragraph l mean?A.Look forward to. | B.Take control of. |
C.Hold on to. | D.Have an effect on. |
A.The secrets to becoming popular. |
B.The ways of winning more friends. |
C.The advantages of having many friends. |
D.The problems with having many friends. |
A.They may fail to perform their duties. |
B.They don’t know about reciprocity. |
C.They are more likely to be good friends. |
D.They have more precious social resources. |
A.How Do People Choose Their Friends? |
B.More Friends Are Not Necessarily Better |
C.Why Do People Like Having More Friends? |
D.People With More Friends Are More Popular |
组卷网是一个信息分享及获取的平台,不能确保所有知识产权权属清晰,如您发现相关试题侵犯您的合法权益,请联系组卷网