一、主旨：

Deer mice是否能在森林大火后的环境中得利

二、段落大意

有些人说火灾后的森林环境对Deer mice 很有利，因为大火把土表烧光了所以牠们可以吃到深埋在地底下的种子，还说牠们会繁衍的更多更好。

有提到Deer mice 的竞争者，但是作者是反对前面这些说法的，因为研究上的数据显示，火灾后的森林环境对于Deer mice 的生存并没有明显的正面影响，Deer mice 的族群大小其实在普通的环境中与在火灾后的森林里并没有甚么太大的差别

题1：有问到Deer mice 的predator 可能会如何如何反应

题2：有问到那些埋土里的种子对Deer mice 可能有的好处

3新西兰老鼠

【主题思路】：

通过carbon date研究确定新西兰人的出现-〉新研究(新实验)否定出现时间->环境破坏为气候所致而非人类所导致

通过用carbon date技术的研究来确定新西兰人类出现的时间，以来确定环境的破坏时否为人类导致

【生僻单词】

deforest:动词毁掉…的森林;砍伐…的林木

【段落大意】：

第一段：针对某项关于人类出现的实验提出质疑

历史上有人认为人们到达新西兰不是特别早，然后最近人们通过carbon date老鼠的骨头发现其实公元2000年前人就来了。说到CD的不好的地方，需要的样本大，而且不够precise。

争论纽西兰什么时候开始有人居住。一开始有科学家从老鼠的骨骼化验中(用carbon dating技术追溯到那么久)推出在公元前2000年就有人把老鼠带到了纽西兰。但是由于后一种说法一直没有一个确切的考古发现(errors added in the lab)，所以受到反对者的批判。然后说因为没有任何其他证据可以表明XX人arrive so early, 所以这个数据的得出一定是实验中出了问题。

第二段：新研究表明人类没有那么早出现(新carbon dating技术)

Recently，某team科学家O用更好的carbondating技术去研究the rat bone found in the same site of 1996 (同一地点，但不是同一个sample，此处有选项)，但结果发现是从12世纪末才有人到纽西兰，所以说明了之前那个实验的确有问题。In addition, 他们还发现了the oldest site有一些种子是4000年前的，但是那些有一些有老鼠咬痕的咬痕都是1280年的。然后接下来又说因为证据表明XX人没那么早出现，所以他们引起的什么森林退化啊物种灭绝啊也没那么早开始。

第三段：提出观点说气候变化为破坏的主要根源，而非人类的出现

最后一段说气候和生态变化的罪魁祸首要重新判定。反驳之前有人说人类在AD300去了之后导致了鸟和frog的灭绝。实验很重要，确定了关于人类和老鼠的出现所造成的破坏(破坏森林，而且老鼠还导致了几种鸟类的灭亡)的时间应该是十三世纪之后/ 这个结果devastate在新西兰人类对环境的影响，deforesting…并没有那么早开始…Deforestation 不是在2000年前开始的，而是在600年前才开始的。

第四段：对人类是否影响环境做进一步说明

(有狗主补充文章有4段，并进行了补充)讲了因为DrWilmshurst的研究可以得知新西兰的deforestation等一系列环境问题是在近六百年才受人类影响的，而非以前认为的2000多年。这段很重要，加了以后文章主旨略有改变，而且有题。

【题目】：

※题目：

1)主旨题

V1 我选的是证明说人类最早出现在BC200的那个(from考古)

V2说明了一个研究,并且用这个研究去反对前面研究的结果(from考古)

V3 provide evidence that....

V3狗主解释：大意就是说之前的那个说法有问题,但是重点在解释evidence上，所以我选了这个

2)有一题考的是第三段中的research说明一下哪个是对的

3) 有一题目是说最后一段(第三段)的作用

我选的是这个研究结果对其他领域研究的影响

4)还有题说怎样能使某team的说法不成立

我选的是那些种子上的咬痕是别的动物的…(不确定)

5)还有题问哪个是正确的

A 某team research 很surprise地发现是1280年的(错，因为和之前research相符)

B 某team 的sample和96年的是一致的

C 96年的research 没看到4000年的种子作为证据…(有可能是另外题里的…)

6)有道推断题

我选的是生态系统改变是人类活动和其它因素(本月V31狗主)

狗主解释：因为题目中有说rat使很多物种灭绝

还有个选项是defrostation是几种鸟类的灭绝导致的

7)从老鼠咬痕证明新西兰人是AD1200年以后出现的，而不是BC200.考题。/文章最后一段是说，人类最早出现在AD1200-1300的证据说明deforest一系列生态现象的发生不是2000年前，而是600年前，这句话有考题/第二段说谁在哪儿发现了rat的骨头还是化石好像，总之最后说那个地方有人类有生物被污染是近600年的事(这是到考题)

8)好像是说第一段里面说这个实验有问题的人持什么观点。

有一个选项说他的结论是基于O科学家的研究结果。因为O的研究是recently的，而那个观点好像之前就出现了所以我没选。这题每个选项都很陷阱，要推敲一下。

9) 疑似Q5的选项之一:

某team用更好carbon dating的技术去研究the rat bone found in the same site of 1996 (同一地点，但不是同一个sample，此处有选项)

10) 还有道是根据文章可以推断以下那项是对的

就是根据文章细节具体选项我忘了，但是有什么humans beings 2000 years ago

11). 问第四段作用

说明人们以前对新西兰环境问题的看法不准确之类的。(V36狗主)

12). 通过最后一段可以对于于新西兰ecology的infer哪个是对的。

新西兰的环境问题是受人类和其他因素共同影响导致的。(本月720 V36狗主)

13). 我有考到问第一段的作用，看来这篇文章每一段起神马作用都本月考过一遍了啊…

题目

Q1. 主旨题

V1 我选的是证明说人类最早出现在BC200的那个(from考古)

V2说明了一个研究,并且用这个研究去反对前面研究的结果(from考古)

V3 provide evidence that....

V3狗主解释：大意就是说之前的那个说法有问题,但是重点在解释evidence上，所以我选了这个

Q2. 有一题考的是第三段中的research说明一下哪个是对的

Q3. 有一题目是说最后一段(第三段)的作用

我选的是这个研究结果对其他领域研究的影响

Q4. 还有题说怎样能使某team的说法不成立

我选的是那些种子上的咬痕是别的动物的…(不确定)

Q5. 还有题问哪个是正确的

A 某team research 很surprise地发现是1280年的(错，因为和之前research相符)

B 某team 的sample和96年的是一致的

C 96年的research 没看到4000年的种子作为证据…(有可能是另外题里的…)

Q6. 有道推断题

我选的是生态系统改变是人类活动和其它因素(本月V31狗主)

狗主解释：因为题目中有说rat使很多物种灭绝

还有个选项是defrostation是几种鸟类的灭绝导致的

Q7. 从老鼠咬痕证明新西兰人是AD1200年以后出现的，而不是BC200.考题。/文章最后一段是说，人类最早出现在AD1200-1300的证据说明deforest一系列生态现象的发生不是2000年前，而是600年前，这句话有考题/第二段说谁在哪儿发现了rat的骨头还是化石好像，总之最后说那个地方有人类有生物被污染是近600年的事(这是到考题)

Q8. 好像是说第一段里面说这个实验有问题的人持什么观点。

有一个选项说他的结论是基于O科学家的研究结果。因为O的研究是recently的，而那个观点好像之前就出现了所以我没选。这题每个选项都很陷阱，要推敲一下。

Q9. 疑似Q5的选项之一: 某team用更好carbondating的技术去研究the rat bone found in the same site of 1996 (同一地点，但不是同一个sample，此处有选项)

Q10. 还有一到是根据文章可以推断以下那项是对的

就是根据文章细节具体选项我忘了，但是有什么humans beings 2000 years ago

三、备注

文章不难，一会儿就能看完，题目也还好

【参考文章】

An international team of researchers, ledby Dr Janet Wilmshurst from Landcare Research, spent 4 years on the projectwhich shows conclusively that the earliest evidence for human colonisation isabout 1280-1300 AD, and no earlier. They based their results on new radiocarbondating of Pacific rat bones and rat-gnawed seeds. Their results do not supportprevious radiocarbon dating of Pacific rat bones which implied a much earlierhuman contact about 200 BC.

The original old rat bones dates have beenhotly debated ever since they were published in Nature in 1996. The ages arecontroversial because there is no supporting ecological or archaeologicalevidence for the presence of kiore or humans until 1280-1300 AD and thereliability of the bone dating has been questioned. This is the first time thatthe actual sites involved in the original study have been re-excavated andanalyzed.

DrWilmshurst and her team researchersre-excavated and re-dated bones from nearly all of the previously investigatedsites. All of their new radiocarbon dates on kiore bones are no older than 1280AD. This is consistent with other evidence from the oldest dated archaeologicalsites, Maori whakapapa, widespread forestclearance by fire and a decline in thepopulation of marine and land-based fauna. “As the Pacific rator kiore cannot swim very far, it can only have arrived in New Zealand withpeople on board their canoes, either as cargo or stowaways. Therefore, theearliest evidence of the Pacific rat in New Zealand must indicate the arrivalof people”DrWilmshurst said.

The dating of the rat bones was alsosupported by the dating of over a hundred woody seeds, many of which haddistinctive tell-tale rat bite marks, preserved in peat and swamp sites fromthe North and South Islands. “These rat-gnawed seeds provide strong additional evidence for thearrival of rats, and therefore humans, and are an indirect way of testing theveracity of the dates we have done on rat bones,”said Dr Tom Higham,Deputy Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at OxfordUniversity.

Rats leave rows of narrow grooves or bitemarks on woody seed cases when they gnaw open the seed, and these distinctiveteeth marks can be seen with the naked eye. “The width of theteeth marks left on the woody seeds exactly match those of a rat's two frontteeth, and cannot be mistaken for any other seed predator. We have dated over100 individual seeds, some rat-gnawed, others intact or bird-cracked, whichshow that rat gnawed seeds only occur in both the North and South Islands ofNew Zealand after about 1280 AD”, DrWilmshurst said.

With over 165 dates on seeds and bones froma large number of sites, the overwhelming evidence suggests that rats and theirhuman carriers did not reach New Zealand until about 1280 AD.

网友在cd上提供了背景知识链接

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fungi/ecosystems/prehistoric-settlement/human-arrival

Msmoon提供的补充阅读

Rodent Bones of Contention

Rats caught a free ride to New Zealand whenthey hopped aboardthe boats of early Polynesian explorers. Now, their ancientbonesmay help pinpoint when humans first set foot on the island.Carbon-datingof bones from the rodents indicates that peoplereached New Zealand around 1280or later, rejecting previousresearch that suggested humans may have landedthere more than 1400years earlier.

Although most anthropologists think thathumans first arrivedinNewZealand around 1250 to 1300, a minority holds thatpeople mighthave set foot on the island as early as 200 B.C.E. Thatconclusionis based on 1996 research that carbon-dated bones of rats, whicharethought to have been brought to New Zealand by humans either asstowaways or forfood. But this study has been controversialbecause there's no evidence of humansettlements at that time. Somecritics have suggested that the carbon dates weredue to a laberror in preparing the bones.

To help clear up the confusion, a team ledby Janet Wilmshurst,apaleoecologist at environmental research organizationLandcareResearch in Lincoln, New Zealand, used a different preparationtechniquethat is thought to be more accurate. The researchersobtained 17 bones from thetwo excavation sites where the oldestrat remains had been found. Carbon-datingwith the improved methodindicated that the new bones were from 1280 or later.When theresearchers tried the new technique on some of the bones fromtheprevious study, all of them dated to later than 1280, indicatingthat theearlier research was flawed. The researchersnextcarbon-dated ancient seeds thatthe rats had gnawed and that camefrom one of the excavation sites. The resultsgave a date of 1290or later, confirming that humans did not arrive until 1280at theearliest, the researchers report in the 3 June issue of theProceedings ofthe NationalAcademy of Sciences.

Ian Smith, an anthropologist at theUniversity of Otago in NewZealand, says the finding "provides convincingevidence against theassertion that either rats or people reached New Zealandprior tothe 13th century A.D." He adds that the later arrivalindicatesthat humans' devastating impact on New Zealand, which hasincludeddeforestation and the extinction of birds and marine mammals,happenedin only 600 years, versus more than 2000 years if theinitial bone dating hadbeen confirmed.

David Lowe, a soil scientist at theUniversity of WaikatoinHamilton, New Zealand, says the findings also indicatethat "thedestruction caused by the rats in New Zealand has beenpronouncedand very fast indeed." The rats wiped out severalspecies,including some birds and frogs. Wilmshurst adds that the speedofdestruction "makes the risk to currently decliningpopulationsofrat-sensitive species more pressing as they could bediminishingfaster than previously assumed."