Passage III

Life at Emiquon

Near Springfield, Illinois, and about 165 miles southwest of Chicago, egrets dive into still water, minks run through tall bluestem grasses, and on waxy lily pads frogs sit. The habitat of these animals, an expanse of algae-rich marshes and shallow lakes on the floodplain of the Illinois River, did not exist a few years ago. But endless rows of corn have become Emiquon Preserve, one of the largest and most successful wetlands restoration projects in the world.

In the 1920s, water began to be pumped from this area, a vibrant wetland for thousands of years, to make way for the development of a massive farm. Levees were built to block runoff from the Illinois River and, nearby prairies and hardwood forests were cleared. Even so, having lost their habitat, the wildlife that had thrived in the wetlands and surrounding areas disappeared.

The Nature Conservancy, convinced that the area’s wetland ecosystem could be restored, bought the 7,000-acre property in 2000. By gradually shutting off the water pumps and removing the levees, as the ecologists would allow the area to flood. The area’s original water levels, they predicted; would return in about three years. And once the water returned, so would the plant and animal life.

Within two years, many native plants that had lain dormant for decades reappeared, and, today, cattails and American lotus flourishes in the shallows. Ecologists had to intervene to reintroduce native fish, but within five years, several species were spawning in the floodwaters. Above 200 species of birds, including wetland, prairie, and woodland dwellers, have returned to the muddy shoals.

A visitor to Emiquon might notice a popular bird-watching area is impermeable because of flooding, or a walking trail is impassible due to thick mud. (44) The Nature Conservancy stresses that from now on, the shifting waters of the Illinois River and the activities of plants and animals—not human interests—will be what shape these wetlands that have recently been reestablished, the Nature Conservancy asserts.

41. Given that all the choices are accurate, which one most clearly suggests that restoring native fish at Emiquon was a more hands-on process than restoring native plants?

Answer and Explanation

Your Answer is

Correct Answer is A

Explanation

Hands-on is hands-on, practical. The question asked us to choose a project that can reflect that "recovery of native fish is more hands-on than restoration of native plants".

Item B: had caused native fish to disappear expression The disappearance of fish is not restored, so it is excluded;

Item C: biologists knew that... only reflects that biologists realized The specific species of fish that have disappeared have nothing to do with recovery and should also be excluded;

Item D: It is mentioned that biologists realize that fish are sensitive to the environment. This content has nothing to do with recovery and should still be excluded.

Only in option A, ecologists had to intervene reflects that hands-on intervention is associated with hands-on; to reintroduce native fish reflects the need to restore local fish. Therefore, option A best meets the requirements of the question stem.