What are the speakers mainly discussing? [br] What does the professor say about

游客2024-01-02  24

问题 What are the speakers mainly discussing? [br] What does the professor say about the corn and soybean plants that were used in the experiment?
Listen to part of a lecture in a plant ecology class. (P = Professor, M = Male Student, F = Female Student)
P: Last class we began talking about a herbicide, a weed killer that’s been important for farmers. It was developed in the 1970s and is the most widely used method by farmers for killing weeds in the United States. I’m talking of course about glyphosate. Now, remember, we said glyphosate works by interfering with the synthesis of certain amino acids in weeds, and when it was first introduced, glyphosate was considered a miracle chemical. That’s because it was a wide spectrum herbicide, meaning it killed a wide range, a large variety of weeds. It was safe for farmers to work with it and it wasn’t toxic to cows or other farm animals. And because it broke down quickly after it was applied, when it decomposed, its environmental cost was pretty low. Researchers have developed crops, genetically engineered crops that aren’t damaged by glyphosate, while the herbicide kills the surrounding weeds. But what do you think happens with these weeds after a while? Jim?
M: Well, I mean weeds evolved so they must eventually become resistant to the weed killer.
P: Yeah. And that’s what’s happening with glyphosate. In over 20 states in the United States we have unwanted plants, weeds that can now tolerate many herbicides including glyphosate. They are known as super weeds and they are real threat to agriculture. For one thing they threaten to make minimum till farming impossible. Minimum till farming is a common plowing method that doesn’t affect deeper layers of soil. Just upper layers. It’s an environmentally conscious method because it helps conserve organic matter in soil and cuts back on soil erosion. But one disadvantage of this method is that it tends to allow grass, weeds, to germinate more easily. So without an effective herbicide, minimum till farmers end up spending a lot of time trying to get rid of super weeds, sometimes even by going in and manually pulling the weeds out of their fields.
F: Huh, weeding like that might work in a small garden, but we must be talking about millions of acres of land here.
P: Exactly. It’s highly inefficient. So finding an alternative to glyphosate is really an urgent issue. And a recent research study shows a promising potential way to do this. The researcher’s goal, rather than developing new herbicides, was to find new ways to engineer crops that are resistant to existing herbicides, so the crops grow unharmed while herbicides get rid of super weeds. The researcher’s breakthrough came when they identified two bacterial enzymes that can help protect some plants from some herbicides. Well, more specifically they figured out how to use these two bacterial enzymes to engineer corn and soybean plants so that they are resistant to a herbicide called 2,4-D.
F: 2,4-D. It is the name of the herbicide?
P: Yes. An unusual name, right? 2,4-D is a very commonly used weed killer worldwide. It’s used frequently to control dandelions. Now I mentioned earlier that glyphosate targets amino acid synthesis. We don’t need to get into this specific of these processes, but 2,4-D is a hormone regulator so it works differently. And because 2,4-D works in a different way from glyphosate, it’d be an ideal herbicide to use on super weeds that are now resistant to glyphosate. So when researchers pinpointed the bacterial enzymes that resist 2,4-D, they went ahead and engineered the corn plant to produce one of those enzymes and the soybean plant to produce the other.
M: How?
P: Well, they use pretty sophisticated techniques involving plant seeds. They manipulate the seeds with the enzymes, so the plants will eventually grow to be resistant to 2,4-D. So after growing these corn and soybean plants, the researchers tested them by treating them with 2,4-D both in greenhouses and in fields. They’re done that no matter what the condition, the plants were highly resistant to the herbicide. None of the usual effects of treatment were exhibited, malformation or lower yield, meaning lower production of corn or soybeans. This is promising because if we can get the right crop plants to be sort of immune to 2,4-D, that means that 2,4-D could be used as a weed killer to get rid of the super weeds that would otherwise try to grow around them, which would solve the super weed problem for now, anyway. But let’s not forget what Jim pointed out before.
M: Weeds evolve?
P: Exactly.

选项 A、They were treated with 2,4-D in fields, but not in greenhouses.
B、They were less productive than the researchers had expected them to be.
C、They were manipulated to produce protective bacterial enzymes.
D、They were selected for the experiment because they are more easily damaged by 2,4-D than by glyphosate.

答案 C

解析 题目询问教授提到了实验中的玉米和大豆的什么信息。教授先是提到了研究人员发现了两种可以抵抗2,4-二氯苯氧乙酸的细菌酶,接着又说他们对玉米和大豆进行了基因改造,使玉米和大豆产生这些细菌酶,对应C项。教授提到,研究人员在温室和田间都对它们进行了测试,A项错误。教授提到,没有出现任何畸形或低产的不良情况,B项错误。D项“它们被选来做实验是因为,相对于草甘膦来说,它们更容易被2,4-二氧苯氧乙酸破坏”没有依据。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3327486.html
最新回复(0)