Native to Europe and Asia cheatgrass is an invasive species of grass that is causing problems in North American fields The plant quickly dominates fields that it has invaded and drives out other plants This can cause among other problems severe damage to

Essay topics:

Native to Europe and Asia, cheatgrass is an invasive species of grass that is causing problems in North American fields. The plant quickly dominates fields that it has invaded and drives out other plants. This can cause, among other problems, severe damage to animal habitats and to scenic areas. Several solutions to the Cheatgrass problem have been proposed by ecologists. One option is to encourage animals such as cattle to feed on cheatgrass. Cattle and other livestock are known as grazers because they graze, or eat. small portions of grass or other plants throughout the day. If grazers were released in fields where cheatgrass is prevalent, the cheatgrass would be reduced That would create room for native species to reestablish themselves and flourish. This plan is appealing because cheatgrass is most prevalent in areas of North America where cattle and other livestock are raised. Another option is to burn the cheatgrass off the fields with controlled fires. This plan has the advantage of eliminating vast amounts of cheatgrass in a short time Cheatgrass, it turns out? is a highly flammable plant: it burns much more easily than the native plant species that have been crowded out. Strategically set fires could bum away the cheatgrass where it has come to dominate, creating space so the newly cleared fields could be reseeded with native grasses and other plants. Still another option is to introduce a fungal parasite that specifically attacks cheatgrass. In Europe and Asia, where cheatgrass is a native species, there is a species of fungus that has the ability to prevent cheatgrass from reproducing. Introducing this fungus in North American fields where cheatgrass has proliferated could slow the spread of cheatgrass, making it possible for native species to better compete against cheatgrass.

Both the reading and the listening discuss about the cheat grass. The author states that ecologists have presented many solution to the challenges caused by the Cheatgrass. However, the professor refutes this claim by saying that those methods proposed by the ecologists are likely to be ineffective and attacks each of the points made in the reading.
To begin with, the writer avers that grazers will reduce the number of the cheat grass in the field by eating them. This specific argument is challenge by the lecturer. He contends that the Cheatgrass is not that appealing to the grazers, there are other grasses which the Cheatgrass will prefer to consume first before the cheat grass. Moreover, it could be the grass that the grazers are expected to protect from the Cheatgrass. Thus, eventually defeating its purpose.
Secondly, the reading mentions that the introduction of a controlled fire in the field will destroy large number of the Cheatgrass, creating space for the native grass to grow. Nevertheless, the speaker opposes this claim by revealing that the fire will only eliminate the Cheatgrass on the surface. He goes on to say that the cheatgrass produces multiple seeds which can be buried underground. Those seeds buried under the ground can grow after the fire must have stopped.
Lastly, the author posits that introducing fungus will lower the spread of the Cheatgrass, thereby improving the chances of the native species to compete with the Cheatgrass. On the other hand, the professor contradicts this notion by pointing out that the fungus and the Cheatgrass have lived together for several years. This enabled the Cheatgrass to develop some resistance against the fungus. He explains that the fungus are only effective to the weak Cheatgrass, healthy Cheatgrass will not be harm at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that this method will work.

Votes
Average: 7.8 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2024-01-06 saba.es 81 view
2023-07-26 nusybah 66 view
2023-02-27 zaid 78 view
2023-01-17 janfaisal 70 view
2023-01-05 HSNDEK 75 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user Sommy2021 :

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 116, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun solution seems to be countable; consider using: 'many solutions'.
Suggestion: many solutions
...r states that ecologists have presented many solution to the challenges caused by the cheatgr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, to begin with, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1564.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12786885246 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60606449614 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518032786885 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.9392515757 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.0 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9411764706 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23529411765 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188772432461 0.272083759551 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.05942789706 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0364616565956 0.0662205650399 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111104362496 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0267014998014 0.0443174109184 60% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.