복원 생태학자와의 인터뷰

태도, 의견, 추론

1. c) That restoration consists mainly of planting그녀는 처음 4년 동안은 거의 심지 않았고 주로 배수 시설을 없앴다고 말합니다.
2. a) Seeds that had been dormant in the soil began to grow그녀는 씨앗이 수십 년 동안 휴면 상태로 있다가 땅이 다시 젖자 자라났다고 말합니다.
3. d) Fertiliser helped a few aggressive reeds crowd out other plants비료가 공격적인 갈대에게 유리하게 작용했고, 갈대가 다른 종들을 밀어냈습니다.
4. b) They found the strips also protected their own soil그녀는 아무도 강요받지 않았고, 그 완충 구간이 자기 밭의 토양 유실을 줄여 준다는 것을 보고 대부분이 동의했다고 말합니다.
5. c) They are useful but can give a misleading impression그녀는 종의 증가가 사실이지만 새는 다른 곳에서 날아오기 때문에 오해를 불러일으킬 수 있다고 말합니다.
6. a) It persuaded doubters more effectively than written evidence마을이 마른 상태로 유지된 것이 어떤 보고서보다 회의적인 사람들을 설득하는 데 더 큰 효과가 있었습니다.
7. d) It made local people feel the project belonged to them가족들이 왜가리를 볼 수 있게 되자 이 사업은 그녀의 것이 아니라 그들의 것이 되었습니다.
8. b) Not collecting local people's knowledge earlier그녀는 식물에 관한 자료는 보관했지만 지역 주민들이 기억하는 것에 관한 자료는 거의 없었고, 일부 지식이 사라졌다고 말합니다.

세부 내용 듣기

1. eleven / 11진행자는 그녀가 이 사업에 11년을 보냈다고 말합니다.
2. four / 4그녀는 처음 4년 동안은 거의 심지 않았다고 말합니다.
3. forty-three / forty three / 43그녀는 조류 종이 19종에서 43종으로 늘었다고 말합니다.
4. two / 2그녀는 2년 전 겨울에 폭우로 강이 둑을 넘었다고 말합니다.
5. herons그녀는 가족들이 직접 와서 왜가리를 볼 수 있다고 말합니다.
6. grass그 구간은 개울 둑을 따라 이어진 거친 풀밭이었습니다.

Presenter: My guest today is Marisol Teixeira, a restoration ecologist who has spent eleven years bringing a drained river marsh back to life. Marisol, when people hear the word restoration, they picture planting. Is that the whole story?

Marisol: Far from it. In fact, our first four years involved hardly any planting at all. What we did was remove things. We blocked the drainage ditches and let the water return. Seeds had been lying dormant in the soil for decades, and once the ground was wet again, plants that nobody had seen since my grandmother's time simply reappeared.

Presenter: That sounds almost too easy.

Marisol: It would have been, had the water been clean. But the farmland upstream was washing fertiliser into the marsh, and that favoured a few aggressive reeds, which crowded out everything else. So we negotiated with the farmers to leave a strip of rough grass along the stream banks. Nobody was forced, and most agreed once they saw that the strip also reduced soil loss from their own fields.

Presenter: How do you know the project has worked? What counts as success?

Marisol: That's the hardest question, and I'd distrust anyone who gives a quick answer. We count bird species, which have risen from nineteen to forty-three, but birds can be misleading, because they fly in from elsewhere. I'm more reassured by the insects and the water quality, which respond to what's happening on the spot. And honestly, the real test is whether it still works after a flood.

Presenter: And has it been tested?

Marisol: Two winters ago, heavy rain pushed the river over its banks. The marsh absorbed so much of the water that the village downstream stayed dry, which, frankly, did more to win over the sceptics than any report I could have written.

Presenter: Were there people who opposed it?

Marisol: Plenty, at first. Some saw it as land going to waste. What changed minds wasn't an argument. It was the walking path. Once families could come and watch herons for themselves, the project stopped being mine and became theirs.

Presenter: If you could do it again, what would you change?

Marisol: I'd have started recording people's memories sooner. We kept careful data on plants, but almost none on what local people remembered of the old marsh, and some of the best guidance came from an elderly neighbour who recalled where the water used to pool. A great deal of knowledge was lost simply because we didn't think to ask.