Thomas Bender
Mr. Ippolito
Biology
Current event
24 October 2016
Carpenter, Murray. "Taking Down Dams and Letting the Fish Flow." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2016. Web. 24 Oct. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/science/penobscot-river-maine-dam-removal-fish.html?_r=0>
Taking Down Dams and Letting Fish Flow
In the 1800’s the Penobscot river in Maine had been teeming with aquatic life such as herring, shad, and alewives. However, these wildlife species were soon evicted from the Penobscot river due to dams that had been built. Recently, these dams have been torn down and as a result of this, the wildlife is flourishing. Recently the aquatic creatures that had previously lived in the river have returned, and many of them are using it as a new spawning ground. This has lead to a large increase in the population of local aquatic animals and terrestrial animals due to the new spawning grounds and new food sources. Now “nearly 8,000 shad have swum upstream this year”. It is migrations like this that are rebuilding the ecosystem of the Penobscot river.
As occurrences such as this keep happening, where people take away obstacles and unimpeded habitats, to find the ecosystem rebounding and all life in the vicinity flourishing. it is starting to be hard to imagine just how environmentally inconsiderate previous generations have been. It is also important to ask what negative things current generations are doing to the environment, and how such things could be reversed or reduced.
Overall this article was great. It made clear sense and backed up all of its points with evidence. However, the article did not refer to the purpose of the dams and why they had been built in the first place. It also does not enough talk about the negative effect of the dam on the local ecosystem. These issues could have been fixed by adding in a few sentences about each point.
Tommy did an excellent review of the article, “Taking Down Dams and Letting the Fish Flow”, with three things in particular standing out as very good. First of all, he did a very good job summarizing the article. He used just enough detail for the reader to fully understand the content of the article, without it being too overwhelming. Secondly, he used quotes from the article to back his points and summary. This confirms the validity and accuracy of his statements. Finally, the questions he poses to younger generations are an excellent addition to his review, as it allows for the reader to really reflect on the problems stated within the article.
ReplyDeleteDespite these great aspects of the review, there are two things that can be improved upon to make it even better. First of all, there a few grammatical errors that could be fixed and the sentence structure can be confusing. For example, the way the first sentence of the second paragraph is phrased is a slightly difficult to understand. Secondly, more detail could be added to the second paragraph. Some great points are made, but if Tommy talked more about the negative impact our generation has on the environment, the review would be more powerful.
Overall, this is a great review, and was very interesting to read. I never knew how big of an impact dams could have on an entire aquatic population, and it was fascinating to read how quickly the wildlife rebounded once the dam was torn down.
Andres Saralegui
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio 10
12 November 2016
Citation/Hyperlink given in report:
Carpenter, Murray. "Taking Down Dams and Letting the Fish Flow." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2016. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
My classmate Tommy Bender wrote a current event article on “Taking Down Dams and Letting the Fish Flow” by Murray Carpenter. This article discusses the surge in wildlife after the extermination of dams in the Penobscot River in Maine. Tommy starts off his current event with giving the reader a quote from the article stating that nearly 8,000 scad are now found in Penobscot River, giving the readers valid information. Tommy continues to explain how migrations of wildlife is rebuilding the ecosystem of Penobscot River, filling me in on how great of a decision it was to take down the dams. The questions he poses to younger audiences later in the assignment are an excellent addition to his review, as it allows for the reader to really reflect on the problems stated within the article.
One element Tommy could have used to improve his current event article is giving the credit to who said the quote stated in the paper, without credit the reader won't know who said the fact. Another element Tommy could have improved on is the amount of detail put into the first paragraph, Tommy should have stated certain species that had previously lived and came back due to the destruction of the dam instead of just stating “aquatic creatures”.
In conclusion, I thought this article was very intriguing and I was surprised to read that dams can cause wildlife to dwindle in a certain area. Now I have a slightly different opinion on dams!
Sarah Whitney
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology
Current Event
13 November 2016
My classmate, Thomas Bender, wrote a review on the article “Taking Down Dams and Letting the Fish Flow." There were three attributes that stood out to me while reading this review. First, he summarized the article in a way that the reader easily understand the outcomes and the information was constant. Next, I think it was good for Thomas to point out that the article didn’t mention the “negative things current generations are doing to the environment”. This would be a good thing for the original author to include because it can prove that humans are part of the problem for aquatic life, not just dams. Lastly, it was good that the author pointed out that the article didn’t say why the dams were built in the first place, the reader doesn’t even know if these dams are even manmade.
Though there were many positive aspects, there are two things that can be improved upon. First, there was only one quote from the article. I believe there should be a few throughout the review to give credit to facts found by the original author. Also, Thomas says, “As occurrences such as this keep happening, where people take away obstacles and unimpeded habitats” I believe that he could give examples of other occurrences to prove the point being made.
Overall, this was a great review that made me believe that dams that could cause harm to aquatic life shouldn’t be built and/or taken down. I was surprised that taking down a dam could have such an impact on wildlife and it was interesting how wildlife began to flourish after the fish and animals were given time.
After reading Tommy’s response to an article titled, "Taking Down Dams and Letting the Fish Flow,” I learned a lot about how dams are not good for many river ecosystems and this is because of many positive attributes that went into the writing of this article. One of the things that makes this response thorough is its use of quotes to support evidence. In addition, Tommy addressed many of the experts who backed this research up. This included Professor Leeman from the University of Arizona who found that salmon could not reproduce in some rivers because rivers were blocked by dams. Finally, Tommy gives a large amount of context so that readers can better understand the subject that is being talked about in this article.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe that this response was written thoroughly, there are some minor flaws that can be addressed. There are a few punctual errors around some of the quotations which are minor, but can be fixed. In addition, I found that the use of quotes could sometimes be out of place, and a bit random when placed in the response. Regardless, this response is still very thorough as it informs the reader about the article and what the article could have done better.
From reading this response, I learned the many hazards that dams and other ways of blocking the flow of rivers can have against ecosystems in a river. Before the creation of a dam, the makers of said dam should consider the impact it will have on the environment, and if it is worth the price against the environment.