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.
the reading introduces cheatgrass, a type of grass that invades and drives out other species of plants at a fast pace. The author proposes three solutions to control and destroy this specie. However, the professor argues against these suggestions pointing out that it's unlikely for them to be effective.
First, the reading claims that by releasing grazers in fields, which cheatgrass is prevelant, the grazers would consume the cheatgrass, allowing for other species to flourish. The professor refutes this notion explaining that grazers don't prefer cheatgrass. Hence, the grazers will mostly eat the native species rather than the cheatgrass, leading to fewer amount of native plants.
Second, the passage states that by burning the cheatgrass with fire we can get rid of the invasive species and then plant other plants instead of them. But, the lecturer explains that this solution may work for plants on the surface of the ground but it wont be effective for seeds that are under ground therefore, protected from the fire. He states that the cheatgrass can regrow and germinate using the surviving seeds years later.
Third, The article proposes that by using a type of fungus effective against cheatgrass the species can be controlled allowing the native species to prosper. The professor argues against this point stating that cheatgrass is somewhat resistant to the fungus so only the weak grasses are affected by the fungus and the healthy cheatgrass survive even in the presence of this parasite. Therefore, this solution is not efficient as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
the reading introduces cheatgrass, a type o...
^^^
Line 2, column 234, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...tes this notion explaining that grazers dont prefer cheatgrass. Hence, the grazers w...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, may, second, so, then, therefore, third, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1310.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21912350598 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5322102395 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.549800796813 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 379.8 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.6763832777 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.166666667 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9166666667 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.08333333333 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241393850148 0.272083759551 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.092241978582 0.0996497079465 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0740640677515 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150310988986 0.162205337803 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280890084435 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25 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.