The reading and the listening are both about strategies that protect the bat species from being threatened by the white-nose syndrome (WNS) fungus. The author of the reading argues that there are effective methods to remove the spread of the fungus. The lecturer contradicts the claims made in the reading passage. She maintains that the proposed methods cannot be implemented.
To begin with, the author states that it is effective to increase the level of the acidity in bat habitats. On the other hand, the lecturer points out that acidic fertilizers do not halt the growth of some WNS-causing fungus. She observes that a study showed that certain fungus can survive in the high level of the acidity. Furthermore, she elaborates on this by mentioning that it is impossible to increase and sustain the acidity in all of the bat habitats.
Second, according to the reading, antifungal treatments stop the WNS fungus from thriving in caves. However, the lecturer criticizes the impact of the drug on the ecosystem. She is of the opinion that the drug kills not only fungus but also other species such as bacteria which are beneficial for the cave environment. She puts forth the idea that the antifungal drugs are dangerous to a variety of creatures including bats.
The final point made by the author is that artificial habitats can solve the WNS problem. The lecturer casts doubt on this by arguing that as there are millions of bats across the country, it is impossible to capture all of them and construct enough habitats for them. Moreover, she notes that it makes bats more vulnerable to the fungus once they return to the nature once again.
To sum up, the lecturer challenges the assertion of the reading passage that the risk of the WNS fungus to bat population can be resolved by different methods.