The purpose of these reserves is to preserve habitat, including vegetation. And if global warming occurs as predicted, the regions in which different vegetation can grow will shift as temperature bands change. This means eventually protected vegetation will no longer be able to grow in the designated reserve areas, so the reserves will fail in their purpose of providing habitat.

The stimulus doesn't provide any information about monarch butterfly migration past using monarchs as an example of a species that benefits from reserves. Because it doesn't say anything about monarchs' migration patterns, the stimulus can't support a claim about those patterns.

Polar ice and sea levels are never mentioned in the stimulus, so we can't make specific inferences about them. The only effect of global warming that the stimulus mentions is on vegetation temperature bands. (C) goes too far into a topic the stimulus doesn't address, so (C) isn't supported.

Like (B) and (C), (D) makes a claim about something that doesn't appear in the stimulus, so it isn't supported. The stimulus doesn't contain any information about past warming and cooling cycles, so can't support a specific claim on that topic.

(E) starts off looking plausible, talking about global warming and species having to move, but the specific claim about agricultural land is not supported. It just goes beyond the information in the stimulus, which never mentions agricultural land.