如果這個(gè)世界沒(méi)有鯊魚(yú)

It's safe to say that most folks would be comfortable imagining a world without sharks. Whether you're a surfer who spends as much time scanning the waters for predators as looking for the next big rip curl or an ordinary beachgoer who's experienced the terror of sprinting to shore when a lifeguard goes heavy on the whistle, most of us would take to the seas with a little more ease knowing there aren't any hammerheads, blacktips or bull sharks patrolling the waters below. The truth is, however, that we need them more than we think.

可以說(shuō)，一個(gè)沒(méi)有鯊魚(yú)的世界會(huì)讓大多數(shù)人感到舒服。無(wú)論你是一個(gè)花費(fèi)大量時(shí)間在海上娛樂(lè)的沖浪愛(ài)好者還是一位嚴(yán)陣以待的救生員，當(dāng)你知道水面下沒(méi)有任何錘頭鯊、黑鰭鯊或者牛鯊時(shí)，你可能會(huì)更加安心一點(diǎn)。但事實(shí)上，我們比我們想象的更需要鯊魚(yú)。

Sharks killed 10 people in 2013. Humans, on the other hand, cull the shark population by somewhere from 30 million to 70 million each year. The steady decline in sharks appears to be having a devastating effect on the aquatic ecosystem that could wind all the way up to your dinner plate. That's because a lack of sharks throws off the food chain that's been a way of life under the sea for hundreds of millions of years.

2013年，在全世界范圍內(nèi)，鯊魚(yú)殺死了10人。但與此同時(shí)，人類每年殺戮的鯊魚(yú)數(shù)量從3000萬(wàn)增加到了7000萬(wàn)。鯊魚(yú)數(shù)量的穩(wěn)步下降會(huì)對(duì)水域生態(tài)系統(tǒng)造成毀滅性的影響，這種影響可能還會(huì)波及到你的晚餐。這一切都是因?yàn)轷忯~(yú)的缺席使得食物鏈?zhǔn)チ嗽镜淖饔?，而這些食物鏈已經(jīng)在海底存在了幾億年了。

Sharks are apex predators. That means the big ones are at the top of the seafood chain. They dine on smaller fish — like tuna — which in turn eat even smaller, bottom-feeding species — like scallops — that survive largely on algae. Without sharks to keep down the population, those algae-eaters are more likely to be swallowed up by their natural predators, who rise to the top of the chain with no one to hunt them. Absent the bottom-feeders, algae grow wild, damaging coral reefs and other vegetation, as well as clogging up fish gills and contaminating seafood and water .

鯊魚(yú)幾乎可以說(shuō)是頂級(jí)的捕食者了，它們處在海洋食物鏈的頂端，它們以稍小一點(diǎn)的魚(yú)類為食，比如金槍魚(yú)。而金槍魚(yú)又反過(guò)來(lái)吃那些更小的海洋生物，比如扇貝。扇貝幾乎算是食物鏈的底層了，它們主要靠海藻生存。如果沒(méi)有鯊魚(yú)來(lái)控制金槍魚(yú)的種群數(shù)量，這些金槍魚(yú)就會(huì)爬到食物鏈的頂端，那些底層食藻動(dòng)物的數(shù)量就會(huì)因?yàn)楸淮罅坎妒扯鴾p少。這樣一來(lái)，藻類就會(huì)瘋長(zhǎng)，從而破壞珊瑚礁和其他植被。與此同時(shí)，這些失控的藻類也會(huì)堵塞魚(yú)鰓、污染海水。

An ocean free of sharks would also change the way that other marine life moves around. Shark prey would no longer be forced into remote areas less conducive to living and reproducing. That's because they wouldn't have to constantly be looking over their shoulders to see if they're on the lunch menu .

如果海洋里沒(méi)有了鯊魚(yú)，其它海洋生物的棲息地也會(huì)被改變。鯊魚(yú)的獵物們將不再被迫進(jìn)入不利于生存和繁殖的偏遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)，因?yàn)樗鼈儾辉傩枰焯嵝牡跄憽?/p>

If that's not enough to convince you that sharks need to be here to stay, think about your own belly. Without sharks to help control the population underwater, midsize fish will be free to fatten themselves up on sea life that might otherwise make it to your plate. That's exactly what happened off the coast of North Carolina, where excess fishing of sharks decimated what were once thriving scallop, oyster and clam populations.

如果這些還不足以讓你相信我們確實(shí)需要鯊魚(yú)，想想你自己的晚餐。如果沒(méi)有鯊魚(yú)來(lái)幫助控制海洋里的人口，像金槍魚(yú)這樣的中型魚(yú)會(huì)在海洋中自由地增肥，最終它們會(huì)進(jìn)入你的盤(pán)子。這正是北卡羅來(lái)納州沿海地區(qū)發(fā)生的事情，在那里，過(guò)度捕撈鯊魚(yú)使曾經(jīng)繁榮的扇貝、牡蠣和蛤蜊種群大量死亡。