Coral reefs (珊瑚礁) are filled with a diverse range of fish. Some fish are more beautiful to humans than others, and many people firmly believe that beautiful fish deserve more conservation than the uglier species. Is the “firm belief” true? You can get the answer from a new paper published in the journal PLOS Biology.
Researchers showed 481 photographs of ray-finned reef fish to 13,000 members of the public. With that data, they then trained a computer model to generate predictions for an additional 4,400 photographs of 2,417 of the most common reef fish species. They next compared the aesthetic rating of each species with other characteristics, including evolutionary history, distinctiveness from other fish, conservation status and importance to fisheries.
After analyzing the numbers, researchers found that the fish humans rated as the most beautiful tended to be less ecologically and evolutionarily distinct. Prettier fish were also more likely to be listed as species of “least concern” on the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN) Red List.
On the contrary, the fish that humans found to be the least attractive were the most ecologically and evolutionarily distinct, and they were more likely to be listed as “threatened” on the IUCN Red List. Unattractive species also tended to be more important to commercial fisheries, which put them at higher risk for overfishing.
“The less attractive species have the highest ecological distinctiveness, and thus provide the highest diversity of ecological functions,” they write in the paper. “We need to pay more attention to the extinction risk of the less attractive fish species, or that might have overlooked effects on reef ecosystem functioning.”
“Therefore, to minimize the impact of aesthetic biases, scientists, conservation groups and policymakers may need to change how they communicate about wildlife,” the researchers write. “Making people more aware of the roles uglier fish play in reef ecosystems could help them gain more support.”
12. What did the researchers do for their research?
A.They rated all the photos on their own. | B.They hunted for reef fish in coral reefs. |
C.They stayed underwater to monitor fish. | D.They used a computer to predict ratings. |
13. What does the researchers’ analysis suggest?
A.The research is a failure. | B.Fish’s role in nature is equal. |
C.The “firm belief” isn’t true. | D.Uglier fish are less important. |
14. What is the researchers’ advice?
A.Building natural reserves worldwide for uglier fish. |
B.Making an attempt to raise people’s aesthetic levels. |
C.Raising awareness about the appearance of uglier fish. |
D.Educating people on uglier fish’s ecological importance. |
15. What might be the best title for the text?
A.Uglier Fish Are Facing Extinction | B.Coral Reefs Rely on Various Fish |
C.Uglier Fish Need More Protection | D.Aesthetic Biases Put Reefs in Danger |