二级笔译实务练习.doc

二级笔译实务英译汉真题第一篇：Study Finds Hope in Saving Saltwater FishCan we have our fish and eat it too? An unusual collaboration of marine ecologists and fisheries management scientists says the answer may be yes.In a research paper in Fridays issue of the journal Science, the two groups, long at odds with each other, offer a global assessment of the worlds saltwater fish and their environments.Their conclusions are at once gloomy overfishing continues to threaten many species and upbeat: a combination of steps can turn things around. But because antagonism between ecologists and fisheries management experts has been intense, many familiar with the study say the most important factor is that it was done at all.They say they hope the study will inspire similar collaborations between scientists whose focus is safely exploiting specific natural resources and those interested mainly in conserving them.“We need to merge those two communities,” said Steve Murawski, chief fisheries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “This paper starts to bridge that gap.”The collaboration began in 2006 when Boris Worm, a marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and other scientists made an alarming prediction: if current trends continue, by 2048 overfishing will have destroyed most commercially important populations of saltwater fish. Ecologists applauded the work. But among fisheries management scientists, reactions ranged from skepticism to fury over what many called an alarmist report.Among the most prominent critics was Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Yet the disagreement did not play out in typical scientific fashion with, as Dr. Hilborn put it, “researchers firing critical papers back and forth.” Instead, he and Dr. Worm found themselves debating the issue on National Public Radio.“We started talking and found more common ground than we had expected,” Dr. Worm said. Dr. Hilborn recalled thinking that Dr. Worm “actually seemed like a reasonable person.”The two decided to work together on the issue. They sought and received financing and began organizing workshops at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, an organization sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of California, Santa Barbara.At first, Dr. Hilborn said in an interview, “the fisheries management people would go to lunch and the marine ecologists would go to lunch” separately. But soon they were collecting and sharing data and recruiting more colleagues to analyze it. 鱼类已经濒临灭绝，还有多少鱼可供我们食用？海洋生态学家和渔业管理科学家之间的一次不同寻常的合作为我们揭开了这个谜团，他们说道：答案是所剩无几。科学杂志发表的一则文章指出，这两个研究团体为世界咸水鱼及它们的生存环境提供了一个全球性的评估。最开始他们的结论还有些悲观过度的捕捞会威胁到许多生物，但经过随后的观察他们发现这个局势是可以转变的，使用一种利弊互补的方法就可以扭转局面。但是，由于生态学家和渔业管理专家间的对峙一直很激烈，一些研究的人员认为，最重要的因素在于事情根本就没有起色。 他们希望这项研究能够使科学家将合作重点放在安全利用自然资源方面不仅如此还要把主要兴趣投注于保护鱼类上。 “我们需要合并这两个社区”，国家海洋局和大气管理局的首席渔业专家斯蒂夫.穆拉维斯基说道，“这个研究正将弥补这个差距”。 合作始于2006年也就是鲍里斯蠕虫出现的那一年，哈利法克斯的新思科大学海洋生态学家和其他一些科学家作出惊人的预测：按目前的状况继续下去，过度捕捞将摧毁过多商业咸水鱼数量。生态学家赞扬这项工作。但从事渔业管理的科学家们所做出的反应已从最初的怀疑发展到而今的愤怒，他们把这个研究称为所谓的让人危言耸听的报告。 美国西雅图华盛顿大学的水产和渔业科学教授雷.希尔伯是众多批评者中较为突出的一个。至今，分歧并未起到典型科学方式的作用。正如希尔伯博士所说，“研究人员反复的发表批评文章。”相反，他和蠕虫专家发现他们在全国公共广播电台辩论这个问题。“我们开始交谈并找到比原先预期还要多的共同点。” 蠕虫专家如是说道。希尔伯博士在回顾蠕虫专家时说道，“他其实是一个通情达理的人。” 双方决定在这个问题上共同努力。他寻求赞助商并得到了资助，在全国研究中心就生态环境问题进行分析，不仅如此还开设讲习班推广咸水鱼面临的困境。该赞助单位是设在美国加州圣巴巴拉分校的国家科学基金会组织。 首先，希尔伯博士在接受采访时说，“渔业管理人员和海洋生态学家都会就这一问题展开全面的剖析。”但不久后他们会收集和共享数据，并寻求更多的同事来分析这一方面。 希尔伯博士说他和蠕虫专家理解生态学家和管理科学家最初强烈反对的原因。一方面，他说，只要鱼类维持自身的物种，相对来说，如果其数量下降到百分之四十和百分之五十，科学家还不会过分的忧虑。如今对生态学家而言，这样的形式将被定性为濒危一个极具贬义的词汇。 最后，科学家们得出结论是，百分之六十三的咸水鱼面临种族濒危的困境。“接下来我们要考虑的是将其作为一个范围内的目标，有针对性的解决问题”蠕虫专家说道。 但是他们也一致认为，包括美国在内，管理领域中的鱼类需要采取补救措施来恢复所面临的困境，但此项工作进行的并不顺利。他们写道，像禁止一些地区捕鱼的管理技术，限制使用某些渔具或把股份分配给个人这样的措施，一些群体和其他的濒危物种的鱼类数量可能得到回升。 研究表明，计算每种鱼类的数量有多少，可以发现某个区域存在多少不被威胁的生物，也就是所谓的最大可持续产量，这样一来我们就可以更为详细的了解鱼类的分布状况。当然解决的方法不仅局限于技术管理方面，还包括国家政策对他们的支持度，由于这一方针还只是初步执行，所以最初造成了一些经济混乱的局面。 因为新文件代表了双反的意见，所以它的执行会有很大的影响力，穆拉维斯基博士说。“目前群众对新文件的回应很是乐观，更多的人对我们表示信任”，他说。 在周三的新闻发布会上，蠕虫专家说，他希望能够活在2048年，那时他79岁。他说：“如果他还活着，我将成立一个海鲜党至少我希望如此。”第二篇：On fireAs I mentioned last week, Ive recently returned from Australia. While I was there,I visited a eucalyptus forest that, in February, was the scene of an appalling wildfire. Perhaps naively, I had expected to find that many trees had been killed. They hadnt. They had blackened bark, but were otherwise looking rather well, many of them wreathed in new young leaves. This prompted me to consider fire and the role it plays as a force of nature.Fossil charcoals tell us that wildfires have been part of life on Earth for as long as there have been plants on land. Thats more than 400 million years of fire. Fire was here long before arriviste plants like grasses; it pre-dated the first flowers. And without wanting to get mystical about it, fire is, in many respects, a kind of animal, albeit an ethereal one. Like any animal, it consumes oxygen. Like a sheep or a slug, it eats plants.Sometimes, it merely nibbles a few leaves; sometimes it kills grown trees. Sometimes it is more deadly and destructive than a swarm of locusts.The shape-shifting nature of fire makes it hard to study, for it is not a single entity. Some fires are infernally hot; others, relatively cool. Some stay at ground level; others climb trees. Moreover, fire is much more likely to appear in some parts of the world than in others. Satellite images of the Earth show that wil