This seems like a key piece in putting together conservation efforts. Risk is something that has not happened yet but can be determined. If the risk of an organisms future can be looked at, this may aid in future efforts to conserve the organisms. This however only relates to matters that are in our hands such as deforestation or land consumption. If there is a natural disaster, we cannot really know when this may happen. Should this risk be considered always when predicting future conservation efforts? How are things out of our control handled with the involvement of protection? Those were just some things that might play a factor of predicting risk.

This is an important aspect of the design process. If there is no randomization, then there is no difference that can occur. This relates to genetic diversity in a way that if there are no different organisms, then the traits will all be the same. Without randomness, there is no knowing what possible outcomes can occur in different individuals. This is one of the crucial points when considering data.

I think that this is a good method of making sure that the conservation efforts are working efficiently. If conservation efforts are not working, then it is critical that it is altered to fix the issue at hand. We know how many different species need to be conserved so if one of the methods is not working, then another species could be saved if one proves it cannot. With the education systems mentioned in this reading, the more people who know and understand conservation, the better the results. The monitoring also aids in helping us make sure the funding and resources are going to the right place.

This is a crazy scenario. On one hand, you have the preservation of some of the most valuable organisms on the planet. On the other, you have externe poverty because of the conservation efforts taking away land that could be used to make the area more profitable. In this case, is the lives of the other humans more valuable than the protection of the biodiverse organisms? Or vice versa? This is a tough question to answer, but there may be a way that both the landscape can be preserved while the humans can not live in poverty.

This is the sad truth behind why there is no world conservation initiative. The world is such diverse place with all different kinds of issues that some countries may not face. This causes each nation to have their own conservation efforts to help preserve whats in need. Some places on the globe may have bigger things that take precedent before conservation efforts which is truly sad. If we could all work together we could slow the rate of harmful effects to our planet. However this does not seem like something that could occur at this moment.

This relationship that is mentioned is a crucial part of maintaining our society and our environment. If both the conservationists and the people who the natural resources such has farmers, have a good understanding of how to take care of the earth while using it to grow crops or raise cattle, then that is a solid benefit for both sided. The governance is a good middle ground for both sides to make sure that the resources are being protected, while providing the resources.

This seems to be a good solution that is occurring to aid these species that have the suffered loss to their homes. The agroforestry industry seems to be a good counteraction to all the areas that use to be greatly effected. It is definitely a good thing that some of the original fauna and floral can restore to their original habitat. It would probably be best if there was no changes to them over time, but this seems to help with the changes they suffer through.

This is a very interesting statement. The amount of damage that this excessive logging is doing to the species is almost as bad as extinction. They mention that there is no proof that species are going fully extinct because of logging efforts, but it sure is speeding up the process with the "abundant data" showing the population decline of these species. If there was no excessive logging, they wouldn't be in fear of extinction in the first place

This was a really interesting point that was brought up. Is it a good or bad thing that scientists are the only ones to determine whether or not a species is endangered? I think that it is a good thing that scientists make the call, they are the ones that know the most on the certain species and can hopefully determine the factors that may play a role in the species future. I can see why this leads to "nasty legal battles" between scientists and political officials, but in the end, the people with the most research and expertise should make the final determination of a species endangerment. The political aspect should still be considered, but not have the ultimate voice compared to the scientists.

This brings up a really good question. How can we compare species that are globally dispersed and how can we determine if they are endangered? This must be a really tough decision to make because of the factors around them. The example they give is the saw-whet owl and how it is widespread through north America but is considered endangered in the state of Maryland. Do heavy extinction prevention methods go into place, even though it is still widespread and populated elsewhere? Does the state decide this or the government? How could this issue be resolved? Those are just some questions that came to mind while reading this section.

It is tough to think about all of the organisms and ecosystems that could be conserved if it wasn't for the cost. I was wondering during the reading about how they decide on what to conserve, but now it has me thinking if money is behind it. Does the cost of a conservation project affect if it gets done in the first place? If this is so, many organisms and ecosystems most definitely would be greatly affected instead of being saved and preserved. They mention later on that there is a decrease in conservation variation when there is incorporation costs applied, which is not a good thing for the conservation efforts. Although funding may be needed, they should still find a way to help as much as they can.

How would these conservation priorities be measured? It must be extremely difficult to determine which species get more attention than others, especially with the fate of their cultural on the line. It is curious to think about how they have gone about doing this in the past, and if they had chose one species to protect more than another, and what that might look like. Things to consider for this may be extinction status, impact on an ecosystem, if they are keystone or not, and more. I can imagine it is not an easy choice to decide upon.

For some species, it is not too late to save them from extinction. This section provides good information on how we can slow the extinction rates for organisms. If we have the chance to save a certain species from extinction, then that could save us from dramatic effects that may happen over time. If there was a way to identify these species at risk and protect them, then in our society we should do our best to keep them around.

This is an interesting fact to consider. The introduction of these new species seem to bring up a point of why are other species going extinct wile some are becoming new? Does this have to do with species adapting and changing over time? The graph in 10.1 shows that this does not seem to be so. With the cumulative number of species seems to be high, there is an opposite trend for number of the species described per year.

What a cool discovery with this study. The different foods you eat and the diets that organisms go through play such a huge effect on the diversity of your gut biome. As for me and maybe for most people, this never even grossed my mind that there could be such an impact on the slightest thing such as gut diversity, just from what you consume.

This is really fascinating to think about. I wonder what it is like in a human infant compared to a full grown adult? This might just mean that a gut biome grows at the same time as an organism.

This is a crazy statistic that I never knew about. I never really considered how much microbes in our gut exist until hearing that 0.3% of our body weight are these microbes. They play such a crucial role in keeping us alive, and it makes sense to why there are so many living in host organisms.

It's hard to believe that the aborigines intentionally set fires to manage their ecosystems. The use of this method is fascinating in the least but is the increase in flammable grass biomass a good thing or bad thing when dealing with invasive native grasses? Does this practice seem to effect the natural plants? If this only effects the invasive species, could this practice be incorporated in places other than Australia? These are just some ideas that came to mind when reading this section.

This is crazy how many different things to consider about fire. Fire is an extremely dangerous element that can destroy so much in so little time. The different types mentioned in this section goes to show just how one mishap with fire could cause serious consequences on all different types of ecosystems. Fire is something that can be easily spread as well which could add to a small fire, to make it an extreme one. The forest fires in California come to mind that occurred in 2020. These fires destroyed a lot of vegetation over a short period of time. These regime factors mentioned can help us know how to put a fire to an end, before devastating results occur.

When it comes to climate change, the rising sea level seems to be not referred often, at least to me. This is a huge problem considering that 71% of our planet is covered in water. With the rising sea level, the organisms that live there are suffering greatly. Coastal areas are at high risk for an effect of sea level rising. These coastal areas are home to all different kind of organisms and are really crucial to the health of other ecosystems. As said in the article, not all species are going to adapt to this change in environment, so what future causes will occur to the other species in the ecosystem after it's gone?

This brings up a good question on how exactly does this earlier flowering and reproduction for plants effect them in the long run? I found this data and others to be really interesting to think about such as just how are the species currently adapting to something as big as climate change, and what are some of the future pros/cons of this occurring? The climate change crisis is something that should be taken really seriously, because of effects like this on species reproduction.

It is kind of sad to see that some species that have to be eradicated due to their introduction of somewhere they are not suppose to be. The greater good however is definitely the bigger picture due to the cards at stake if this species gets large enough to wipe out even more species. I was unaware of how many of these invasive species are around us and how it is dealt with, so I have included a link to how New Hampshire takes care of the invasive species that effect the area we know.

https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/climate/invasive.html

This is a crazy statistic. I never really thought about the damage that is caused when certain species are introduced to a new area. The littlest organisms such as the rats in this example, caused detrimental effects to the bird species. This can happen to almost every ecosystem if not carful to prevent no new species introduction. I did have a question about this however, If there is an introduction of a species to a population, Is this good for the overall population variety, or bad due to the effects they might have when considering this example?

Hunting is one of the first action that early humans used to survive. Back them, it was crucial for the advancement of our species but now, it is not as used as it once was. There are many food alternatives other than hunting that a lot of us use for food consumption. This however is starting to become a problem to the rest of the environment. With our other ways of food production, farms, agriculture, and more, we have less need to hunt animals for those reasons. With the food production industry already damaging the earth, the killing of large vertebrates should be an unnecessary expense that the earth and organisms are paying for.

It always seems like money is the reason behind the tragedy to the earth. This is a good example of how financial incentives and human will are "more important" than the incentives of regeneration of certain pieces of land. The land that was used for financial reasons would cost the people using them so much money to get rid of even though it is terrible for the environment. This brings up the idea of big business using and abusing the environment for financial gain. This even shows that that these people wouldn't even want to spend money to regenerate the land that needs it.

I really like how clear the author was about this point. They did not sugarcoat at all which I think was the right thing to do with this topic. The fragmentation of these areas are causing loss of species as we talked about in class and said in this reading.The separation of organisms can only lead to bad results after a period of time. One question I had when I was reading this was how can people stop/slow fragmentation and if there are any rules/standards in place to prevent this from occurring?

I found this part of the reading to be interesting. When companies are looking into tearing down a forest and putting in a highway, I bet they do not think of the extreme harm they are causing to the populations surrounding it. No one really thinks of something like a highway as a barrier for different animals of a species, but it most certainly is and can cause extreme effects in the long run. It is almost like putting them in a farm or an area where they cannot leave. This definitely should be brought up before something like this is even built, to truly show the effects it has to the environment.

This is an interesting fact. You don't really think of just how much land is being used all over the globe for agricultural use. The need for more is crazy to think about just because of how long there has been farming and such in our civilization. Let alone the effects it has on wildlife and the environment, the increasing need for more is a scary thought.

This is a great example of how not just human densities effect an area for commercial use but for other needs such as agriculture. I feel like agriculture is often looked passed as a method of environmental destruction. The way agriculture is used, planting crops and such, is looked as a way of keep nature as it is, however this is not the case. I think that the introduction of foreign species of plants cause so many future effects to that area. An example of this is if an area of pine trees is taken down and the field was used to plant corn. The corn is not suppose to grow their thus destroying the ground that was once rich for pine trees. I think that awareness should be brought attention on a topic that may be overlooked.

I think this is a really good point being made. There has to be an equal trade off to try and make sure our ecosystem is preserved wile making sure the "financially driven" people don't totally destroy the necessary ecosystems. If there can be a both side beneficial outcome to a situation I think that is definitely a step in the right direction. I am curious on how and if the ecosystem is brought up in business meetings that could greatly effect the biodiversity of an area?

This seems like an issue that needs to be addressed. The increasing heat of our environment is causing so many issues as we know it. With global warming being a huge issue in our world, if we do not act soon it may be too late to preserve the ecosystem we dearly need. Water is a necessity for all living things, and for it to be decreasing is a huge issue. The vegetation is also greatly effected by this ground water being evaporated at faster rates, which also can cause huge longterm effects.

I found this point to be extremely true but upsetting. We cause so many harmful situations for our environment that sometimes isn't thought of by the people effecting it. Our human benefit of destroying ecosystems for our personal gain are pushing away the idea of it messing up entire biomes and ecosystems. This then causes the biodiversity patterns to abruptly change. This idea has been mentioned throughout the entire reading about how biodiversity is changing, mainly due to human impacts. Hopefully in the future we are able to find a way to limit the way us humans effect our worlds biodiversity and such.

I found this point interesting mainly due to a question it asks. The first thing that came to mind was "Why does this area have the most biodiversity"? The answer to that is listed in the reading for it to be because they have the "richest realm of amphibians, birds, reptiles, and mammals" and much more but I am asking the question in a more broad sense. This brings up some ideas on what is this area doing to boost there biodiversity? Do they report more than other regions? Are there any rules/ laws put in place over time to preserve their environment more to cause an increase of biodiversity? Can other regions take pointers from the neotropics to boost their biodiversity? Or is it just something that happens over time? Those are just some of the questions that came to mind when reading this section.

This point is definitely something to draw upon. This goes to show how our technological advances have had catastrophic impacts on our world and it is often dismissed because of how it truly helps humanity. The technology we have today is a great achievement however it has effects that not a lot of people think about; effects on our natural habitat and resources. This provides a lot of information to consider when thinking about future technological advances.