The disease and genetic aspects are what interest me most. This specifically stuck out to me because last semester I was in a course called Current Environmental Issues. We talked a lot about these types of issues, relating to toxic wastes, fumes etc. It made me think of when we discussed fracking (Hydraulic fracturing) and the effects it had on humans. Individuals who lived near a fracking site experienced some devastating health effects. Naturally, I was interested to learn more about similar issues. I was surprised to see this in the article, as I didn't expect it. After reading this i'd be curious to look more into how these toxic wastes, fumes etc play a role in our (and animals) genes, if there is any at all?

This really stuck out to me. This is something that has certainly been brought up before throughout this course. Topics such as what we consider to be a 'priority' or which locations have value, especially with biodiversity. More specifically, determining the value of all these concepts and locations. I think it's an extremely important question, to be thinking about. How do we make these priorities etc.. The main part of this that stuck out to me, was the middle of this annotation, when it says that prioritizing areas doesn't always require a complete description of a sites biodiversity. I found this part of the textbook extremely interesting, especially as I would have never thought you could base a priority on something with that 'limited' information so to say.

I think this is an extremely important quote and definition. When it comes to terms similar to landscape, I think it's important to specify a good definition under the context of it. Especially, to a readers point of view. I always find it interesting how scientific definitions can have multiple meanings in context. After this, the author provides an alternative definition to the term. I bring this up in my annotation because, one thing i've learned in my courses is to be as specific as possible, and terms like landscape I feel could have many different definitions under the right concept. I just thought i'd point that out.

Prior to taking this course, I was unaware of how much politics is related to the field of conservation and the environment. I'm not sure why, but I guess politics just don't come to mind when I think of conservation. With that being said, I think it's interesting how politics ties into conservation. I think that political decisions when it comes to the environment is extremely important. Especially, when it comes to land management and managing populations of species. I think in most places there has been very poor management and legislature passed for the environment. Especially places such as California.

It's honestly extremely eye opening to see how much forest is used for logging. 13 million cubic meters is a massive amount of forest. The value being $2.1 billion is even crazier. Sure, it contributes nicely to the economy, but is it really worth logging this much land in the forests? Additionally, although somewhat unrelated; I know from work, that wood (pressure treated) is difficult to get and very expensive in the united states, currently.

Honestly, I would not have thought that this would have been the process on how a flagship is chosen. I'm curious to see what this 'lengthy process' consists of. I was surprised to read that, this process included interviews with local experts. This stuck out to me specifically, because I always find the effort interesting, when it comes to topics like this. I think this is important for accurate data, and it does a good job at really making sure you have accurate data. With that being said, this was surprising and quite interesting to me.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/report-next-for-americas-public-land/#page-12

This article is a pretty interesting read. The article discusses topics of land management, public land and other important factors. I think it illustrates how people care about land. Additionally, discussing other economic factors as far as money making goes when it comes to land management, and public lands.

I'm not sure why, but I was surprised to read this. I would not have thought that eastern North American deciduous forests would have more species than in the west. I figured it would have been the opposite. When it comes to talking about ecosystems, I always find it interesting to learn about species preferences and specific places where certain species will thrive. With that being said, I also think this is very important to keep track of and understand.

This is something that I think about sometimes, especially being in the White Mountains a lot of the time. For example, driving up the Kancamangus Highway, you'll see many signs about fire, fire rules and fire dangers. Often times I will think (although this is an awful thought) what if there was to be a forest fire? and the effects it would have in the area of the white mountains. Accidentally starting fires is an incredibly terrifying thought to think about, especially as this happens sometimes. I've personally found the effects of forest fire interesting to learn about, and the damage it causes, and ultimately the recovery process, which is very important!

It's crazy to see all of the different effects that climate change has. It's interesting to read about the effects it has when it comes to species. I'm currently taking current environmental issues (a course at PSU) and we've read a few articles about this. One issue, always leads to another. To be more specific, it's interesting to see, say the effects of climate change on different habitats, and then the habitat damage effects the species. It's a very complex topic, and also a kind of scary topic.

Personally, I have always been interested in pathogens and parasites, especially when it comes to plants. It's extremely interesting to me how pathogens are capable of modifying, and ultimately destroying (in some cases) ecosystems. I remember back in biological science I when we learned about this, I was shocked that pathogens and parasites had the potential of doing the damage they can cause, and i didn't even know it was possible in plants. With that being said, i'd be curious to see more ways in which this could be prevented, and even more about where these pathogens still come from even present-day. Although I know the basic answers to this, i'd be curious to learn even farther into this topic.

Wow, these are pretty crazy numbers to think about. I'd like to point out, that this statistic was just US citizens. I can't imagine how much money is spent worldwide on these activities. If someone asked me how much money was spent, I would not have guessed this number. With that being said, There's a ton of money spent, but there isn't a whole lot of people which contributed to this money. Thinking about the entire US population as a whole, this is not a lot of the population, which to me is interesting.

To me, this is a pretty interesting topic. In one of my other biology courses, I remember talking about the moose population declining. Because of the winters being shorter, the tics and other insect species thrive in the conditions, that are caused by winters being shortened. As a result, because of these conditions they attack the moose - I believe that's what it was. If this is incorrect and someone knows, please let me know. With that being said, ever since I learned about that it was sort of an eye opener to me, and made me think of how landscape can affect species in both negative, and positive ways (positive for some species). It's one of those things (to me) that when I get thinking about it, I keep thinking about this topic on a bigger scale.

It's interesting to see how events lead to one another, and how there are so many different things which impact the environment, and even factors which impact relations and supplies.

Although the article i'm about to put here is a little bit unrelated to this specific topic, it still gives us something to think about in regards to habitat loss and the destruction of places - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/13/climate/manila-san-francisco-sea-level-rise.html Again, as said before although this isn't directly tied into this, it's still something important that we should keep in mind, and thought it was an interesting read.

I really like the way that this is worded. It's crazy to think about how important animals really are to the environment as well as the roles they play. I suppose something I haven't thought a whole lot about is what the world would be like if we didn't have these thousands of species pollinate and fertilize our plants, protect plants etc.. After reading this it really made me think, when does it stop? I think this is a serious and relevant question, at-least thinking of the long-term effects this has. I want to also mention that this sounds like a potential result of overconsumption and the issue of consumption. I'm in another bio course and we've focused a lot on overconsumption in the world, and how it affects / will effect the environment over long periods of time. Again, with that being said I think that these values are extremely important to the environment.

This stuck out to me, as I think it's important when talking about biodiversity to consider how rich biodiversity is in areas, and how in some areas it may be less rich. It's interesting to look at the data on the richness of species, and see how it differs between different animals in certain places. Figure 2.4 is a good representation of this point. I'd also be interested to learn about the history, and how this area in the lower latitudes (tropical) is as rich as it is today, being "perhaps the best known of all spatial patterns in biodiversity is the increase in species richness... in the tropical latitutes"

Personally, I think it's crazy that we're able to talk about biodiversity tracing this far back. It's always mind blowing to me thinking about how old the earth is and how far history traces back. Especially, looking at what was on earth this long ago, and comparing it to now and just how much has really changed in the aspect of the environment and life as a whole. It's incredible.

It's incredible to look at how far we've come, with understanding everything we learn about in our science classes. I'd personally be interested on learning more about the discoveries, and how we gained such a great understanding over all these years. A question that runs through my head after reading this is, what ultimately led to scientists wanting to learn more about these different fields of biology, and how did it all start?

This was really interesting to me, mainly because I didn't necessarily realize the rich history of conservation or how long it even traced back. Comparing these concepts to other biology classes i've taken, I find it interesting how conservation seems to be a lot more about human impact. Not that other biology courses aren't about that but specifically in this aspect of conservation, I didn't realize, or think about the amount of effort, as well as beliefs there are to protect the environment, so to say.