I think these sentences summarize how difficult it can be to accurately assess things like this. We discussed earlier how one of the greatest challenges to conservation is gathering data and continually updating it for all to see on a free platform. If predicting risk requires substantial data, are conservation biologists able to do it effectively if obtaining good data remains a challenge?

Estimating species endangerment, risk, and conservation priority must be a challenging process. I have always wondered what types of formulas or analysis scientists use so it is cool to see the main one, the PVA, in writing here. It definitely seems like the best approach to assess extinction risk because of how varied it is. It still sounds very difficult to ascertain but it is great conservationists have tools like this.

This is a very good point. Politicians are generalists but experts in legislating, whereas scientists are experts in science but not legislating. This is why interdisciplinary studying is so important. If every scientist was also trained extensively in public policy, imagine the expertise they could bring to environmental regulations. Politicians and the scientists could work closer together to understand each of their respective reasonings and processes.

I would disagree with the notion that it would reduce credibility. Why would this be so? If policy intervention is based on scientific data, the data would speak for itself in affecting the policy.

I am glad the authors made note of this at the end of this section. I think this is worth noting instead of only focusing on how local poverty is related to environmental destruction. However, the authors brought up an interesting point that protected areas displace communities and perpetuate poverty. I never thought about this consequence of them. How can we ensure we protect areas of the environment without facing inequity issues?

This section reminded me of a lesson from my intro to travel and tourism class on the paradox of wilderness. If "wilderness" is the perfect, elusive landscape devoid of humans, then this means nature in human modified landscapes becomes less important. Like the authors write, we too often have a false sense of two separate entities between nature and humankind. When really, it should be one cohesive body, so that trees in city parks are just as much appreciated as "pristine" wilderness.

I love this idea from Aldo Leopold, and I have never thought about the importance of mixing liberal arts with physical sciences. Everything is connected and no one study is more or less important than the other. This is why the current field of conservation biology is so crucial as it blends historical, sociological, and spiritual considerations into its field. This results in one comprehensive discipline that doesn't split research in two. I hope there is more interdisciplinary focus in the future.

This doesn't seem right. ? It's not local people who make decisions for their environment. It's always the government or a business. Those who live in Ecuador are not driving its deforestation; it's the corporations of the wealthy world. Even here in the U.S. - low-income people didn't decide their fate to live near toxic waste sites; the government put it there. Unless I am missing the greater context of what Pin Koh and Gardner are trying to say?

Also, I like the idea of a "pro-poor" approach to give the inhabitants of exploited areas a say over outside conservationists or corporations.

This is a daunting prediction. It seems that there is simply not enough land to sustainably feed our growing population. One solution to this I learned in a previous class is vertical urban farming. This is where crops are grown in greenhouses from artificial soil that are placed on long poles; rain filters in from the roof to hydrate the crops. The soil is made from coconut husk. While it takes away from the 100% organic Earth soil farming, it may be necessary if our population continues to grow at this rate. Here is a video about it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ww2TP_tU7o

I think having these animals inspire the public is a double-edged sword. Yes, it does get people to care, but at the same time, like mentioned earlier, it makes us biased toward vertebrates. I was astounded to read that only 4% of invertebrate species have been assessed for conservation status, compared with nearly 100% for vertebrates. Public persuasion efforts should be aimed at getting people to care about all organisms, not just romantic vertebrates.

I remember that one of the criticisms of the ESA is that it is reactive rather than proactive, but it seems like an emphasis on incentives could make it more proactive. Wilcove mentions that incentives are more useful in the recovery phase, but is there a way to incentivize industries to not allow species to become endangered in the first place? This is especially important to ask if the disincentives are not effectively enforced, which may oftentimes be the case.

Also, I want to add that the example in this section reminds me of a conservation easement when planning for open space.

Wow, this is inspiring! If this can be done for birds, perhaps it can be done for all of the other species in time. I like the idea of a "key biodiversity area" approach. As complex as it can be to plan conservation, it seems like the KBA idea is the best all-encompassing way to prioritize conservation of land area and species.

I like how this graph details the parameters that make a species threatened vs. endangered. I have always wondered how they draw that line and this figure explains it well. This reminds me of the Northern Spotted Owl and even though it is classified as threatened (and probably soon endangered) on the IUCN Red List, there was an effort to reduce their designated critical habitat. I wonder where scientists fit this species in their conservation prioritization? I wrote a public comment opposing the rule for my public administration class. Here is the rule in the federal register:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-R1-ES-2020-0050-0579

Seems like there is a trifecta of extinction causes between species with limited range, habitat destruction, and climate change. There are so many troubling statistics in this article about deforestation and climate change. It mentioned at one point that most of the Amazon will be gone by mid-century at this rate. However, I think there should have been more at the end about solutions to the problem. It mentioned regrowing and protecting forests, but what can individuals do? Is it just not eating palm oil or meat? What do people think about what individual choices can be made to reduce habitat destruction and thus extinction?

This has been the most interesting fact to me. Based from the statistics in previous paragraphs ("few examples of concentrations of small ranged species that do not also meet the criterion of having lost 70% or more of their natural habitat") I was going to say that the book placed too much of an emphasis on species range, and really extinction can be chalked up to human impacts. However, I read on to discover this example from North America where species range had a big impact on minimal extinction despite habitat destruction. I never realized how far or little a species travels could have such a big impact on its extinction.

I never thought about how fragmentation could also lead to increased forest fires. The negative feedback loop forest fires create is also interesting. Fragmentation combined with increased droughts and extreme weather events from climate change will only further exacerbate forest fires. Obviously all types of habitat fragmentation are bad, but I wonder if there is a way to strategically fragment the least amount of habitat in such a way that would make it less susceptible to forest fires?

This must be the ultimate challenge of fire management. How to know when to prescribe burns and how much to do it, without also damaging the forest from too much fire. I have always wondered how foresters know how much to intentionally burn or not. Similarly, I have always wondered if natural fires are always bad and should be put out, or do we let organic burns run their course and leave the ecosystem uninterrupted?

I never thought about how climate change could cause foliage to move north to Canada. While the author is correct foliage and maple trees are a big part of our sense of place here in the Northeast, I disagree with the statement that it is not a significant element of our economy. New Hampshire's tourism industry thrives on leaf peepers - of course it is significant. In fact, according to an article in Boston.com, tourists spent $1 billion in NH in 2009 alone. Climate change could have a detrimental effect on northern New England's tourism industry.

https://www.boston.com/culture/new-england-travel/2014/10/26/leaf-peepers-bring-billions-of-dollars-to-new-england-and-flood-instagram-with-beauty

Wow. This is a stunning projection to me. 2100 is what I would expect but 2030 is pretty surprising. I think statistics like this need to be more widely shared. A major problem with combatting climate change is that so many people believe it is a problem of the future. However, based on projections like this, we have no time to waste. Climate change's effects are here and now, not the next generation's problem.

The fact that campaigns were stopped by public opposition and animal rights groups was curious to me. I guess I always assumed that eradication of an invasive species is for the greater good of the ecosystem, even if it means death for that species. Using chemicals for this, however, is definitely more controversial in my opinion. Then problems of human health and species' resistance to the chemical arise. However, if done in a proper manner, why would animal-rights groups oppose this? What do people think about greater good of the ecosystem versus the killing of an invasive species?

I'm surprised the book did not mention the 1935 Cane Toad biological control disaster in Australia. I remember it from a movie in my environmental science class in high school. Cane toads were introduced to kill grey beetles that were eating away at sugarcane crops. However, it went horribly wrong as the cane toads spread out of control due to their ability to live in a variety of habitats and ate unintended species such as small lizards, snakes, and tadpoles.

https://gen.uga.edu/documents/pest/Biological%20Control%20Gone%20Bad.pdf

Here is the movie: "Cane Toads: An Unnatural History" If anyone is interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SBLf1tsoaw

So much of deforestation is about timber harvesting and we don't talk about NTFPs as much. I agree that we can't assume that harvesting them is some some middle-ground sustainable option. Rather, it seems they can be quite destructive as shown by the perfumes and Brazil Nuts. This last section about their economic valuation was particularly interesting. This is because it reminded me that much of our valuation of goods is all socially constructed. Just because some place a high value on a resource does not mean it is true. If we collectively agreed to stop valuing luxury perfumes, maybe the overexploitation of Pau-Rosa would discontinue.

It is incredible that even prehistoric peoples drove animal populations into extinction. And they did that before all the technology and clearcutting machines we have now. This truly puts into perspective just how destructive we are being to the planet in the present. It is scary to think about the damage we have already done, and how much worse it could get if we continue at this rate.

I never realized habitat fragmentation is so nuanced. To me, it was always a road going up divides a habitat and it is bad for the ecosystem and all types of species. It never occurred to me that some species may persist better than others, or that the shape of the fragment or use of land next to it could influence the effect the fragmentation has on different species. It's pretty interesting!

I find it interesting that humans are working to correct the damage done to habitats by fragmentation. It is ironic that more human activity can "re-wild" an ecosystem (like in box 5.3). I often think of environmental policy as safeguards against future rampant development and pollution. In this case, however, it is more of a proactive approach that retroactively transforms a habitat. If only we mobilized our efforts to improve habitats rather than destruct, there would not be so much biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption. The "Wildlands Network" was in 2004: Is that the first time a movement like this happened or had it been going on before, too?

I like that the text included this box on Boreal forests. We always hear so much about rainforests but not as much about Boreal or Tundra. This is probably because they are not being destructed as much as the tropical areas but I think it is important that the Boreal forests not go unnoticed. I never knew they stored so much carbon or influenced global temperature more than any other biome! I wonder if clearcutting will soon pose a threat to the Boreal forests as well? Or maybe not since slash-and-burn would be more difficult?

This is so disappointing. Wetlands are crucial in slowing down storm surges and thus protecting coastal communities from hurricanes and tropical storms. In fact, apparently they stopped $625 million in damage during Hurricane Sandy. I wonder if loss of wetlands further increases the intensity and damage from storms we have seen due to climate change?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/wetlands-stopped-650-million-property-damage-hurricane-sandy-can-help-houston

This last section reminded me of an article I wrote a summary of for a sustainability class last year:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/10/nature-economic-value-campaign

The article argues that as much as it may seem counterintuitive for environmentalists to say, we must put more economic value on nature.

I really like this metaphor. I also found the paragraph before it breaking down the nuances of the keystone species concept to be interesting. I think it is important not to put too much emphasis on one species being keystone, because every organism does its part in a functioning ecosystem.

If there are species that are not "typical" keystone species but actually turn out to be, how can scientists more accurately measure what a keystone species is? In any event, I think this is a great case for biodiversity: since there is so much we don't know, it is best to preserve as much as possible, even those organisms with seemingly "weak" effects.

How do they "transfer heat from the tropics to the temperate zones?" I am a little confused by the heat and humidity pump concept.

Whenever numbers about deep time like this come up, I am always amazed at just how short of a time scale modern humans have lived on Earth. And it is even smaller in terms of living with agriculture and being able to do other things besides hunt and gather.

This more specific delineation of ecoregion within a biome is interesting to me. I'm curious as to how they classify an ecoregion. Is it a more unique area within a biome? How can there be, for example, 14 terrestrial biomes but 867 ecoregions? Where would scientists delineate the area of an ecoregion within a biome?

This reminds me of critics of the term "sustainability" now. Many argue the concept is too abstract, theoretical, and interdisciplinary to actually amount to specific objectives. However, it seems like "sustainability" is now emerging as a new concept the same way "conservation biology" was. Now, "sustainability" is considered an important part of a business model, and it is a major or minor at many colleges.

It is super interesting to see all of these environmental acts of the 1970s enacted so quickly in only 3 years. It seems in this decade legislators woke up to the action needed to preserve the environment. The ideas of Leopold, Pinchot, Carson, etc. finally took shape in concrete policy.