I think it's interesting that the deeper you get into biodiversity, the more complicated it becomes- for some subjects, it's exactly the opposite. It's the same with food webs- popular diagrams fail to capture the intricacy of species connections in ecosystems. The concept of metapopulations also gives us clues into species territorialism and how ecological communities are structured, which I think is super interesting!

Conservationists are right- protection and environmental regulation are both important. Perhaps there just needs to be a different way of managing protected areas, such as one that's more broad and attempts to account for a variety of taxa. This also plays into protection VS prevention, another contentious topic in conservationist circles. Protected areas that are designated after one or more species has become threatened will focus on those species, with less regard given to others. However, protective areas designated to prevent species erosion will have more time to assess the area, what needs help, and what range of land would best protect biodiversity. There's not so much of a need to act immediately, which allows for a broader look at the project.

The entire point of of indigenous practices is that they enhance and work with the ecosystem around them. For example, controlled burns, plant cutting, and harvesting are all done in ways to encourage growth of that plant in its next cycle. Indigenous people have been saying that for years and the proof is easy to find in studies of cultural indigenous practices. In some cases, leaving a wilderness area "pristine" ends up inhibiting plant growth and healthy populations because indigenous people have been taking care of that landscape for so long. Obviously that isn't the case for every indigenous person, but the former is what many people from many tribes say.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-conservation-efforts-can-learn-from-indigenous-communities/ https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/16/the-racist-removal-of-native-americans-in-california-is-often-missing-from-wildfire-discussions-experts-say/

This reminds me of some articles I saw going around a few years back that made an argument for switching to hemp or bamboo for paper & certain wood products as opposed to timber. The points were that they grew much faster, in a smaller space, and could be harvested and regrown more efficiently and readily so it was more renewable. I don't think it ever got off the ground, though, maybe because there wasn't enough public interest, logging companies depressed people's attempts, or because it'd rely too much on foreign import? Here's a paper I found explaining the pros and cons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165839/

Ultimately, conservation efforts have to try and push personal human/community bias out of the way in order to focus on helping species that need it the most. This includes if a species humans commonly dislike, such as house spiders, were to suddenly become endangered. While extinction is generally never good, a species that is common elsewhere can be reintroduced to a region once there's sufficient funding and environmental focus to make that possible. Of course, allowing an otherwise common species to die out in a region should be a carefully weighed decision on its own- what would the effects be on the local ecosystem? Would the die-off of this species in the region cause other organisms to become endangered? Would it cause economic harm to the region? All of these have to be considered- conservation involves many questions.

We talked about this in a previous class, but I still find it interesting that countries like America and the UK are now trying to teach other countries about their own animals. Especially when the country in question was invaded/colonized by one of the two & the indigenous races were wiped out or heavily oppressed, thus removing their access to their local flora/fauna and to education. Or a war-torn country being sunk into poverty because of something a first-world country did, only for that country to lecture them on conservation efforts and what lives there. Obviously this is not the case everywhere, but it just seems ridiculous to me.

You can just say beetles.

What I find interesting about this is that there are species of anything, not just plants, that could be threatened/endangered that we would never know about since not all species have been discovered. The same is true for extinction, species coming and going with zero human knowledge or chance to study them to learn more about our world. And the existence of these species could be known by other species that interact with them that we have found. Of course, they could never communicate it because they can't talk and don't really know what a species is anyway.

This makes a lot of sense when you step back and think about it. After all, small, deliberate fires clear away easily-burned dead underbrush. I'm sure this also rejuvenates the soil to a certain degree, since it clears up forest floor spaces and allows for more access to light, water, air, and other nutrients- which in turn makes slow-burning plants such as trees hardier. Then, any non-controlled fires have few places to go and little to burn through, and an already-healthy forest can spring back faster. On the other hand, if dead, dry brush is left to pile up and the soil & plants aren't healthy, a fire can ravage through as it has plenty of oxygen and physical fuel to sustain it.

Climate change and the rising of sea levels appears to be a slowly-developing huge trophic cascade, possibly one of the largest in history. Destruction of species and habitat is pushing through trophic levels like a bull in a china shop, and barely anything, if any species at all, is safe. Usually climate change is looked at from how it will effect humans alone, and the changes for creatures that are already aquatic is barely considered. After all, if a species is aquatic, wouldn't more water be good for it? Clearly, that is not the case in the slightest.

This also reminds me of cats, and how they are an invasive species that's largely glossed over by humans because we like them. Animals that can fly or inhabit trees don't stand a chance against a small predator that can climb and jump extremely high. For the brown tree snake, a combination of climbing ability, camouflage, and native prey not recognizing it must have made for a quick invasion of the ecosystem.

This also makes me think about the fact that hunting certain species of rhino and elephant is still legal- the permits are just extremely expensive. So now what's hitting these animals is the combination of locals hunting them to support the illegal trade, while non-locals (rich people from other countries, usually America or England) also pursue them purely as trophies and nothing else. Banning legal trade instead of slowing or otherwise restricting it does far more harm to most prized animal species than good. And, there's usually ways around it through permits since money can get you just about anything and anywhere.

This immediately made me think of increased soil erosion along roads and railways. I'm sure this is an even worse issue in areas where hardy brush isn't common, and there's no grass or other vegetation along the roadside to help prevent this. This also explains why a lot of roadsides have gravel next to them.

I wonder how much biodiversity loss we could avoid, even with high human density, through studying indigenous practices in that region and incorporating them into our own lives? Obviously it wouldn't be perfect seeing as many areas of habitat have already been lost to cities and urban sprawl, but with enough effort we could "greenify" even those places. Some cities are already doing that with algae lamps that create more oxygen, or making a more active conservation effort with parks and tree planting. Theoretically that would be even easier to do in suburban areas where people tend to have yard space and there's less air pollution.

This is relevant everywhere, but it reminds me of Plymouth in particular due to the high volume of water maintenance that occurs here. Rather than funnel extra money towards reworking and improving the infrastructure in the long term, short term fixes are what's preferred. This could be a timing issue- that project is unlikely to be completed in the May-August timeline when most students are off-campus. Ultimately not caring about hydrologic infrastructure leads to more money and time spent in the long term, as well as several short term inconveniences to the people affected.

This observation is still extremely relevant today, especially when it comes to animal conservation. Humans tend to have heavy bias towards certain species, typically the "cuter" ones such as pandas. This can be useful- those animals get immediate, aggressive attention that is used to give them the protections they deserve. However, on the flip side, organisms that humans tend to categorize as pests, such as wasps, get no such protection. Their benefits for the environment and even for us humans are swept under the rug in favor of a common public dislike. As Leopold says, this all changes depending on time, place, and circumstance.