This almost seems like common sense to me in that studying and implementing a specific hypothesis brings many questions and other topics that could be studied as well. This can be seen in any experiment or action plan consisting of a hypothesis where other uncertainty factors are not taken into consideration. It almost seems that they are studying these hypothesis in a bubble, and don't care to fully understand the uncertainties to provide structured conclusions. That being said, it is hard to uncover every uncertainty and potential hypothesis that can come from a primary working hypothesis, but it is important to form others to fully develop greater understanding.

I feel that in many cases, when implemented, it is hard to actually suffice all of these constraints. There will always be things you have to give up in the wake of conservation, and some of these will fall under the categories here.

This is interesting to think about, as these native species are stakeholders in this conservation effort, but they have no say at the table. They cannot articulate how they perceive the landscape and how they would like to see it preserved or developed.

We could also add what other stakeholders play a role in this as well, and even a financial aspect. Taking into account all of these factors definitely poses a challenge, but a challenge in which wouldn't be studied as much if it was easily solved.

I feel that we partake in so many actions that we really don't know the full consequences to. There are so many factors that go into the outcome of an action, that might not be visibly and directly relevant. You could even relate this to COVID-19 and how we don't know the full outcome and side affects of vaccines as maybe not enough time has passed to know.

I feel that this is a good case where it would be fairly difficult to track and make sure that each threatened species was monitored and made it on the endangered species list in a timely manner.

Almost as the text suggests, this is great in theory, but once we try to put it into action, money and so many other large factors start to take effect.

This makes sense that in adding more to a population, you increase the risk of spreading disease, but wouldn't that require the presence of a disease? I feel like this would be like saying that pre covid, we all should have been wearing masks all the time because there is this risk in spreading a virus that hasn't been discovered yet.

Looking at the citation of this group, it seemed kind of old (being from 2005), so I was curious as to where this group was in more recent times, so I looked it up and found an interesting populated map of all their conservation sites as of 2018. https://zeroextinction.org/site-identification/2018-global-aze-map/

I feel like this is very much an understatement considering just about everyone has learned about Darwin finches, and has some understanding of evolution in the wake of this. That being said, there are also so many more studies that have come out about birds in the wake of Darwin's finches.

I knew about the heat aspect of species germination, but I never knew that chemicals in smoke can have the same affect as well. This makes me wonder what made these plants evolve to do this? I can see the benefit of repopulation in the face of loss of biodiversity, but in a lot of places, it doesn't seem like there would be much need as there might not be a lot of fires in the area.

This is another aspect I hadn't thought of. It puts into perspective how interconnected everything is in a given environment and how one thing taken out or added can change the total balance of the area.

The lesser deforestation in the coniferous forests makes me wonder if it is due to the varying seasons found where coniferous trees typically reside. This, on top of economical cost/benefit.

This reminds me of the wolves that were taken out of Yellowstone in that once they were removed, the diversity and balance of plant and animal life were thrown off. This also led to erosion of river banks as Elk population rose due to no longer being hunted by the wolves, so the elk were eating more of the vegetation which held the soil together on the banks of the rivers.

Here is a wikipedia on the event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowstone

Edit: Reading the next page, this is briefly explained as well

Considering this percentage of fresh water, and still continuing to consume water at the rate we do, it is almost inevitable that we may see water wars in the future. It is also tough to know the price of saltwater desalination seeing how useful the ocean would be as a freshwater resource.

Considering the average life span of a species, it is crazy to think that the bryozoan lasted 85 million years. Traces of the first human ancestors were said to have existed only 6-7 million years ago to put it into perspective. Here is an article on the startup of the human race: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/09/11/160934187/for-how-long-have-we-been-human

This seems to beg the question of what life would be like had these events not taken place. Had the events that allowed us to become where we are today taken place, we would likely live in a vastly more biodiverse world, and we would also likely be living a different lifestyle.