Similar to mutualistic relationships in the animal world - they occur most when cheating (one species getting the benefit from another without giving any benefit) is averted.

Usually, the ones most responsible for that pollution are the ones least affected by it.

To be fair, that wasn't long after the 2008 crisis.

Good quality of ecosystem services: they combine conservation interests and other human interests together, and even help mitigate negative human-environmental impact.

Ex: DDT on eagle and peregrine eggs.

Since humans are overpopulated, becoming a more sustainable species is definitely not going to happen at total benefit to people (of course, that gets into many different ethical debates and awful examples of this in history). The most (only) ethical solution would be to have fewer children, but even with that, conservation biology comes into conflict with economic standpoints.

Which is why people's ideas of how they're connected to or relate to nature are so vital.

If only scientists put efforts towards conservation, we would be in a lot of trouble.

I'm surprised this was suggested in 2012 and not earlier, I would think that environmental science would definitely be seen as its own discipline by then.

I think the idea of being separate and distinct from nature has contributed to a lot of the problematic attitudes a number of individuals have about our relationship to our environment - outdoor recreation, therefore, is not only good for us, it's good for nature as well in the long run, by changing how we view our relationship to it.

Also known as overdominance!

I wonder if there's a model built to tell this?

Although I'm not vegetarian myself, I'm pretty sure that vegans, vegetarians, and animal rights activists have followed that same line of thought as well.

The evolution of viruses and superbugs - less good.

For old-growth forest over pine plantations

"(of a flora, fauna, or ecosystem) lacking in numbers or variety of species"

Really? It seems like we do this a fair amount with endangered species, or in the context of wildlife rehabilitation.

I'd contest that, I think individual studies have slowly and slightly proven and tested that 'diversity is good' over time in the past, so that today most biologists support that as a general truth.

Too isolated to colonize from outside sources, not isolated enough to speciate.

AKA the national parks we have today aren't going to save all species.

Reminds me of the Single Large or Several Small/SLOSS debate on habitat patch size.

A thesaurus' way to say herbivore, or feeding on plants.

I don't think that every species is essential, but I do think that it's impossible for a species to be added to or taken out of a community and no effect to result from that.

In a way, you could almost say that some predator-prey dynamics are mutualistic - the prey species keeps the predator alive, obviously, but the predator keeps the prey species in check so they don't overpopulate, overconsume their limiting resources, and become bogged down by disease

Never thought I would ever think of this as not an oxymoron, but it makes sense.

Makes sense - the more information we have, the better we can understand something (of course, that also means the more information we have to wade through, like introns and exons on a DNA strand)

Reductionism: "the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation" or rather, many biologists are interested in the big picture rather than smaller details for how ecosystems work.

It seems like the first two fields are more interested in (or at least have roots in) their dominant subject for human purposes - making sure we have enough lumber to build with and fish to fish out, rather than protecting forests and aquatic ecosystems for the sake of protecting them.

Hence why the conservation biology has a boatload of non-science requirements!

One of my summer field station professors said something similar to this - he had the opinion that there's a great deal of knowledge we can gain from simply studying how species and communities and landscapes work, but even better is doing something with all that knowledge to actively help the wildlife that we study.

In this analogy, are humans the cancer? Or are we like cigarettes or PCBs, a cause?

The unfortunate paradox of conservation biology - as conservation issues and climate change's effects grow and become more devastating, conservation biologists are almost benefited, as demand grows for their/our work.

With this wording, the author definitely makes it sound like experience is invaluable for accurately gauging and resolving conservation situations (as I've learned from the world of applying to science jobs, experience is a huge part of getting the job, or getting the job done, in this case)

Wonder what they mean by other agents, interesting. Maybe they mean, for example, species at risk of going extinct for other reasons besides human impact?