NRE 517. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY (EHS 580) Syllabus, Winter 2014 Time & Location: Mon & Wed, 11:30am ‐ 1:00pm, 1028 Dana Hall Instructor: Brad Cardinale E‐mail: bradcard@umich.edu, Office phone: 734‐764‐9689 In the past 24 hours the planet added 209,000 babies, lost 104,000 acres of rainforest, added 41,000 acres of desert, lost 215 million tons of topsoil, added 4 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, and lost about 75 species.... And we get to do it again tomorrow. D. Orr, Ecological Literacy (1992). Description: The world is in a period of unprecedented environmental change. This course examines the causes and consequences of one of the most prominent forms of change in the modern era – changes in biological diversity. The goals are to (1) explore the scientific evidence that shows how and why Earth’s biological resources are being altered, (2) outline how these changes impact ecosystems and the services they provide to society, (3) describe the social and economic consequences of biodiversity loss, and (4) understand current management strategies used to curb changes in our planet’s biological resources. Objectives: Upon completion of this course, students will be able to (1) cite the scientific evidence for biodiversity change in the modern era and detail the contemporary causes of diversity loss, (2) understand and convey the ecological, social, and economic impacts of diversity loss, and (3) apply management principles and tools that are used to conserve diversity at levels from genes to landscapes. Note: This is a science class targeted to future practitioners of conservation biology ‐ namely, M.S. students in the Conservation Ecology program. Students from all fields of study are welcome; however, be aware that the vast majority of class time will be spent (i) learning the scientific foundations of conservation from various fields of biology, and (ii) critically evaluating scientific literature so as to judge the validity of common claims and success of conservation practices. We will critically evaluate, and occasionally debunk, common claims in pop‐environmentalism. And we will rarely diverge into non‐
scientific arguments for conservation (moral, ethical, or religious). If you are looking for a more introductory class or a non‐scientific view of conservation, I can recommend alternative classes.
Recommended Text: Primack, Conservation Biology, 5th ed, Sinauer. I will cover much of this book in lecture, and most discussions, debates, and projects will benefit from book. Additional course materials will come from the primary literature, which will be available on our website https://ctools.umich.edu. ‐1‐ Course Schedule Date Lecture topic PART 1 INTRODUCTION TO CONSERVATION BIOLOGY W, 1/8 Course overview & introduction M, 1/13 State of the planet W, 1/15 History of conservation biology M, 1/20 Martin Luther King day (no class) W, 1/22 Biodiversity concepts & measures M, 1/27 Biodiversity loss Required reading Suggested reading Exercises [1] [2] [6, 7] [9] [13] Critical inquiry [3‐5] [8], Ch. 1 [10‐12], Ch. 2‐3 [14‐22], Ch. 7 Project meetings and approval PART 2 THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY W, 1/29 Habitat loss [23] [24‐31], Ch. 9 M, 2/3 Overexploitation [32] [33‐35], Ch. 10 W, 2/5 Invasive species [36] [37‐44], Ch. 10 Proposals due M, 2/10 Climate change [45 & replies] [46‐51], Ch. 9 W, 2/12 Debate 1: Is assisted colonization a viable strategy for 21st century conservation? PART 3 CONSEQUENCES OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS M, 2/17 Guest lecture W, 2/19 Biodiversity & ecosystem [52, 53] [54‐60], Ch. 5 functioning M, 2/24 Biodiversity & ecosystem services [61] [62 & replies] [63‐67], Ch. 5 W, 2/26 Biodiversity & options values [68] M, 3/3 Spring break (no class) W, 3/5 Spring break (no class) M, 3/10 Valuation of biodiversity [69] [70 & replies, 71, 72], Ch. 4 W, 3/12 Debate 2: Does diversity loss reduce the goods and services ecosystems provide to society? PART 4 CONSERVATION STRATEGIES & TOOLS M, 3/17 Legal foundations of conservation W, 3/19 Conservation genetics [73] [74, 75] M, 3/24 Conservation of species & [76] [77‐80], Ch. 11‐
populations 14 W, 3/26 Conservation of habitats & [81] [82‐84], Ch. 15‐
landscapes 18 M, 3/31 Debate 3: Is the 'species' the best ecological unit for conservation efforts? W, 4/2 Zoos, gardens, and stocking [85] [86‐90] M, 4/7 Final exam W, 4/9 Project presentations M, 4/14 Project presentations W, 4/16 Project presentations M, 4/21 The future of conservation Video: Planet [91] Projects due Earth ‐2‐ Course Reading List (includes both required & suggested readings) Pdf’s of all materials will be posted on the course website at least 1‐week prior to discussion, along with a corresponding list of discussion questions. Students are responsible for printing these out, reading the materials before class, and being prepared to engage in discussion of the material. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Laurance, W.F., et al., Making conservation research more relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological Conservation, 2012. 153(0): p. 164‐168. Vitousek, P.M., et al., Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 1997. 277(5325): p. 494‐499. Bloom, D.E., 7 Billion and Counting. Science, 2011. 333(6042): p. 562‐569. MEA, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and human well‐being: Synthesis. 2005, World Resources Institute: Washington D.C. p. 86. Kennedy, D., ed. Science Magazine's "State of Our Planet". ed. D.a.t.e.o.S. Kennedy. 2006, Island Press: Washington D.C. 201. Soule, M.E., What is conservation biology? Bioscience, 1985. 35(11): p. 727‐734. Kareiva, P. and M. Marvier, What Is Conservation Science? Bioscience, 2012. 62(11): p. 962‐969. Meine, C., M. Soule, and R.F. Noss, "A mission‐driven discipline": the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 2006. 20(3): p. 631‐651. Mora, C., et al., How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol, 2011. 9(8): p. e1001127. Myers, N., et al., Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 2000. 403(6772): p. 853‐858. May, R.M., How Many Species Are There On Earth. Science, 1988. 241(4872): p. 1441‐1449. Gaston, K.J., Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature, 2000. 405(6783): p. 220‐227. Sala, O.E., et al., Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science, 2000. 287(5459): p. 1770‐1774. Laurance, W.F., Have we overstated the tropical biodiversity crisis? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2007. 22(2): p. 65‐70. Pereira, H.M., et al., Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science, 2010. 330(6010): p. 1496‐1501. Stork, N.E., Re‐assessing current extinction rates. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2010. 19(2): p. 357‐371. Hubbell, S.P., et al., How many tree species and how many of them are there in the Amazon will go extinct? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008. 105: p. 11498‐11504. Pimm, S.L. and P. Raven, Biodiversity ‐ Extinction by numbers. Nature, 2000. 403(6772): p. 843‐
845. Jablonski, D., Extinction: past and present. Nature, 2004. 427(6975): p. 589‐589. Ricciardi, A. and J.B. Rasmussen, Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology, 1999. 13(5): p. 1220‐1222. Smith, F.D.M., et al., Estimating extinction rates. Nature, 1993. 364(6437): p. 494‐496. Barnosky, A.D., et al., Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 2011. 471(7336): p. 51‐57. Tilman, D., et al., HABITAT DESTRUCTION AND THE EXTINCTION DEBT. Nature, 1994. 371(6492): p. 65‐66. Tewksbury, J.J., S.J. Hejl, and T.E. Martin, Breeding productivity does not decline with increasing fragmentation in a western landscape. Ecology, 1998. 79(8): p. 2890‐2903. ‐3‐ 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Skole, D. and C. Tucker, TROPICAL DEFORESTATION AND HABITAT FRAGMENTATION IN THE AMAZON ‐ SATELLITE DATA FROM 1978 TO 1988. Science, 1993. 260(5116): p. 1905‐1910. Fahrig, L., Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 2003. 34: p. 487‐515. Bender, D.J., T.A. Contreras, and L. Fahrig, Habitat loss and population decline: A meta‐analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology, 1998. 79: p. 517‐533. Green, R.E., et al., Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science, 2005. 307(5709): p. 550‐555. Connor, E.F. and E.D. McCoy, STATISTICS AND BIOLOGY OF THE SPECIES‐AREA RELATIONSHIP. American Naturalist, 1979. 113(6): p. 791‐833. Robinson, S.K., et al., REGIONAL FOREST FRAGMENTATION AND THE NESTING SUCCESS OF MIGRATORY BIRDS. Science, 1995. 267(5206): p. 1987‐1990. Rudnick, e.a., The Role of Landscape Connectivity in Planning and Implementing Conservation and Restoration Priorities. 2012. Jackson, J.B.C., et al., Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 2001. 293(5530): p. 629‐638. Pauly, D., et al., Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 1998. 279(5352): p. 860‐863. Worm, B., et al., Rebuilding Global Fisheries. Science, 2009. 325(5940): p. 578‐585. Hilborn, R., et al., State of the world's fisheries. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2003. 28: p. 359‐399. Sax, D.F., S.D. Gaines, and J.H. Brown, Species invasions exceed extinctions on islands worldwide: A comparative study of plants and birds. American Naturalist, 2002. 160(6): p. 766‐783. McKinney, M.L. and J.L. Lockwood, Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1999. 14(11): p. 450‐453. Lodge, D.M., et al., Biological invasions: Recommendations for US policy and management. Ecological Applications, 2006. 16(6): p. 2035‐2054. Sax, D.F. and S.D. Gaines, Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2003. 18(11): p. 561‐566. Gurevitch, J. and D.K. Padilla, Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2004. 19(9): p. 470‐474. Sakai, A.K., et al., The population biology of invasive species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 2001. 32: p. 305‐332. Rejmanek, M. and D.M. Richardson, What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology, 1996. 77(6): p. 1655‐1661. Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison, Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien‐invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics, 2005. 52(3): p. 273‐288. Mack, R.N., et al., Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications, 2000. 10(3): p. 689‐710. Thomas, C.D., et al., Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 2004. 427(6970): p. 145‐148. Maclean, I.M.D. and R.J. Wilson, Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011. 108(30): p. 12337‐12342. Vitousek, P.M., GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL‐CHANGE ‐ AN INTRODUCTION. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1992. 23: p. 1‐14. Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe, A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 2003. 421(6918): p. 37‐42. ‐4‐ 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. Tylianakis, J.M., et al., Global change and species interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 2008. 11(12): p. 1351‐1363. Visser, M.E. and C. Both, Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick. Proceedings of the Royal Society B‐Biological Sciences, 2005. 272(1581): p. 2561‐2569. Harte, J. and R. Shaw, SHIFTING DOMINANCE WITHIN A MONTANE VEGETATION COMMUNITY ‐ RESULTS OF A CLIMATE‐WARMING EXPERIMENT. Science, 1995. 267(5199): p. 876‐880. Huston, M.A., Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: Re‐evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia, 1997. 110(4): p. 449‐460. Tilman, D. and J.A. Downing, Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature, 1994. 367(6461): p. 363‐365. Cardinale, B.J., et al., The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. American Journal of Botany, 2011. 98(3): p. 572‐592. Cardinale, B.J., et al., Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature, 2006. 443(7114): p. 989‐992. Stachowicz, J., J.F. Bruno, and J.E. Duffy, Understanding the effects of marine biodiversity on communities and ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 2007. 38(1): p. 739‐766 Hooper, D.U., et al., Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 2005. 75(1): p. 3‐35. Loreau, M., et al., Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 2001. 294(5543): p. 804‐808. Naeem, S., Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: The evolution of a paradigm. Ecology, 2002. 83(6): p. 1537‐1552. Tilman, D., The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 1999. 80: p. 1455‐1474. Cardinale, B.J., et al., Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 2012. Worm, B., et al., Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 2006. 314(5800): p. 787‐790. Balvanera, P., et al., Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters, 2006. 9(10): p. 1146‐1156. Cardinale, B.J., Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning. Nature, 2011. 472(7341): p. 86‐89. Snyder, W.E., et al., Predator biodiversity strengthens herbivore suppression. Ecology Letters, 2006. 9(7): p. 789‐796. Saslis‐Lagoudakis, C.H., et al., Phylogenies reveal predictive power of traditional medicine in bioprospecting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012. 109(39): p. 15835‐
15840. Garibaldi, L.A., et al., Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance. Science, 2013. Mendelsohn, R. and M.J. Balick, The value of undiscovered pharmaceuticals in tropical forests. Economic Botany, 1995. 49(2): p. 223‐228. Naidoo, R., et al., Effect of biodiversity on economic benefits from communal lands in Namibia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011. 48(2): p. 310‐316. Costanza, R., et al., The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 1997. 387(6630): p. 253‐260. Gowdy, J., et al., What Every Conservation Biologist Should Know about Economic Theory. Conservation Biology, 2010. 24(6): p. 1440‐1447. ‐5‐ 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. Perrings, C., The economics of biodiversity: the evolving agenda. Environment and Development Economics, 2010. 15: p. 721‐746. de Groot, P.J.V., et al., Conservation genetics of the black rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis bicornis, in Namibia. Conservation Genetics, 2011. 12(3): p. 783‐792. Frankham, R., Conservation genetics. Annual Review of Genetics, 1995. 29: p. 305‐327. Hedrick, P.W., Conservation genetics: where are we now? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2001. 16(11): p. 629‐636. Taylor, M.F.J., K.F. Suckling, and J.J. Rachlinski, The effectiveness of the endangered species act: A quantitative analysis. Bioscience, 2005. 55(4): p. 360‐367. Fallon, S.M., Genetic data and the listing of species under the US endangered species act. Conservation Biology, 2007. 21(5): p. 1186‐1195. Harding, E.K., et al., The scientific foundations of habitat conservation plans: a quantitative assessment. Conservation Biology, 2001. 15(2): p. 488‐500. Roemer, G.W. and R.K. Wayne, Conservation in conflict: The tale of two endangered species. Conservation Biology, 2003. 17(5): p. 1251‐1260. Caughley, G., DIRECTIONS IN CONSERVATION BIOLOGY. Journal of Animal Ecology, 1994. 63(2): p. 215‐244. Schindler, D.E., et al., Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature, 2010. 465(7298): p. 609‐U102. Halpern, B.S., et al., Accounting for uncertainty in marine reserve design. Ecology Letters, 2006. 9(1): p. 2‐11. Roberts, C.M., et al., Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science, 2001. 294(5548): p. 1920‐1923. Christensen, N.L., et al., The report of the ecological society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 1996. 6(3): p. 665‐691. Conde, D.A., et al., An Emerging Role of Zoos to Conserve Biodiversity. Science, 2011. 331(6023): p. 1390‐1391. Hoban, S. and C. Vernesi, Challenges in global biodiversity conservation and solutions that cross sociology, politics, economics and ecology. Biology Letters, 2012. 8(6): p. 897‐899. Balmford, A., G.M. Mace, and N. Leader‐Williams, Designing the Ark: Setting Priorities for Captive Breeding Diseñando el Arca: Establecimiento de Prioridades para la Reproducción en Cautiverio. Conservation Biology, 1996. 10(3): p. 719‐727. Fraser, D.J., How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids. Evolutionary Applications, 2008. 1(4): p. 535‐586. Gusset, M. and G. Dick, The Global Reach of Zoos and Aquariums in Visitor Numbers and Conservation Expenditures. Zoo Biology, 2011. 30(5): p. 566‐569. Rahbek, C., Captive breeding—a useful tool in the preservation of biodiversity? Biodiversity & Conservation, 1993. 2(4): p. 426‐437. Balmford, A. and R.M. Cowling, Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 2006. 20(3): p. 692‐695. ‐6‐ Course Exams, Projects & Grades Exercise Points (400 total)
Conservation project (25%) Area of Project
10  Approval & proposal authority
50  Project Topical
40  Class presentation Debates
expertise
Debates (25%) 70  Participation in one debate Understanding of 30  Panel judging Discussions
contemporary issues
Class discussions (25%) 50  Lead one discussion Foundation of historical 50  Regular participation Exam
knowledge
Final exam (25%) 100 A=90‐100%, B=80‐89.9%, C=70‐79.9%, D=60‐69.9% Final Exam (100 pts, 25% grade): The goal of the exam is to ensure that students master the broad base of fundamentals covered in lecture. The exam will include matching, true/false, short‐answer, calculations, and essay questions taken from lectures and discussion readings. Class discussions (100 pts, 25% of grade): The goal of class discussion is to ensure that students develop an understanding of the contemporary issues and controversies in conservation. Discussions are student led, with grades based on two factors: Lead one discussion (50 pts). Students will be assigned to a discussion (1‐2 students) and lecture date. Each student/team will be responsible for …  Thoroughly reading and understanding the paper associated with lecture.  Posting 3‐5 discussion questions on the course website 1‐week before discussion.  Providing a concise (5 min) summary at the beginning of discussion.  Leading a lively and engaging class discussion. Participation (50 pts). Each student is responsible for coming to class having read the assigned paper or material, with answers to the discussion questions ready, and with additional questions or comments about the paper. Debates (100 pts, 25% of grade): The goal of the debate is to help students develop considerable expertise in a particular topic of the class while, at the same time, giving all students a deeper appreciation for the controversy and uncertainties that are associated with the topics we discuss. Each student will participate in one of four debates (Part 1 below). Non‐participating members of each debate will serve as the panel of judges who grade each debate team (Part 2 below). Part 1: Formal debate (70 pts). Each student will be assigned to a debate team of ~4 students, which will then be assigned to argue the ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’ side for one of four debates. Teams will be responsible for preparing for, and participating in, a formal debate, after which, they will field questions from a panel of their peers. ‐7‐ Each member of a team will receive the same grade, which will be determined by the instructor score and the median score assigned by your peers who will serve as a panel that will judge preparation, accuracy of facts, logic of arguments, and response to questions. Part 2: Panel of judges (30 pts). Each student not involved in a debate will serve on the ‘panel of judges’. Every panel member is responsible for preparing one question to ask each of the pro and con teams. Panel members will also be responsible for grading each debate team. Conservation project (100 pts, 25% of grade): The goal of this project is to get students actively working on a conservation issue in sufficient depth that they will develop considerable authority on the issue. This project has a lot of freedom and creativity associated with it, as student can complete any project that is pre‐approved by the professor. Students may complete their projects alone, or do projects in small groups (≤ 5 indiv). Group projects with be judged accordingly (i.e. a project by a group of 5 will need to have 5× the substance of a project performed by an individual). Grading for projects is divided into three parts. Part 1: Pre‐approval and proposal (10 pts). Each individual or group must meet with the professor during the first 3‐weeks of the semester to discuss their project idea(s) and get feedback and approval. After pre‐approval, individuals/groups will submit a 1‐page proposal clearly stating the goal(s) and audience of the project and giving an outline of how the project will be completed. Group projects should also include a list of responsibilities or tasks for each individual. Proposals are due on Wednesday, 5‐Feb by 5:00pm EST, and should be uploaded to each student's DropBox in CTools. Part 2: Project (50 pts). Each individual or group must turn in a digital or physical hard‐copy of their project in a format that can be graded by the professor (paper, digital video, etc.). Projects are due on Monday, 21‐Apr by 5:00pm EST, and should be uploaded to each student's DropBox in CTools. Part 3: Class presentation (40 pts). Each student / group will give a 15‐min Powerpoint presentation on their project to the class. Presentations should be ca. 10‐12 min with 3‐5 min for questions. Examples of potential projects include …  Complete a literature review and statistical meta‐analysis of species extinction rates  Film a documentary on a local conservation problem  Create a public service announcement on a conservation issue  Complete a volunteer project with a local conservation group (e.g., Michigan DNR, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, etc.)  Write a review paper on a contemporary issue in conservation (e.g., impacts of aquarium‐
trade on spread of invasive species, or effect of marine reserves on fisheries production). Late & make‐up policy: Deadlines will be strictly enforced. Extensions will only be granted for those who can provide documentation of a valid, university approved excuse. Late work turned in after the deadline will have grades deducted at 10% per day. ‐8‐ Course Expectations Background & preparation. 1. Students should have completed NRE 509 Ecology: Science of Context and Interaction, or have an equivalent background in Ecology. 2. Students should be proficient with concepts presented in an introductory ecology textbook , such as Ricklefs, R. E. 2008. The Economy of Nature, 6th Edition. 3. Students shoudl have a basic proficiency math through college algebra. Student participation. I expect students to be actively engaged in the class and eager to learn. For class discussions, I expect that each student will have read the material and come to class having answered the assigned questions and ready to add additional questions, thoughts, and comments to the discussion. During discussion, I want students to challenge statements they don’t agree with, and to probe and to think aloud. Based on your background and experience, you’ll have more to contribute to some classes than others. However, consistently poor participation that shows a lack of effort or interest will result in a low participation grade. Missing class will also count against participation. Attendance: Attendance is mandatory. Any classes missed will be counted against the participation grade and/or the exercises assigned for that day. Class etiquette 1. Please turn cell phones off at the beginning of each class. 2. Please put away all computers during lectures. Computers may be used during discussion of papers (e.g., if you prefer not to print out papers) and during exercises … but absolutely no web surfing or emailing during class! 3. Please … no sleeping in class. Academic integrity. We will adhere to the University of Michigan’s Policy Statement on Academic Integrity. Students are responsible for reading and understanding this policy, which can be viewed on our course website https://ctools.umich.edu. Science vs. activism. Most of us entered graduate school in environmental science because we are concerned about the current state of our planet’s natural resources. It is healthy when such concerns prompt scientific inquiry and the search for factual information that can be used to lobby for, and guide change. But when these concerns translate into emotional, exaggerated, or illogical arguments that run counter to factual information, they undermine the credibility of conservation efforts, as well as our ability to make educated decisions that involve inherent trade‐offs. There is a fine line that separates conservation biology from environmentalism or activism. The goal of conservation biology, and the goal of this class, is to seek knowledge that has an objective and factual basis. With this, we must all recognize and accept that data may not always support our pre‐conceived notions, hopes, or even innate desire to conserve the world's biodiversity. ‐9‐