A biodiversity analyst is monitoring population trends for 600 endangered birds. Over a year, the population increases by 12% due to conservation efforts. However, 45 birds are lost to predation. What is the final population at the end of the year?

Sat, 09 May 2026 09:08:38 +0000

**A biodiversity analyst is monitoring population trends for 600 endangered birds. Over a year, the population increases by 12% due to conservation efforts. However, 45 birds are lost to predation. What is the final population at the end of the year?** Amid growing public interest in species recovery and ecological resilience, a detailed analysis helps clarify shifting bird populations. What appears as a simple growth story reveals deeper insights into conservation impact—especially when factors like survival strategies and environmental threats interact. For biodiversity analysts monitoring these trends, precise math and context matter more than headlines. One clear case: tracking 600 endangered birds, a 12% population increase boosts the group to 672 birds, but predation claims 45—bringing the final count to 627. This straightforward calculation reflects how conservation success balances delicate losses. Read on to explore what this outcome means for endangered species management in the U.S. and why accurate data drives informed action. **Understanding the Dynamics: Growth and Loss Explained** The foundation of this outcome lies in two key forces: recovery through conservation and natural or environmental pressures. Starting with 600 birds, a 12% increase translates to 72 new individuals, raising the population to 672. This growth stems from coordinated habitat protection, breeding programs, and reduced immediate threats. Yet, predation removes 45 birds—a result common in ecosystems where natural predators respond to shifts in prey availability or weakened nesting defenses. Unlike outright habitat destruction, predation losses represent a natural rollback, illustrating how conservation gains require ongoing vigilance. Understanding this dual impact helps clarify that population changes aren’t linear—they reflect real-world coexistence of recovery and risk.