What Biotic and Abiotic factors might an endangered species be forced to compete for?

The forests as biotic and the soil and water resources as abiotic

Is there any reason to distinguish endangered species, from non-threatened species? Don't all species seek the resources they need to survive? In an attempt to understand why your teacher/ professor focuses on endangered species (no all species), I offer the following, complimentary information: Marginalized/ Endangered species might opt for alternative abiotic living arrangements. I am referring to animals displaced by a general loss of habitat, due to human encroachment. For example, an endangered species might take residence in an abiotic, man-made structure (ex. concrete tunnels and canals), when its biotic habitat (ex. wetlands) has either been destroyed, or permanently transformed. Many carnivorous species face endangerment when their endemic prey becomes scarce. A good example of this can account for the rapid decline in Iberian lynx populations, across the Iberian Peninsula. Rabbits in that region were ravaged by disease, throughout the 20th Century. As the Iynx's main prey item, data suggests that the decline in rabbit numbers run almost parallel to the predator's demise. It is important to remember that many endangered species are specialized. Therefore, changes that occur within a particular biome will tend to have a greater impact on its niche inhabitants. The reason for this is quite simple: the more adaptable the life-form is, the greater chance it has of enduring an unstable habitat. Polar bears serve as another perfect example of why/how niche species are negatively impacted by a rapidly changing environment. Everything about them is essentially designed to suit one climate, and one climate only. Without the polar regions (including the cold, the glaciers, and the seals that they almost exclusively prey on), this highly specialized bear has little chance of adapting quickly enough to survive global warming---which eliminates more of its natural habitat, with each passing year. Consider the opposite kind of species: us. We are part of an almost unbreakable, super-resilient order of creatures. We are omnivorous, intelligent, social, and engineering. In other words, we are highly mobile, giving us access to just about everything that is edible; we are intelligent enough to adjust our behavior to meet new needs; we are highly dependent on one another for survival, while individuals fill a multitude of survival niches (think doctors, or plumbers---among countless other professions); and we are the most technologically sophisticated earthlings, ever known to exist. Quite literally, the world is at our fingertips (at this very moment, we are exchanging information between strangers). This makes us the ultimate survivors, and the global apex species. In fact, the best way for a species to ensure its own survival, is to become one of us. For instance, no matter how many animals go extinct in the wild, domesticated species are likely to endure for as long as we do.

Is there any reason to distinguish endangered species, from non-threatened species? Don't all species seek the resources they need to survive? In an attempt to understand why your teacher/ professor focuses on endangered species (no all species), I offer the following, complimentary information: Marginalized/ Endangered species might opt for alternative abiotic living arrangements. I am referring to animals displaced by a general loss of habitat, due to human encroachment. For example, an endangered species might take residence in an abiotic, man-made structure (ex. concrete tunnels and canals), when its biotic habitat (ex. wetlands) has either been destroyed, or permanently transformed. Many carnivorous species face endangerment when their endemic prey becomes scarce. A good example of this can account for the rapid decline in Iberian lynx populations, across the Iberian Peninsula. Rabbits in that region were ravaged by disease, throughout the 20th Century. As the Iynx's main prey item, data suggests that the decline in rabbit numbers run almost parallel to the predator's demise. It is important to remember that many endangered species are specialized. Therefore, changes that occur within a particular biome will tend to have a greater impact on its niche inhabitants. The reason for this is quite simple: the more adaptable the life-form is, the greater chance it has of enduring an unstable habitat. Polar bears serve as another perfect example of why/how niche species are negatively impacted by a rapidly changing environment. Everything about them is essentially designed to suit one climate, and one climate only. Without the polar regions (including the cold, the glaciers, and the seals that they almost exclusively prey on), this highly specialized bear has little chance of adapting quickly enough to survive global warming---which eliminates more of its natural habitat, with each passing year. Consider the opposite kind of species: us. We are part of an almost unbreakable, super-resilient order of creatures. We are omnivorous, intelligent, social, and engineering. In other words, we are highly mobile, giving us access to just about everything that is edible; we are intelligent enough to adjust our behavior to meet new needs; we are highly dependent on one another for survival, while individuals fill a multitude of survival niches (think doctors, or plumbers---among countless other professions); and we are the most technologically sophisticated earthlings, ever known to exist. Quite literally, the world is at our fingertips (at this very moment, we are exchanging information between strangers). This makes us the ultimate survivors, and the global apex species. In fact, the best way for a species to ensure its own survival, is to become one of us. For instance, no matter how many animals go extinct in the wild, domesticated species are likely to endure for as long as we do.