ABSTRACT. Ecological research, especially work related to conservation and resource management, increasingly involves social dimensions. Concurrently, social systems, composed of human communities that have direct cultural connections to local ecology and place, may draw upon environmental research as a component of knowledge. Such research can corroborate local and traditional ecological knowledge and empower its application. Indigenous communities and their interactions with and management of resources in their traditional territories can provide a model of such social-ecological systems. As decision-making agency is shifted increasingly to indigenous governments in Canada, abundant opportunities exist for applied ecological research at the community level. Despite this opportunity, however, current approaches by scholars to community engaged ecological research often lack a coherent framework that fosters a respectful relationship between research teams and communities. Crafted with input from applied scholars and leaders within indigenous communities in coastal British Columbia, we present here reflections on our process of academic-community engagement in three indigenous territories in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Recognizing that contexts differ among communities, we emerge with a generalizable framework to guide future efforts. Such an approach can yield effective research outcomes and emergent, reciprocal benefits such as trust, respect, and capacity among all, which help to maintain enduring relationships. Facing the present challenge of community engagement head-on by collaborative approaches can lead to effective knowledge production toward conservation, resource management, and scholarship.

Range shifts among wildlife can occur rapidly and impose cascading ecological, economic, and cultural consequences. However, occurrence data used to define distributional limits derived from scientific approaches are often outdated for wide ranging and elusive species, especially in remote environments. Accordingly, our aim was to amalgamate indigenous and western scientific evidence of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) records and detail a potential range shift on the central coast of British Columbia, Canada. In addition, we test the hypothesis that data from each method yield similar results, as well as illustrate the complementary nature of this coupled approach. Combining information from traditional and local ecological knowledge (TEK/LEK) interviews with remote camera, genetic, and hunting data revealed that grizzly bears are now present on 10 islands outside their current management boundary. LEK interview data suggested this expansion has accelerated over the last 10 years. Both approaches provided complementary details and primarily affirmed one another: all islands with scientific evidence for occupation had consistent TEK/LEK evidence. Moreover, our complementary methods approach enabled a more spatially and temporally detailed account than either method would have afforded alone. In many cases, knowledge already held by local indigenous people could provide timely and inexpensive data about changing ecological processes. However, verifying the accuracy of scientific and experiential knowledge by pairing sources at the same spatial scale allows for increased confidence and detail. A similarly coupled approach may be useful across taxa in many regions.

Abstract. Intrapopulation variability in resource acquisition (i.e., niche variation) influences population dynamics, with important implications for conservation planning. Spatial analyses of niche variation within and among populations can provide relevant information about ecological associations and their subsequent management. We used stable isotope analysis and kernel-weighted regression to examine spatial patterns in a keystone consumer-resource interaction: salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) consumption by grizzly and black bears (Ursus arctos horribilis, n = 886; and Ursus americanus, n = 557) from 1995 to 2014 in British Columbia (BC), Canada. In a region on the central coast of BC (22,000 km 2 ), grizzly bears consumed far more salmon than black bears (median proportion of salmon in assimilated diet of 0.62 and 0.06, respectively). Males of both species consumed more salmon than females (median proportions of 0.63 and 0.57 for grizzly bears and 0.06 and 0.03 for black bears, respectively). Black bears showed considerably more spatial variation in salmon consumption than grizzlies. Protected areas on the coast captured no more habitat for bears with high-salmon diets (i.e., proportions >0.5 of total diet) than did unprotected areas. In a continental region (~692,000 km 2 ), which included the entire contemporary range of grizzlies in BC, males had higher salmon diets than females (median proportions of 0.41 and 0.04, respectively). Highsalmon diets were concentrated in coastal areas for female grizzly bears, whereas males with high-salmon diets in interior areas were restricted to areas near major salmon watersheds. To safeguard this predatorprey association that spans coastal and interior regions, conservation planners and practitioners can consider managing across ecological and jurisdictional boundaries. More broadly, our approach highlights the importance of visualizing spatial patterns of dietary niche variation within populations to characterize ecological associations and inform management.