Indigenous-led camera-trap research on traditional territories informs conservation decisions for resource extraction

Abstract

The resource extraction that powers global economies is often manifested in Indigenous Peoples’ territories. Indigenous Peoples living on the land are careful observers of resulting biodiversity changes, and Indigenous-led research can provide evidence to inform conservation decisions. In the Nearctic western boreal forest, landscape change from forest harvesting and petroleum extraction is intensive and extensive. A First Nations community in the Canadian oil sands co-created camera-trap research to explore observations of presumptive species declines, seeking to identify the relative contributions of different industrial sectors to changes in mammal distributions. Camera data were analyzed via generalized linear models in a model-selection approach. Multiple forestry and petroleum extraction features positively and negatively affected boreal mammal species. Pipelines had the greatest negative effect size (for wolves), whereas well sites had a large positive effect size for multiple species, suggesting the energy sector as a target for co-management. Co-created research reveals spatial relationships of disturbance, prey, and predators on Indigenous traditional territories. It provides hypotheses, tests, and interpretations unique to outside perspectives; Indigenous participation in conservation management of their territories scales up to benefit global biodiversity conservation.

Integration of aerial surveys and resource selection analysis indicates human land use supports boreal deer expansion

“…Finally, we note that, unlike locations from satellite collars, helicopter‐based observations are made only in daylight hours during good flying weather, so helicopter samples might be biased in favor of energy‐intake behaviors—moving about and seeking browse—and against energy‐conservation behaviors, bedding down and seeking shelter, as expected at night and in cold, inclement weather. Notwithstanding this possibility, we note that results and conclusions about white‐tailed deer selection are in agreement with those from satellite‐telemetry‐based RSFs studying deer behavior (Darlington et al, 2022) and camera‐trap studies studying landscape‐scale deer distribution (Fisher et al, 2020, 2021; Fisher & Burton, 2020; Fisher & Ladle, 2022) from the same region. Both sampling modes are agnostic to diel period and weather, suggesting that any bias from helicopter observations do not alter conclusions.…”

“…Certainly, linkages between winter severity (snow depth, snow hardness, and temperature lows and temperature variability) and response to landscape cover have been observed for white-tailed deer (Dawe et al, 2014;Dawe & Boutin, 2016;Kennedy-Slaney et al, 2018), so a region-specific relationship to conifer is not unexpected. The fact that avoidance of conifer for western boreal deer has been demonstrated via satellite-collar studies (Darlington et al, 2022) as well as multiple camera-trap studies (Fisher et al, , 2021) lends credence to our conclusions.…”

A synthetic review of terrestrial biological research from the Alberta oil sands region: 10 years of published literature

“…Indigenous communities in the OSR may utilize resources in areas much smaller (e.g., a single berry patch) than what Western science might consider a local monitoring program, consequently limiting the utility of monitoring knowledge for local communities practicing traditional lifestyles. Such “super‐local” monitoring may occur through ICBM or other Indigenous‐led programs and may be reported in ICBM reports or gray literature (Beausoleil et al, 2021 ; Fisher et al, 2021 ). In this respect, this may represent a gap in the Western science literature more so than a gap in the monitoring knowledge itself.…”

A mixed‐methods assessment of human‐elephant conflict in the Western Okavango Panhandle, Botswana

“…Since HEC patterns and experiences can vary widely across spatial scales (Sitati et al, 2003; Wilson et al, 2015), dialogue with local communities can also provide a nuanced understanding of important fine‐scale socioecological interactions (Buchholtz, Fitzgerald et al, 2019; Buchholtz, Redmore et al, 2019; Buchholtz, Fitzgerald, et al, 2020; Buchholtz, Stronza, et al, 2020). Additionally, interviews can initiate dialogue that may facilitate the development and implementation of participatory research, which can foster more locally relevant and impactful conservation and social outcomes (Fisher et al, 2021; Skroblin et al, 2021). Despite the advantages of this holistic approach, particularly in understudied areas, local ecological knowledge is often overlooked, and research that links empirical HEC measurements with people's experiences of HEC is relatively limited.…”

“…Since HEC patterns and experiences can vary widely across spatial scales (Sitati et al, 2003;Wilson et al, 2015), dialogue with local communities can also provide a nuanced understanding of important fine-scale socioecological interactions Buchholtz, Redmore et al, 2019;. Additionally, interviews can initiate dialogue that may facilitate the development and implementation of participatory research, which can foster more locally relevant and impactful conservation and social outcomes (Fisher et al, 2021;Skroblin et al, 2021).…”