ArticlePDF Available

Łeghágots’enetę (learning together): The importance of indigenous perspectives in the identification of biological variation

May 2016
Ecology and Society 21(2):18

DOI:10.5751/ES-08284-210218

Authors:

Jean Polfus

Environment Climate Change Canada

Micheline Manseau

Environment and Climate Change Canada

Deborah Simmons

Sahtu Renewable Resources Board

Michael Neyelle

Show all 10 authorsHide

Using multiple knowledge sources to interpret patterns of biodiversity can generate the comprehensive species characterizations that are required for effective conservation strategies. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) display substantial intraspecific variation across their distribution and in the Sahtú Region of the Northwest Territories, Canada, three caribou types, each with a different conservation status, co-occur. Caribou are essential to the economies, culture and livelihoods of northern indigenous peoples. Indigenous communities across the north are insisting that caribou research be community-driven and collaborative. In response to questions that arose through dialogue with five Sahtú Dene and Métis communities, we jointly developed a research approach to understand caribou differentiation and population structure. Our goal was to examine caribou variation through analysis of population genetics and an exploration of the relationships Dene and Métis people establish with animals within bioculturally diverse systems. To cultivate a research environment that supported łeghágots'enetę “learning together” we collaborated with Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę (Renewable Resources Councils), elders and an advisory group. Dene knowledge and categorization systems include a comprehensive understanding of the origin, behaviors, dynamic interactions and spatial structure of caribou. Dene people classify tǫdzı “boreal woodland caribou” based on unique behaviors, habitat preferences and morphology that differ from ɂekwę́ “barren-ground” or shúhta ɂepę́ "mountain" caribou. Similarly, genetic analysis of material (microsatellites and mitochondrial DNA) from caribou fecal pellets, collected in collaboration with community members during the winter, provided additional evidence for population differentiation that corresponded to the caribou types recognized by Dene people and produced insights into the evolutionary histories that contribute to the various forms. We developed culturally respectful and relevant descriptions of caribou variation through partnerships that respect the lives and experiences of people that depend on the land. By prioritizing mutual learning, researchers can broaden their understanding of biodiversity and establish a common language for collaboration.

The Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories, Canada, includes the overlapping ranges of three types of caribou: tǫdzı (boreal woodland caribou; striped green), ɂekwę́ (barren-ground caribou; blue) and shúhta ɂepę́ (northern mountain caribou; stippled orange). Small black dots represent locations of caribou fecal, tissue and blood strip samples collected in the Sahtú Region and Nahanni National Park Reserve, Northwest Territories, Canada.

…

Word descriptions and definitions in the ShúhtaShúhta (S), Sahtú/Sahtú/Deíı̨ nę (D), and K'áhshoáhsho (K) dialects of the North Slavey language in the Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories, Canada.

…

We analyzed microsatellite data from caribou (Rangifer tarandus) genetic samples collected in the Sahtú region and Nahanni National Park Reserve of the Northwest Territories, Canada from 2012 to 2014. We used structure software to assign individual caribou to inferred genetic clusters. We found support for K = 3 populations (shown in bottom bar) that coincided with clusters of (1) barren-ground (blue), (2) boreal woodland (green), and (3) mountain (red). Vertical colored bars indicate the probability that an individual belongs to a certain group. We mapped the structure output using the inversedistance-weighted interpolation in ArcGIS and constrained the interpolation to the sampled locations.

…

Figure A2.4. During a focus group meeting, Gabe Kochon of Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories, Canada, described a historic event where a large herd of caribou crossed the Dehcho (Mackenzie River) and headed into the foothills of the mountains many years ago. We collected samples from the area identified by the arrow during our 2 April 2014 helicopter survey and identified 9 individual caribou from the site in subsequent genetic analysis. Structure analysis of these samples found a high probability of assignment (average 0.73) to the barren-ground caribou cluster (shown as blue in bottom bar and represented as blue on the map). Genetic structure analysis identified k=3 clusters of 1) barren-ground (blue) 2) boreal woodland (green) and 3) mountain (red).

…

Figures - uploaded by the authors

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Cornelya FC Klütsch

Content may be subject to copyright.

Polfus, J. L., M. Manseau, D. Simmons, M. Neyelle, W. Bayha, F. Andrew, L. Andrew, C. F. C. Klütsch, K. Rice, and P. Wilson. 2016.

Łeghágots'enetę (learning together): the importance of indigenous perspectives in the identification of biological variation. Ecology

and Society 21(2):18. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08284-210218

Research

Łeghágots'enetę (learning together): the importance of indigenous

perspectives in the identification of biological variation

Jean L. Polfus 1, Micheline Manseau 1,2, Deborah Simmons 3,4, Michael Neyelle 3,5, Walter Bayha 6, Frederick Andrew 3, Leon Andrew 3,

Cornelya F. C. Klütsch 7, Keren Rice 8 and Paul Wilson 7

ABSTRACT. Using multiple knowledge sources to interpret patterns of biodiversity can generate the comprehensive species

characterizations that are required for effective conservation strategies. Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) display substantial intraspecific

variation across their distribution and in the Sahtú Region of the Northwest Territories, Canada, three caribou types, each with a

different conservation status, co-occur. Caribou are essential to the economies, culture, and livelihoods of northern indigenous peoples.

Indigenous communities across the north are insisting that caribou research be community-driven and collaborative. In response to

questions that arose through dialogue with five Sahtú Dene and Métis communities, we jointly developed a research approach to

understand caribou differentiation and population structure. Our goal was to examine caribou variation through analysis of population

genetics and an exploration of the relationships Dene and Métis people establish with animals within bioculturally diverse systems. To

cultivate a research environment that supported łeghágots'enetę “learning together” we collaborated with Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę (Renewable

Resources Councils), elders, and an advisory group. Dene knowledge and categorization systems include a comprehensive understanding

of the origin, behaviors, dynamic interactions, and spatial structure of caribou. Dene people classify tǫdzı “boreal woodland caribou”

based on unique behaviors, habitat preferences, and morphology that differ from ɂekwę́ “barren-ground” or shúhta ɂepę́ “mountain”

caribou. Similarly, genetic analysis of material (microsatellites and mitochondrial DNA) from caribou fecal pellets, collected in

collaboration with community members during the winter, provided additional evidence for population differentiation that

corresponded to the caribou types recognized by Dene people and produced insights into the evolutionary histories that contribute to

the various forms. We developed culturally respectful and relevant descriptions of caribou variation through partnerships that respect

the lives and experiences of people that depend on the land. By prioritizing mutual learning, researchers can broaden their understanding

of biodiversity and establish a common language for collaboration.

Key Words: aboriginal; biocultural diversity; biodiversity; caribou; collaborative research; ecology; First Nation; genetic variation;

indigenous communities; population genetics; population structure; Rangifer tarandus; resource management; social-ecological systems;

traditional knowledge

INTRODUCTION

Patterns of biological variation are a result of the replication of

DNA, the potential for DNA mutations and environmental

structure that prevents the complete overlap of groups of

organisms (Hey 2001). Significant scientific effort has been

allocated toward determining where, within the space of genetic

and environmental variation, units emerge that merit

identification (Padial et al. 2010). Although the articulation of

biological categories is a universal human predisposition (Berlin

1973, Atran 1990), the content of named categories reflects a

dynamic exchange between morphological, utilitarian, ecological,

and perceptual factors, all of which are adapted by different

cultures to a particular time and place (Nazarea 2006, Newmaster

et al. 2006). The species concept, which has undergone numerous

iterations and has been, and continues to be, actively debated by

systematists, taxonomists, biologists, and naturalists, illustrates

the complexity of assigning objects to categories (Hey 2001).

Recently, researchers have begun to acknowledge that many, if

not most, species do not have distinct, easy-to-recognize

boundaries (Hey 2006, Mallet 2008) and that species may be best

described as “poorly differentiated way-stations in a continuous

hierarchy of biodiversity” (Mallet 2005:229). However, in order

to identify groups that justify protection, such as species or

subspecies, scientists and managers require not only a firm

understanding of recombination, genetic drift, selection, and

gene flow, but also a critical examination of human perception

and how people connect with and define their world.

Biodiversity can be categorized in many ways as a result of the

inherent complexity and interconnected evolutionary history of

life, e.g., introgressive hybridization, horizontal gene transfer,

lateral exchange, reticulate evolution, etc. (Mallet 2005, Arnold

and Fogarty 2009). Current species taxonomies reflect only one

possible grouping structure out of many alternatives (Atran 1990,

Lakoff 1990, Newmaster et al. 2006, Padial et al. 2010). Critics

of the hierarchical nature of science-based classification systems

cite a lack of flexibility necessary to respond to a world that

includes ambiguous boundaries (Hey 2006). The subjectivity

inherent in species categories can appear inconsequential when

two species or populations are clearly distinct, but in situations

involving closely related taxa, intraspecific variation, or

geographic overlap, it becomes problematic (Mace 2004). The

influence of hybridization and introgression among subspecies,

populations, and species can be difficult because the conservation

1Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2Office of the Chief Ecosystem Scientist, Parks Canada,

Gatineau, Québec, Canada, 3Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable Resources Board), Tulı́t'a, Northwest Territories, Canada, 4Aboriginal

Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 5Délı̨nę Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę (Renewable Resource Council), Délı̨nę, Northwest Territories,

Canada, 6Délı̨nę Land Corporation, Délı̨nę, Northwest Territories, Canada, 7Biology Department, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario,

Canada, 8Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

of hybrids, which often display a continuum of genotypes, does

not fit a discontinuous species-based conservation model

(Fitzpatrick et al. 2015). Further, hybridization often necessitates

a subjective decision about the “authenticity” of a certain

genotype over another and poses a challenge to endangered

species policies, e.g., the hybridization of introduced Mallards

(Anas platyrhynchos) with several species of threatened ducks in

New Zealand to the point where all previously considered endemic

ducks may be of hybrid origin (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996,

Fitzpatrick et al. 2015).

The species Rangifer tarandus, known as caribou in North

America and reindeer in Scandinavia and Russia, are highly vagile

and occur across an extremely diverse spectrum of habitats where

they have adapted many different behavioral responses to a range

of ecological conditions. Substantial variation in caribou

behavior, morphology, life history traits, interactions with other

species, movement, diet, and social structures have made attempts

to systematically organize and characterize the species

challenging. In 1961, Banfield classified R. tarandus in North

America into four divisions based on morphological

comparisons: barren-ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus and R.

t. granti); woodland (R. t. caribou); Peary caribou (R. t. pearyi);

and the extinct Dawson’s caribou that once occurred on the Haida

Gwaii islands of British Columbia (R. t. dawsoni). A range of

subjective subdivisions within Banfield’s designations have since

been applied based on numerous criteria, e.g., calving strategies,

ecotype designations, seasonal distributions, etc., resulting in a

complicated milieu of inconsistently applied naming conventions

that diverge across jurisdictional boundaries. The recent attempt

by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada to define conservation units for caribou, specifically

designatable units (DUs, discrete and significant biological units

that capture irreplaceable components of intraspecific

biodiversity), found that consistent methods and criteria for

organizing the variation inherent to the species are not currently

available (COSEWIC 2011). Effective categories are needed

because units that ignore underlying ecological relationships or

misinterpret population structure lead to confusion when

implementing recovery plans and conservation policies (Crandall

2009).

For example, in the Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories,

Canada, there is considerable overlap among different caribou

herds, groups, and types that exhibit unique life histories and have

acquired different conservation statuses (Fig. 1). In the northern

portion of the region, large herds of barren-ground caribou

migrate between the open tundra and the boreal forest in response

to seasonal pulses of resources and predation pressure (Vors and

Boyce 2009, Nagy et al. 2011). In the Mackenzie Mountains,

caribou display much smaller scale seasonal migrations between

valley bottoms and alpine plateaus (Gullickson and Manseau

2000, Polfus et al. 2011, Letts et al. 2012). Throughout the boreal

forest, boreal woodland caribou exhibit sedentary behavior and

occur in small groups of ~5—15 individuals (Stuart-Smith et al.

1997, O’Brien et al. 2006, Brown et al. 2007, Courtois et al. 2007).

Data on the boundaries and degree of differentiation between

these caribou types is currently limited. Understanding how the

caribou types are structured in the Sahtú region has legal

implications because boreal woodland caribou are listed as

threatened by the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the

territorial Species at Risk (NWT) Act and thus warrant specific

protection and recovery measures (Environment Canada 2012,

Species at Risk Committee 2012). The development of a national

recovery strategy and subsequent action plans for boreal

woodland caribou conservation has been delayed, in part, because

of the complex intraspecific variation that characterizes the

species. To date most range boundaries include a poor

understanding of long-term caribou movements, gene flow, and

genetic divergence. Current research examining zones of contact

and introgression among caribou subspecies aims to help define

evolutionarily significant conservation, management, and

population units (Weckworth et al. 2012, Colson et al. 2014, Røed

et al. 2014, Klütsch et al. 2016); however, alternative sources of

knowledge are rarely considered in the context of caribou ecology

and conservation (but see O’Flaherty et al. 2008, Mager 2012,

Polfus et al. 2014).

Fig. 1. The Sahtú region of the Northwest Territories, Canada,

includes the overlapping ranges of three types of caribou

(Rangifer tarandus): tǫdzı (boreal woodland caribou; striped

green), ɂekwę́ (barren-ground caribou; blue), and shúhta ɂepę́

(northern mountain caribou; stippled orange). Small black dots

represent locations of caribou fecal, tissue, and blood strip

samples collected in the Sahtú Region and Nahanni National

Park Reserve, Northwest Territories, Canada.

Challenges to the classification of Rangifer present an ideal

opportunity to use multiple knowledge sources to develop a more

thorough and complete understanding of caribou population

organization and variation (Crandall 2009). Knowledge that

arises from indigenous people’s ecological relationships is often

referred to as traditional knowledge (TK) and encodes ways of

knowing and describing environmental diversity (Hunn 2006).

Although significant scholarly work has defined and critiqued the

mechanisms, functions, cultural significance, and cognitive basis

of biological classifications (Berlin 1973, Atran 1990, Lakoff

1990, Ingold 2000, Newmaster et al. 2007), there remains space

for a more practical consideration of the substantive knowledge

indigenous people hold about their environments in the context

of conservation (Fraser et al. 2006). Traditional knowledge is a

product of a dynamic process of individual engagement with

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

ecosystems that reflects people’s capacity to respond to a

constantly changing environment (Berkes 2012). Traditional

knowledge is neither static nor antiquated. Processes and

institutions guide the production and legitimation of TK as part

of a living practice that is constantly updated and renewed (Ingold

2000, Davidson-Hunt 2006). For the purpose of this paper we

make the distinction between science and TK. We find it useful

not to conflate the two knowledge traditions because the

procedures that make up science arose from their own particular

social-institutional history and bringing science and TK together

requires substantive interpretive and heuristic procedures (Scott

2011). Thus, TK has the potential to provide robust descriptions

of species variation that can add value to our understanding of

coupled human and natural systems (Fraser et al. 2006, Liu et al.

2007).

Language is one medium by which TK is transmitted and

expressed and in the Sahtú it is crucial to the interpretation,

organization, and articulation of biodiversity (Lakoff 1990,

Basso 1996, Hey 2001, Evans 2012). Knowledge holders often

need to speak their own language (rather than English) to

accurately describe complex components of TK. Examining

multiple language systems in parallel allows for descriptions that

have the potential to reach beyond one dominant biological

classification structure (Davidson-Hunt et al. 2005, Stronen et al.

2014). Languages can express meaning in different ways. This is

partially due to the fact that what must be obligatorily expressed

in one language need not be obligatorily expressed in another, and

thus the structure of the language can implicitly and explicitly

affect how speakers engage with the world and influence memory,

perception, and categorization (Markman and Hutchinson 1984,

Harrison 2007, Deutscher 2010, Boroditsky 2011). Indigenous

languages can provide refined and multifaceted descriptions of

biodiversity (Hale et al. 1992, Newmaster et al. 2007), alternative

ways of examining and relating to nonhuman animals (Ingold

2011, Miller and Davidson-Hunt 2013), and insight into the

underlying processes that create biological structure and drive

patterns of biodiversity (Ragupathy et al. 2009, Gavin et al. 2015).

To achieve effective conservation outcomes there is a need to

explicitly explore, not only variation itself, but the biocultural

forces that shape variation and the relationships people establish

within evolutionary systems (Gavin et al. 2015). The concept of

biocultural diversity emphasizes the reciprocal relationships and

overlapping realms of cultural, biological, and linguistic diversity

and the many compelling similarities between languages and

species as essential units of culture and nature (Loh and Harmon

2014, Gavin et al. 2015). Recent investigations into the link

between biological and cultural diversity have generated

important discourse concerning the vital role of TK, language,

and diverse knowledge systems in conservation and

environmental management (Davidson-Hunt et al. 2012, Gavin

et al. 2015).

Land claim settlements across the Northwest Territories have

introduced new institutions and governance structures that have

the potential to reframe policies influencing lands and resources.

In the Sahtú region, Dene and Métis representatives from local

Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę (Renewable Resources Councils; RRCs) recently

passed a resolution that called for a renewed commitment to adopt

TK and the laws of the Dene people as the guiding principles for

caribou research and management. To support the ambitious

goals set forth by the communities, we collaboratively developed

a research approach to explore questions about caribou variation

and differentiation using both traditional and scientific

knowledge. We focused on łeghágots'enetę “learning together”

and acknowledged the complex nature of caribou as part of a

dynamic bioculturally diverse system. Our ultimate goal was to

support the practices that enhance people’s continued

relationships with caribou and promote socially and culturally

appropriate solutions to the complex challenges facing caribou

conservation. In this article, we discuss the potential for

population genetics and TK to deepen our understanding of

caribou variation and the robust relationships that people

maintain with the species.

METHODS

Study area

The Sahtú region surrounds Great Bear Lake and encompasses

280,238 km² of central Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada

(Fig. 1), an area larger than the United Kingdom with a

population of just over 2300 people (Statistics Canada 2012). The

current regional boundaries were defined by the Sahtú Dene and

Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement that concluded in

1993. Dene people have lived in the region for thousands of years

and share a common Sahtú Dene or Athapaskan/North Slavey

cultural and linguistic history (Helm et al. 2000). There are

currently five communities in the region: Délı̨nę, Tulı́t'a, Norman

Wells (Tłegǫ́hłı̨), Fort Good Hope (Rádelı̨ Kǫ́ę́), and Colville

Lake (K'áhbamı̨́ Túé). Until the establishment of local

government administrations and day schools during the post-

WWII period, Dene and Métis peoples led a nomadic existence

in a seasonal harvesting cycle (Abel 2005). Despite the shift to a

more sedentary way of life in the communities, Sahtú Dene and

Métis maintain strong cultural and social-ecological relationships

with the land and wildlife (Andrews et al. 2012a,b, McMillan and

Parlee 2013, Harnum et al. 2014).

There is considerable variation within the Dene language that is

spoken across the region, with varieties differing primarily by

sounds and vocabulary (Rice 1989). Defining linguistic subgroups

of Athapaskan languages is challenging because of historical

intergroup communication and overlapping distributions that

result in borders that in many ways resemble the ambiguous

boundaries of species classifications (Krauss and Golla 1981,

Helm et al. 2000). Language in the Sahtú region varies based on

specific family roots and community social linguistic units. The

main dialect groups are flexible and differ from each other more

or less based on family groups and historical relationships: 1.

K'áálǫ (Willow Lake), Dǝoga (Mackenzie River), and Shúhta

(Mountain) spoken in Tulı́t'a; 2. Sahtú (Bearlake) spoken in

Délı̨nę; 3. K'áhsho (Hare) and Dala spoken in Fort Good Hope

and Colville Lake, respectively (Harnum et al. 2014). Fluency in

Dene language varies greatly across generations and communities.

Elders retain the highest rates of fluency while young people are

less likely to speak Dene as their first language. In the Sahtú, an

estimated 1000 people are able to converse in the language. In

2014, Délı̨nę reported the highest percent of indigenous people

over the age of 15 who could speak Dene (78%; NWT Bureau of

Statistics 2014).

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

The subarctic landscape of the Sahtú is diverse and encompasses

four major ecozones: southern arctic, taiga plains, taiga shield,

and taiga cordillera. At treeline, north of Great Bear Lake, tall

shrub tundra ecosystems of dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa) and

willow (Salix spp.) transition into boreal forest dominated by

conifers: black spruce (Picea mariana), tamarack (Larix laricina),

and white spruce (P. glauca). Deciduous stands of trembling aspen

(Populus tremuloides), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), mountain

alder (Alnus tenuifolia), and willow are found in drier and warmer

sites. Lichens, mosses, dwarf birch, cotton-grass (Eriophorum

spp.), Arctic white heather (Cassiope tetragona), Labrador tea

(Ledum groenandicum), and multiple Dryas and Vaccinium species

make up the ground cover. Dynamic fire cycles establish and

control energy flows in the boreal forest. The region contains

zones of continuous, extensive discontinuous and intermediate

discontinuous permafrost (Heginbottom 2000). The climate is

typified by long, cold winters and short, warm summers.

Precipitation is low and restricted by a rain-shadow in the

Mackenzie Valley, which generates milder climates than those to

the east and west (Dyke 2000). Mean temperature in Norman

Wells is -27.4°C in January and 16.7°C in July (Kokelj 2001).

The Dehcho (Mackenzie River) that flows into the Beaufort Sea

dominates the hydrology of the region. Its watershed is the largest

in Canada and covers approximately 1.7 million km² (Kokelj

2001). Sahtú Deh (Great Bear River), a major sub-basin, flows

from an outlet in Great Bear Lake near Délı̨nę over low relief

landscape and enters Dehcho at Tulı́t'a. West of Dehcho, the

Mackenzie and Selwyn Mountains form the northernmost

extension of the Rocky Mountain range and extend along the

Yukon/NWT border from British Columbia to the Peel River

plateau. Climatic zones vary according to the elevation gradient

that ranges from 2972 m (highest peak) to foothills between 200

—800 m. Major tributaries flowing from the mountains into

Dehcho include Begáádǝ́ (Keele), Nǫ́gha Chılı̨ne (Carcajou), and

Fahfá Nı̨lı̨né (Mountain). The Norman Range and Franklin

Mountains, which parallel the east side of Dehcho from Fort

Good Hope to Wrigley, form a series of steep bedrock ridges and

plateaus with elevations of ~1000 m (Morgan and Anderson

2013). The region has extensive karst formations including

prominent sinkholes, caves, dry valleys, and gorges (Ford 2008).

Ungulates in the region include caribou, moose (Alces alces),

muskox (Ovibos moschatus), mountain goats (Oreamnos

americanus), and Dall sheep (Ovis dalli). The large mammal

predator community consists of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), black

bears (U. americanus), wolverines (Gulo gulo), wolves (Canis

lupus), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis).

Research design

Our community-collaborative research project was developed and

implemented within the current institutional and political

structures of the Sahtú Land Claim and the Mackenzie Valley

Resource Management Act (1998). Under this political structure

the Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable Resources

Board; SRRB) and the five local RRCs of the Sahtú Region are

responsible for managing renewable resources in the region

including wildlife and habitat. The research project initiated a

collaborative partnership between the SRRB, RRCs, university

researchers, and the NWT Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (ENR). We developed partnerships with key

knowledge holders, elders, and an advisory group with support

from the formal institutional structures. In September 2012, the

Sahtú RRCs passed a joint resolution supporting the adoption

of TK and Dene law as essential components of caribou research.

Our research project is a direct outcome of the resolution and was

designed to support the initiatives proposed by communities in

line with the principals of community-based participatory

research frameworks and methodologies (Appendix 1; Hall 1979,

Ferreira and Gendron 2011).

Our research included community members in all phases of the

research process and created an open and transparent dialogue

between scientific and traditional knowledge (Cruikshank 1981,

Cornwall and Jewkes 1995). We prioritized łeghágots'enetę

“learning together” and knowledge generation in an attempt to

develop a richer, culturally respectful, and relevant understanding

of caribou variation. The principles and protocols governing the

research were covered by a multiyear research license from the

Aurora Research Institute (15217, 15443, and 15597), wildlife

research licenses from ENR (WL500104, WL500307), and a

University Ethics Protocol (J2012:202).

In December 2012, we held research planning meetings in

Norman Wells, Fort Good Hope, Tulı́t'a, and Délı̨nę to discuss

the project and plan for winter field work. Discussions facilitated

the development of research priorities, research questions, and

appropriate methods for the current and future monitoring of

caribou populations. In January 2013, we held a series of RRC

and public meetings to plan for winter sampling, build awareness

for the program, and train community members in sampling

techniques. We developed a Memorandum of Understanding

with each RRC to confirm the governing principles of the

research, budgets, research methods, intellectual property rights,

and administration of the project. Subsequent RRC meetings

were held in each community (including the addition of Colville

Lake) to continue to guide the research during the winters of 2013

and 2014.

In alignment with our approach of łeghágots'enetę “learning

together” we prioritized opportunities that allowed for the

establishment of collaborative relationships between an

interdisciplinary group of community researchers, local experts,

and academic researchers (discussed in more depth in Appendix

1). We promoted ongoing communication with the public through

outreach and relationship building in the communities. Local

experts shared knowledge about caribou histories, movements,

and identities during formal and informal interactions on the

land. The knowledge helped to guide sample collection and

identified concepts and ideas that were discussed in depth at focus

group meetings, with the advisory group, and among coauthors.

All community participants received honoraria for their time.

Focus group meetings

We held focus group sessions (Agar and MacDonald 1995,

Morgan 1996, Berman and Kofinas 2004) to build a

comprehensive understanding of the origin, dynamic

interactions, and spatial structure of caribou in the Sahtú region.

Workshops lasted between one and two days. Three to 10 local

experts, selected in partnership with the local RRCs, participated

in five focus group sessions held in each of the communities (total

39 people) in April of 2013. Focus group participants had

extensive firsthand knowledge of caribou populations in the

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

region. Interpreters helped to develop appropriate metaphors to

describe genetic concepts in ways that resonated with community

members. We found that simultaneous interpretation was often

unsuccessful when explaining complex scientific topics. Instead,

we more often used sequential interpretation, which allowed more

time for ideas to be heard and understood (many participants

were bilingual). We also worked with community researchers and

interpreters to build a robust understanding of Dene concepts

and avoid back-translations from English. Focus group meetings

included significant discussions in Dene language.

At meetings we provided an overview of the research process and

described the methods and preliminary results. We documented

information through word maps, flow charts, diagrams,

geographic maps (Google Earth 7.1.5.1557), and note taking. We

digitally audio-recorded meetings with participant consent.

Consistent with the iterative nature of our research process, we

concluded focus group meetings with a discussion of how the

project could be improved. Key sections of the meetings were later

translated and transcribed by local language specialists in English.

Genetic sampling

Community members, researchers, collaborators, and industry

monitors collected caribou fecal pellets noninvasively during the

winters of 2013 and 2014 by gathering frozen pellet piles found

on the snow in plastic bags. In general, hunters and trappers

collected samples while traveling on skidoo trails, winter roads,

seismic lines, and traditional trails during normal on-the-land

activities. The sampling area represented the range of all three

types of caribou in the region. We encouraged community

members to help with sample collection during outreach at public

meetings, through promotional posters, regional newspaper

stories, on local radio, and in Facebook posts. Community

members received a $25 gift card for gas at a local gas station for

each caribou fecal pellet sample they provided. The RRCs and

Norman Wells ENR staff oversaw sample collection, data entry,

and gift card distribution. Collaborations with industry partners

also allowed for targeted sampling by helicopter to locate areas

of caribou activity (tracks, cratering, etc.) during the winter of

2013. In April 2014, we spent an additional three days flying by

helicopter with participants selected in collaboration with the

RRCs of Fort Good Hope, Tulı́t'a, and Délı̨nę to collect scat

samples and fill sampling gaps. We also collected muscle tissue

samples and blood strip samples from hunted animals in

collaboration with a caribou health monitoring study (Brook et

al. 2009). Finally, we included caribou fecal samples collected in

Nahanni National Park Reserve in the southern Mackenzie

Mountains through collaborations with Parks Canada.

Microsatellite genotyping

We followed microsatellite genotyping protocols that had been

established as part of a long-term caribou genetic database to

ensure the production of high quality genetic profiles (Ball 2007,

Ball et al. 2010, Galpern et al. 2012a, Hettinga et al. 2012, Klütsch

et al. 2012). To isolate DNA we swabbed and amplified the

mucosal layer covering the caribou fecal pellets. We genotyped a

panel of nine microsatellite loci (BM848, BM888, MAP2C, RT5,

RT6, RT7, RT9, RT24, and RT30; Bishop et al. 1994, Wilson et

al. 1997, Cronin et al. 2005). In May 2013 swabbing took place in

Norman Wells where we worked with local students and trained

technicians to build capacity in the communities and to continue

to foster collaboration during the research process. Subsequent

genetic analysis took place at Trent University. Extraction

protocol followed Ball (2007) and profiling procedures can be

found in Galpern et al. (2012a) and Klütsch et al. (2016).

Electropherograms were scored by at least two individuals with

GENEMARKER v. 1.9.1 (SoftGenetics, LLC) to determine

allele sizes. Samples included in the final dataset had a minimum

of eight successfully amplified loci. We used AlleleMatch 2.5

(Galpern et al. 2012b) to screen profiles for genotyping errors,

remove duplicate profiles, and identify the number of individual

caribou sampled. Only one sample from each individual caribou

was included in subsequent analysis.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing

Genetic analysis of nuclear and mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA),

larger sample sizes, and improved analytical methods have

influenced our understanding of caribou taxonomy and

evolutionary history in North America (McFarlane et al. 2009,

Klütsch et al. 2012, Mager et al. 2013, Yannic et al. 2014).

Specifically, analysis of mtDNA has revealed two distinct

phylogenetic groups of caribou that represent separate northern

and southern glacial refugia during the Pleistocene. Many of the

boreal woodland caribou in the southern Canadian provinces

originated south of the Laurentide ice sheet that covered most of

present-day Canada (North American lineage; NAL), while

barren-ground caribou likely originated in the northern

unglaciated refugium of Beringia and the Canadian high arctic

(Beringian-Eurasian lineage; BEL, McDevitt et al. 2009, Klütsch

et al. 2012) To examine phylogeographic structure we amplified

and sequenced a 429 bp mtDNA control region fragment using

the primers: L15394:5′ - AAT AGC CCC ACT ATC AGC ACC

C - 3′ and H15947:5′ - TAT GGC CCT GAA GTA AGA ACC

AG - 3′ (Flagstad and Røed 2003). Only samples from individual

caribou were sequenced. We followed lab procedures outlined in

Klütsch et al. (2012). We used the program BioEdit 7.2.5 (Hall

1999) to check and align sequences. Mutations were manually

double-checked and all newly identified haplotypes were

resequenced to confirm their identity.

Genetic analysis

We used the program Structure 2.3.4 (Pritchard et al. 2000) to test

for population subdivision and assign individual caribou to

inferred subpopulations (Falush et al. 2003). We performed five

runs with 1,000,000 burn-in iterations and 10,000,000 Markov

chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) repetitions. We varied the number

of K between 1 and 15 under the admixture model with correlated

allele frequencies, and specified no a priori models of

subpopulation structure. We plotted the mean and variance in

likelihood per K using Structure Harvester v0.6.94 (Earl and

vonHoldt 2012). We found the average individual membership

coefficients across the five iterations using the programs

CLUMPP 1.1.2 (Jakobsson and Rosenberg 2007) and

DISTRUCT 1.1 (Rosenberg 2004). We mapped the structure

output by interpolating the average probability assignment score

using the inverse-distance-weighted interpolation in ArcGIS 10.1

(ESRI, Redlands, California, USA) and confining the

interpolation to sampled locations (Twomey et al. 2014).

We assessed genetic diversity by calculating genetic indices of the

structure informed populations with GenAlEx 6.501 (Peakall and

Smouse 2006, 2012) and HP-Rare 1.1 (Kalinowski 2005). We

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

tested for significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg

equilibrium (HWE) and linkage disequilibrium (LD) per locus

and population using GenePop 4.2 (Rousset 2008). We used

SPAGeDi 1.5 (Hardy and Vekemans 2002) to test the

microsatellite pairwise differentiation with FST and RST and used

ARLEQUIN 3.5.2.2 (Excoffier and Lischer 2010) to test the

mtDNA pairwise differentiation (ΦST) and analysis of molecular

variance (AMOVA; see Klütsch et al. 2016 for further details).

Collaborative analysis

We analyzed information shared during focus group sessions

using a combination of thematic analysis and modified grounded

theory methods to identify important concepts and themes

(Glaser and Strauss 1967, Bernard 2002, Berman and Kofinas

2004). We used the program NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd.

Version 10) to code meeting notes, transcripts, and other TK

reports and publications. Hierarchical categories emerged

through the process of coding and were developed into potential

themes as the ideas became more concrete through repeated

identification. To support a collaborative production of

knowledge we facilitated a process for coanalysis of the TK and

genetic data. With the help of RRCs, individuals were selected

from all Sahtú communities for their expertise and interest in

participating in an advisory group. The advisory group’s role was

to guide the project, ensure that Dene knowledge was properly

and respectfully interpreted, and provide the TK context needed

to help accurately interpret the genetic data. We discussed TK

themes, language, and genetic results in two separate 3-day

meetings to clarify and develop important concepts (Fig. A1.1

and A1.2). Our first advisory group meeting, held in June 2014,

included seven participants who helped plan and select additional

elders to participate in a follow-up meeting. The meeting was

transcribed and coded. The second meeting was held in February

2015 and included 11 participants.

We employed what we call a language-based methodology by

working to elucidate conceptual Dene TK needed to ground the

concepts and themes. Elders often requested to speak only in Dene

language when discussing TK. Walter Bayha uses a translation

of the teachings of his Shúhtagot'ı̨nę grandfather, Joseph Bayha,

to explain this affinity: “Our history is written on the land. The

language comes from the land.” Dene knowledge holders stressed

the importance of respecting dialect differences and were very

careful to avoid making assumptions about how speakers of other

dialects would express a word or concept. The advisory group

agreed that in general it is best to defer to Dene words in a dialect

with a direct relationship to the caribou population being

discussed. In this paper, we generally use Shúhta (S) dialect when

referring to caribou in the mountains and Sahtú/Délı̨nę (D)

dialect with respect to barren-ground caribou terminology. We

also include K'áhsho (K) words where possible (Fig. 2).

The advisory group focused on key concepts and ideas from

previous focus group meetings, TK literature, and publications.

We used visual facilitation techniques to guide the advisors to

expand on important topics and explain the genetic data. We paid

special attention to clarifying Dene TK and descriptions of the

types of caribou found in the Sahtú region as well as presenting

our preliminary interpretation of the genetic data to help assess

how appropriate our inferences were with respect to TK of

caribou ecology in the region. Beyond the two formal meetings,

several of the advisory group members have continued to guide

the research, interpret genetic data, work on the details of Dene

language translations, review drafts of manuscripts, copresent the

research in schools and during public presentations, and coauthor

this manuscript.

Fig. 2. Word descriptions and definitions in the Shúhta (S),

Sahtú/Délı̨nę (D), and K'áhsho (K) dialects of the North

Slavey language in the Sahtú region of the Northwest

Territories, Canada.

RESULTS

Traditional knowledge

During focus group meetings elders continually expressed their

personal relationship with caribou as being crucial to

understanding caribou knowledge. One example of this

association was described by Alfred Taniton as bedélé t'á núzhǫ

(D) that translates to “we grew up with their blood” (Fig. 2).

Alfred Taniton said, “we were raised with the blood from the

caribou. In the past, the people have always survived because of

the blood of the animals.” The intimate interaction between

human and nonhuman animals highlights how many indigenous

people recognize the importance of their relationships with other

beings on a daily basis. The concept behé ts'enézhǫ (D) “we grew

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

up with them,” or as Walter Bayha translated, “we are people with

them,” further illustrates how Dene people relate to caribou as

unique entities, capable of intelligence, identity, perception, self-

awareness, rationality, and intentionality.

When Dene people relate to nonhuman animals autonomously

they follow important Dene laws regarding bets'erı̨hchá (D)

“respect” and łegháts'eredı (D) “we give to each other.” Dene

people recognize that individual animals have unique perspectives

that allow them to gain knowledge and intelligence in distinctive

ways (Legat 2012). Elders repeatedly state that caribou are their

own bosses and cannot (and should not) be controlled by people.

Rather, Dene laws provide guidance for mutual respect and honor

that require that Dene take care of caribou so that caribou will

reciprocally provide for them. Gordon Yakeleya stated the

following:

It’s very important that we look after the animals, we

have to have respect for them. There’s a reason why they

do what they do. They want to survive like we want to

survive. It’s the same thing. That’s what my mom and dad

always said: “Animals are like human beings.” They do

everything for a reason, just like we do. Like we go to

store, they get food for the whole winter. They raise their

young ones and teach their young ones. We do the same

thing.

Fundamental to the Dene relationship with caribou is a profound

knowledge of caribou morphology, behavior, and habitat

preferences. Dene people identify three main types of caribou in

the region: shúhta ɂepę́ (S) “mountain caribou,” ɂekwę́/ɂedǝ (D/

K) “barren-ground caribou,” and tǫdzı “boreal woodland

caribou” (Fig. 2). Participants describe tǫdzı as bekwı́ dezene (D)

“darker colored/having a dark head,” larger and heavier than

ɂekwę́. Shúhta ɂepę́ are identified by their large size and close

association with the mountains. The caribou types can also be

distinguished based on their tracks (size, shape, and the encoded

behavior) and their general location. Though the ranges of tǫdzı

and ɂekwę́/ɂedǝ (D/K) overlap in many areas during the winter,

knowledgeable hunters and elders are able to distinguish between

the types. For example, Gabe Kochon of Fort Good Hope

described a situation where he once saw a very large male tǫdzı

(that was a dark color) in the center of a group of female barren-

ground caribou during rut many years ago. Hunters have even

reported being able to distinguish types by the taste of the meat.

Interestingly, some Shúhtagot'ı̨nę elders describe a fourth type of

caribou called tęnatł'ǝa (S) “the fast runners” that live in the

Mackenzie Mountains, migrate long distances, and are identified

by particular morphological markings.

Although there are dialect differences in the words used to refer

to barren-ground caribou, the classificatory term tǫdzı “boreal

woodland caribou” is shared across the region and mirrors the

caribou population’s distribution. The word tǫdzı is also found

in the Tɬı̨chǫ language of central NWT and the second part of

this word, dzı, is commonly associated with Athapaskan caribou

words and is found in many related languages including Tɬı̨chǫ,

Dene Su̜ɬıné, and languages of the Yukon, Alaska, and British

Columbia. Further, in Délı̨nę the word ɂekwę́wa (D) can be used

when discussing different types of caribou and translates to “the

real (or the original/prototypical) caribou,” which links the

language with the histories of the caribou. Gabe Kochon of Fort

Good Hope also explained through translation that the “regular”

caribou have always been in the north (living in the barren-land

north of Fort Good Hope) whereas tǫdzı probably had a different

origin.

Knowledge of differences in behavior between different caribou

types is essential to successful hunts. Dene hunters describe how

tǫdzı react much more strongly to the presence of humans than

ɂekwę́ or shúhta ɂepę́. Focus group participants explained that to

successfully hunt tǫdzı it is necessary to anticipate the animal’s

behavior. They used the Dene phrase goecha fehtǝ (S) to describe

a situation in which a tǫdzı will loop back on his or her own trail

so he/she can rest (lie down) in a sheltered area downwind from

his/her path and thus be alerted to the scent of potential predators

that might be following his/her tracks. The hunter must react by

predicting the caribou’s behavior and looping around behind to

ensure that the animal can’t smell the hunter before they can take

a shot. In Dene, this can be described as goecha gots'anele (S) “to

hunt from downwind.” This behavior is also described for moose,

but not ɂekwę́ or shúhta ɂepę́. Interestingly, a similar word is found

in the place-name Gocha Túé (D) that was first translated in the

1860s by French Oblate missionary Father Émile-Fortuné Petitot

as Shelter Lake (and which he renamed Lac Ste-Thérèse/Lac

Sainte-Therese; Petitot 1893). Walter Bayha was able to use

Petitot’s translation to uncover the obscured meaning of the

place-name through the word “gocha” and the sheltered

snowdriftless characteristics of the lake where he spent time when

he was young.

Monitoring caribou population fluctuations has been imperative

to Dene survival for millennia (Beaulieu 2012). Over time,

significant migrations and range-shifts have occurred between

caribou groups. Dene descriptions of large-scale caribou

movements help explain current caribou distribution, temporal

patterns, and can be used to predict future movements.

Uncommon movements of barren-ground caribou herds that

winter around Great Bear Lake are often recalled and discussed

because they can influence caribou health and hunting methods.

For example, Gordon Yakeleya remembers how in the winter of

1988 barren-ground caribou migrated all the way down to K'áálǫ

Tué (Willow Lake) near Tulı́t'a and displaced resident tǫdzı. In

Fort Good Hope, elders speak about a large herd of caribou that

crossed the Dehcho and headed into the foothills of the mountains

many years ago. Gabe Kochon said that they never saw the entire

herd return or migrate back across the river. He related the

following in Dene language:

There was a lot of them, I have witnessed the caribou

crossing ... ice, even though it was broken up, there was

lots of them... Many years ago, the caribou crossed to

the other side.... They have been gone a long time and

people are saying that they have become lots again and

they have been using that area for calving ... This is

according to the elders and they also say that they will

never disappear.

Microsatellites

We collected caribou scat samples from the Sahtú region and

Nahanni National Park Reserve with the cooperation of ~100

community members and project collaborators including grade

school and high school students, hunters, trappers, environmental

monitors, researchers, and industry partners. We obtained 1036

caribou fecal samples, 96 caribou tissue samples, and 16 caribou

blood strips from localities across the Sahtú region and Nahanni

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Table 1. Genetic diversity estimates, averaged across nine microsatellite loci, for the three major caribou (Rangifer tarandus) groups

identified by structure analysis: number of samples (N), number of alleles (NA), allelic richness (AR), private allelic richness (ARP),

observed (HO) and expected (HE) heterozygosity, FIS estimates, and standard errors (SE) for each estimate.

Group N NASE ARARP HOSE HESE FIS

Barren-ground 123 15.1 1.20 14.97 2.50 0.84 0.013 0.87 0.010 0.035

Boreal woodland 171 12.0 1.43 11.26 1.05 0.79 0.023 0.79 0.023 0.005

Mountain 260 17.1 2.93 14.38 2.29 0.82 0.014 0.84 0.011 0.031

National Park Reserve (Fig. 1). A subset of these samples were

analyzed and 996 were successfully amplified at > 8 loci and

included in the analysis. We identified 555 individual animals

(47% female, 41% male, and 12% unknown gender). Missing data

in the microsatellite dataset was low (3.43%). Average number of

alleles per locus was 20 across all individuals (Table A2.1). We did

not find evidence for systematic deviations from HWE in specific

populations (4/27 cases were significant after Bonferroni

correction) or LD (no cases significant).

Structure analysis identified K = 2 as the highest level of

substructure (using the ∆K criterion) that corresponded to a

boreal woodland group and a mountain/barren-ground group

(Fig. A2.1). Further finer-scale structure of K = 3 corresponded

with an additional split between mountain and barren-ground

(Fig. 3, Fig. A2.2). These partitions were largely concordant with

the TK on caribou types in the region, supporting an ecological

foundation for three inferred groups that represent clusters of (1)

barren-ground caribou; (2) boreal woodland caribou; and (3)

mountain caribou (Fig. 3). The barren-ground population had

the highest levels of allelic diversity and heterozygosity (Table 1).

Pairwise comparisons between groups (FST and RST) indicated

low levels of differentiation, though the boreal woodland group

was the most differentiated from the other two types (Table A2.2,

A2.3).

mtDNA

We identified 69 mtDNA control region haplotypes from 337

individual caribou (Table 2, Fig. A2.3). We fit the mtDNA data

into the well-resolved phylogeny of NAL and BEL (see Klütsch

et al. 2012, 2016). Unlike the nuclear markers (microsatellites)

that showed intraspecific divisions between types at the regional

scale, the phylogenetic mtDNA analysis revealed that caribou of

the Sahtú belong predominantly to the BEL (96.7% Beringian).

However, very few haplotypes (n = 12) were found in more than

one of the three clusters identified by structure (Fig. A2.3). Most

haplotypes were nonoverlapping, signifying long-standing

diversification among the types. We identified only 3 NAL

haplotypes (in 11 caribou) in the study area, most belonging to

haplotype 50 (n = 9 boreal woodland caribou) in the Sahtú region

(Fig. A2.3). This was an especially surprising result and suggests

that boreal woodland caribou in the northern extent of their range

are distinct from more southern boreal woodland caribou that

generally belong to the NAL (Klütsch et al. 2012). Pairwise

comparisons using the mtDNA data (ΦST) were low but significant

(Table A2.4) and showed the strongest differentiation between

boreal woodland and mountain, and barren-ground and

mountain, which may suggest that the mountain group have been

historically isolated. The AMOVA of the three groups revealed

that ~14% of the mtDNA genetic variation was found among

populations (Table A2.5).

Fig. 3. We analyzed microsatellite data from caribou (Rangifer

tarandus) genetic samples collected in the Sahtú region and

Nahanni National Park Reserve of the Northwest Territories,

Canada from 2012 to 2014. We used structure software to

assign individual caribou to inferred genetic clusters. We found

support for K = 3 populations (shown in bottom bar) that

coincided with clusters of (1) barren-ground (blue), (2) boreal

woodland (green), and (3) mountain (red). Vertical colored bars

indicate the probability that an individual belongs to a certain

group. We mapped the structure output using the inverse-

distance-weighted interpolation in ArcGIS and constrained the

interpolation to the sampled locations.

Caribou spatial diversity

Collection sites were distributed across the range of all types of

caribou in the Sahtú region (Fig. 3) and were focused on

traditional hunting areas in the mountains (along the Begáádǝ́

“Keele” and Nǫ́gha Chılı̨ne “Carcajou” rivers, Tets'ehxe “Drum

Lake,” and “Canol Lake”), Nahanni National Park Reserve, the

boreal forest in the Mackenzie Valley, and the winter-ranges of

the Bluenose West (area surrounding K'áhbamı̨́ Túé “Colville

Lake,” Nılı̨n Túé “Lac Belot” and Tashı́n Túé “Lac Des Bois”)

and Bluenose East (Ɂehdaı̨la “Caribou Point” and around Délı̨nę)

barren-ground caribou herds.

Strikingly, the spatial distribution of the boreal woodland genetic

cluster encompassed the known range of boreal woodland

caribou and was restricted to the boreal forest of the Mackenzie

valley (Fig. 3). Although the geographic cohesion was strong there

was overlap with the two other clusters that demonstrates at least

some level of intergradation between the types. It is well known

that barren-ground caribou herds often overlap in distribution

with the much less numerous boreal woodland caribou in the

winter. However, as described above, knowledgeable hunters are

able to distinguish between the types and this was also

demonstrated by the genetic results. In the winter of 2013, Wilbert

Kochon, a Colville Lake hunter, killed three caribou, which he

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Table 2. Haplotype (mtDNA) genetic diversity for the three major caribou (Rangifer tarandus) groups identified by structure analysis:

number of individual caribou samples analyzed for mtDNA (N), number of samples assigned to the North American and Beringian-

Eurasian haplogroup lineages (NALN and BELN, respectively), number of haplotypes in the NAL (NALH) and BEL (BELH)

haplogroups, nucleotide diversity (π), and gene diversity (GD) with standard deviations (SD).

Group N NALNBELNNALHBELHπ SD GD SD

Barren-ground 93 1 92 1 37 0.0170 0.0090 0.9385 0.0165

Boreal woodland 110 9 99 1 12 0.0192 0.0100 0.844 0.0195

Mountain 134 1 133 1 31 0.0213 0.0110 0.9174 0.0144

identified as tǫdzı, in an area where overlap with barren-ground

animals was clearly occurring (based on tracks and reported

sightings). Later, genetic analysis of tissue samples from the three

caribou indicated they clustered with the boreal woodland group

(average probability of assignment was 0.942 to the boreal

woodland cluster). Interestingly, the few samples collected along

the Mackenzie River near Nahanni National Park Reserve also

clustered most strongly with the boreal woodland group (Fig. 3).

The spatial boundaries between the barren-ground and mountain

clusters were less distinct, however the two groups generally occur

in the vicinity of Great Bear Lake and within the Mackenzie

Mountains, respectively (Fig. 3). Admixture is apparent

throughout the Mackenzie Mountains as well as in the winter-

ranges of the barren-ground herds. Interestingly, genetic analysis

of the nine individual caribou sampled in the foothills of the

mountains across from Fort Good Hope revealed that the group

was genetically more similar to the barren-ground cluster than

the mountain cluster. This coincides with the event described by

Gabe Kochon about the historic movement of a large group of

barren-ground caribou that crossed the Dehcho (Fig. A2.4).

DISCUSSION

In this study, we used a participatory approach to examine the

biological variation of caribou populations of the Sahtú region

of the Northwest Territories. Our community-collaborative

research engaged local indigenous experts in all stages of the

project and generated results that united Dene TK and population

ecology. The participatory framework and iterative methods

generated space for the refinement of collaborative research

questions and allowed for a rigorous knowledge coproduction

process. Our results provide evidence for genetic, linguistic,

historical, phenotypic, and behavioral differentiation among the

caribou types in the region. By recognizing the lived experience

and TK of indigenous people we were able to develop more

profound understanding of caribou ecology through which we

were able to more accurately interpret the population genetic

results. The genetic subpopulation structure corresponded to

caribou types that are recognized and distinguished by Sahtú

Dene and Métis people through their language. Detailed

descriptions of tǫdzı “boreal woodland caribou,” ɂekwę́ (D)

“barren-ground caribou,” and shúhta ɂepé (S) “mountain

caribou” denote quantifiable characteristics that categorize

caribou in the region.

Dene concepts reflect ecological processes and relationships that

bring the complexity of dynamic biocultural systems to light. The

consistency of the word tǫdzı across all Sahtú region dialects as

well as the Tɬı̨chǫ region may suggest stability of the boreal

woodland caribou phenotype in the region (though more research

is needed to understand the contrasting pattern of variability in

barren-ground nomenclature). Interestingly, we found substantial

genetic differentiation between tǫdzı and other caribou in the

microsatellite genetic structure (Fig. 3). This is surprising because

in other areas of North America where overlap among caribou

types occurs, such clear delineation is not observed (Boulet et al.

2007, Klütsch et al. 2016, Pond et al. 2016). Thus, even in the face

of extensive overlap and known mixing with barren-ground and

mountain caribou populations (described by local Dene people),

there are likely important adaptive traits that are necessary to

retaining the behavioral and genetic characteristics of tǫdzı.

Mechanisms that can produce intraspecific population structure

across continuous habitats include isolation by distance,

divergence with barriers, drift after expansion, and local

evolutionary adaptation (Puckett et al. 2015). In British

Columbia, strong differentiation between wolf populations,

which are capable of large dispersing movements, has been

attributed to evolutionary adaptation to different ecological

conditions (Stronen et al. 2014).

It is likely that the differentiation between tǫdzı and other types

of caribou in the region is due in part to ecological divergence.

Dene knowledge of the association between tǫdzı and the boreal

forest is ubiquitous across the Sahtú region and was recorded as

far back as the 1860s when Petitot documented Dene language

and culture during his travels as a missionary (Moir 1998).

Petitot’s writings include descriptions of woodland caribou as

loners that lived in the forests (Petitot 1893). Knowledge about

differences in behavior among the types of caribou that occurred

in different habitats was crucial to Dene survival. Historically,

some of the most renowned Dene hunters were those who could

successfully hunt and kill the large and widely dispersed tǫdzı.

The more closely people associate with nonhuman animals, the

more intimate and detailed the knowledge becomes (Brightman

2002). As Fred Sangris, a Yellowknives Dene, said, “We learn by

being in the field, by being with ekwǫ́ [barren-ground caribou] all

the time” (Sangris 2012:77). The historic caribou movements only

observed by people with intimate knowledge of the environment

also played an important role in refining our questions and

methods. Gabe Kochon’s detailed knowledge of historic caribou

movements was crucial to our decision to collect samples from

that specific region of the mountains. The information provided

by the TK also allowed us to accurately interpret the genetic

patterns that otherwise would have been difficult to understand,

and supported the historic occupancy of distinct caribou groups

in the region.

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Likewise, Alfred Taniton’s description of growing up with the

blood of the animals demonstrates how Dene people’s survival

and ways of life are linked with wildlife. Historically, people

traveled across the land to hunt caribou for essential food,

clothing, and tools and these practices are part of the expression

of their identity. The depth of Dene people’s relationship with

caribou is revealed within Dene language. Dene language includes

numerous descriptors that help facilitate communication and

improve hunting success. Language can also provide clues to the

histories of the caribou through descriptions like ɂekwę́wa “the

original or prototypical caribou” that is used in Délı̨nę to refer to

barren-ground caribou and inform alternative ways of classifying

the relationships between caribou types. Although it is difficult

to determine the exact time-frame reflected in the language, it is

well established that Dene people have a substantial history with

caribou, and barren-ground caribou in particular have been a

crucial and relatively consistent resource for at least the last 8000

years (Gordon 2003, 2005, Andrews et al. 2012b, Beaulieu 2012).

The rich vocabulary of Dene caribou words points to the ease

with which TK holders are able to describe complex behaviors

and actions in Dene language that are difficult and unwieldy to

depict in English. The use of words like goecha gots'anele in the

context of hunting are understood by a relatively small portion

of community members and require significant discussion in

Dene language with elders, knowledgeable hunters, and

interpreters to capture the detailed nuances in English.

Conducting work in both Dene language and English was a

consistent challenge. However, the dialogue and back and forth

that was required to refine terms and concepts allowed us to come

to a common understanding and identify deeper ecological

connections that might not be apparent on the surface. As Walter

Bayha pointed out, “If I didn’t speak the language I wouldn’t be

able to make these connections.” Thus, the examples we provide

show that Dene language is deeply adapted to the environment

in which it evolved and that a focus on Dene language, facilitated

by the distinct disciplinary backgrounds of our research team, is

one of the most important contributions of the collaborative work

(see Appendix 1 for more information).

The complex nature of caribou substructure is further revealed

by the differences between genetic marker types. Examining

multiple markers concurrently can provide information about

how phenotypic differences may be contributing to historical

isolation and present patterns of gene flow (Wood et al. 2014). In

the case of tǫdzı in the Sahtú, the mtDNA haplogroups do not

coincide geographically with the microsatellite markers. Similar

divergence among markers has been shown in shovel-nosed

snakes (Wood et al. 2014) and chipmunks (Good et al. 2008, Hird

and Sullivan 2009). Surprisingly, results from the pairwise

mtDNA analysis indicated that boreal woodland/tǫdzı and

barren-ground appear to be more closely related than either are

to the mountain group (Table A2.4). Recent research suggests that

mtDNA can introgress quickly, even at low levels of gene flow,

while other loci remain resistant to introgression (Chan and Levin

2005, Hird and Sullivan 2009). Thus, one possible explanation for

the phylogenetic pattern present in tǫdzı is potential historic

introgression with northern Beringian lineage animals.

Alternatively, the boreal woodland caribou/tǫdzı phenotype may

be an independent derivation from the BEL with little or no

contribution from southern evolved boreal woodland caribou

that carry NAL haplotypes. Analysis of competing evolutionary

models will help identify and date divergence events and historical

introgression between populations that have contributed to the

current spatial genetic variation (e.g., Klütsch et al. 2016).

Variation below the species level is an important component of

biodiversity because it provides the genetic variation required for

incipient speciation and local genetic adaptation (Wood et al.

2014, Mee et al. 2015, Hamilton and Miller 2016). Cryptic

intraspecific diversity, as is displayed between caribou ecotypes

and subspecies (Pond et al. 2016), can be especially contentious

because it is not always clear how to best identify, delimit, or

maintain genetic lineage diversity (Mace 2004, Wood et al. 2014,

Fitzpatrick et al. 2015). Further, from a purely scientific

perspective, there can exist multiple valid interpretations because

rules for finding discontinuity in genetic or spatial ecological data

are at some level arbitrary. Combining multiple knowledge

systems can help to provide complementary criteria for

designating distinct units for conservation. We found this was the

case in our study and used Dene TK to help us interpret the genetic

statistical output (choosing K = 3 as the most biologically relevant

inference that was supported by both the statistical analysis and

TK). In doing so we use multiple knowledge sources to guide the

translation of data to understanding. Thus, through a pluralistic

approach we were able to demonstrate the ways that linguistic,

TK, and genetic patterns corroborate each other and allowed us

to identify criteria that can be used to identify and differentiate

between groups of animals for biodiversity conservation.

Preserving evolutionarily significant diversity in caribou that is

identified through the analysis of multiple genetic markers and

TK is essential because caribou populations in the southern

portions of their range face extirpation (Hebblewhite et al. 2010,

Johnson et al. 2015). Further, recent research on loggerhead sea

turtles (Caretta caretta) has shown that populations at the margins

of the species range can be important reservoirs of genetic

diversity and “contribute disproportionally to the adaptive

potential and future viability of the population” (Stiebens et al.

2013:8). Thus, the genetic differentiation of tǫdzı and the rich TK

on the unique attributes of the type provide evidence for their

prioritization as an irreplaceable component of Canada’s

biodiversity. However, sustainable conservation strategies must

find ways to maintain not simply the categorical entities (like

subspecies) but rather the dynamic relations among peoples and

species as the basis of bioculturally diverse systems.

The importance of supporting social-ecological relationships and

processes is gaining momentum in conservation science (Gavin et

al. 2015). Proponents of this viewpoint maintain that

conservation priorities should be not be defined in relation to

discontinuous species, but rather directed toward the protection

of essential processes that create adaptive potential and sustain

biological variation (Bowen 1999, Crandall et al. 2000, Moritz

2002, Eizaguirre and Baltazar-Soares 2014). This viewpoint

acknowledges the subjectivity of species categories and highlights

the importance of conserving the dynamic nature of functioning

ecosystems. Strategies for identifying units for conservation that

integrate multiple biological criteria, acknowledge the dynamic

nature of intraspecific diversity, respond flexibly to specific

circumstances, and adapt to differing situations are needed to

cultivate evolutionary potential in a changing environment

(Fraser and Bernatchez 2001).

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Similarly, ethnoecological explorations of the intrinsically

adaptive nature of categorization systems place emphasis not on

categorical entities (contents of categories such as species) but on

defining elements of an ecosystem in relation to the other elements

that surround them in time and space (Ingold 2011). As a

consequence, more attention is given to an entity’s function, its

role in the larger spatial and temporal environment, rather than

its intrinsic qualities that are devoid of context. Identifying

important connections among ecosystem components allows the

unpredictable emergent properties of a system to become

apparent (Berkes et al. 2003, Ingold 2011) and can lead to

improved conservation planning (Alcorn 1993, Fraser et al. 2006).

For example, research suggests that TK classification systems can,

in some cases, identify more taxa than science-based systems

(Newmaster et al. 2007, Ragupathy et al. 2009) or be especially

suited to identifying intraspecific diversity (Fraser et al. 2006). In

the Sahtú, the description of a distinct group of caribou in the

mountains known as tęnatł'ǝa warrants further study because they

may harbor unique genetic diversity and could play an important

role in intraspecific dynamics. Thus, the analysis of genetic

variation in conjunction with the relationships indigenous people

maintain with species has the potential to reveal complex patterns

that would likely not be apparent when evaluated separately.

CONCLUSION

A renewed focus on multidisciplinary conservation frameworks

demonstrates the importance of studying human and natural

systems (social-ecological systems) in tandem (Liu et al. 2007,

Collins et al. 2011, Bodin and Tengö 2012). By exploring

indigenous people’s relationships with caribou, which have been

actualized through language, we developed new insights into the

underlying processes that create structure and drive patterns of

caribou biodiversity. We contend that indigenous languages

provide an obvious place to ground research processes and build

collaborations. Words can be used to strengthen people’s

relationship with local ecosystems and create appropriate and

unifying dialogue. As Frederick Andrew affirmed, “The most

important thing is to talk the old language and honor our

ancestors that went before us.” As a direct outcome of our

research, the SRRB has made the decision to use the word tǫdzı

in all official correspondence relating to boreal woodland caribou.

The process of changing vocabulary has the potential to allow for

the development of common-ground from which new

relationships can move forward (Stevenson 1998). By recognizing

the validity of other knowledge systems it is possible to broaden

the worldview of the listener (Gavin et al. 2015). In doing so the

world “becomes richer as our ability improves to view it from a

variety of angles” (Cruikshank 1981:86).

Through the process of łeghágots'enetę “learning together” we

were able to embrace the synergies that come from the sometimes

intangible process of knowledge expansion and develop

comprehensive descriptions of caribou populations that reflect

biodiversity. Our results point to the importance of assessing

multiple criteria simultaneously when determining population

boundaries and characterizing population structure. We found

clear connections between Dene people’s descriptions of caribou

ecology and other domains of knowledge such as population

genetics where connectivity and delineation of groups are central

themes. Utilizing multiple methods has the potential to strengthen

evidence-based decisions with respect to range mapping as part

of the boreal woodland caribou range and action plans

(Environment Canada 2012) and environmental assessments in

response to potential shale-oil development in the region. At the

national scale, our results provide guidance on the delineation of

DUs for caribou across Canada and suggest practical approaches

toward the inclusion of TK in the development of policies related

to SARA.

Multidisciplinary research broadens the scope of biological

inquiry and recognizes the significant contribution that multiple

knowledge sources provide (Gavin et al. 2015). By exploring

multiple ways of organizing knowledge our research was able to

forge the basis for cross-cultural collaboration. For example, by

investing in cooperation from the onset, our project produced

results that have been acknowledged from different world views,

thus our research outcomes may be more broadly accepted. As

Walter Bayha pointed out, “The future of research in the north

will include more and more cases of science confirming the history

of aboriginal people and thus add to the overall knowledge that

has existed since time immemorial.” Likewise, as demonstrated

by our research, TK also has the potential to inform and improve

scientific methods, processes, and outcomes. Through

collaboration and łeghágots'enetę “learning together” our

research outlines ways to respectfully draw upon indigenous

knowledge and support relationships between people and wildlife.

By working with local communities, combining methods from

different disciplines, and establishing potential for transformative

dialogue, we can generate new insights and assist managers in

confronting the daunting conservation challenges of the future.

Responses to this article can be read online at:

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.

php/8284

Acknowledgments:

We would like to express heartfelt gratitude to all the individuals

who participated in the project and our community partners, the

Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę (Renewable Resources Councils), who made this

work possible: specifically we thank Roger Boniface, Sarena

Kaskamin, Wilfred Jackson, Lawrence Manuel, Patricia Manuel,

Frank T'selele, Harry Harris, Roger Odgaard, Ricky Andrew, David

Menacho, Roderick Yallee, Valerie Yakeleya, Julie Lennie, Dion

Lennie, William Horassi, Joe Bernard, David Etchinelle, Rocky

Norwegian, Alfred Taniton, Leon Modeste, Morris Neyelle, Charlie

Neyelle, Sideny Tutcho, Mitchell Naedzo, Wilbert Kochon, and

Marie Kochon among many others. Special thanks go to the late

Angus Shae, Norm Hodgson, and Doug Urquhart whose knowledge

was profound and whose presence is notably missed. The research

advisory group was crucial to the work and we are indebted to them:

Michael Neyelle, Walter Bayha, Jimmy Dillon, Gordon Yakeleya,

Frederick Andrew, Leon Andrew, Maurice Mendo, Michel Lafferty,

Judy Lafferty, Richard Kochon, Hyacinthe Kochon, Gabe Kochon,

Lucy Jackson, and Camilla Rabisca. The SRRB board and staff

provided consistent encouragement as well as financial, logistical,

and administrative support for this project. Particular thanks are

owed to Catarina Owen, Lori Ann Lennie, Kristen Kodakin, and

Joe Hanlon. We thank ENR staff Richard Popko, Stephanie

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Behrens, Heather Sayine-Crawford, Laurel McDonald, Keith

Hickling, Ron Doctor, Leroy Andre, Mabel Tatchinron, James

Hodson, and Jeff Walker who enabled this work. Máhsı cho to

Morris Modeste for enlarging our understanding of Dene language,

generous hospitality, and collecting samples. We thank all those who

helped collect samples especially Jeffery Jackson, who single

handedly submitted over 130 samples and Veronique Kochon, our

youngest caribou scat collector - máhsı! Terrence Mackeinzo,

Cheyenne Menacho, and high school students from the Mackenzie

Mountain School helped with lab work in Norman Wells. Thanks

to the staff of Nahanni National Park Reserve and Saoyú-Ɂehdacho

National Historic Site who collected and transported samples. Rick

Farnell, Susan Kutz, and Anja Carlsson generously provided caribou

samples from their research projects. Essential laboratory

assistance was provided by colleagues at Trent University. We

especially thank Marina Kerr, Jill Lalor, and Bridget Redquest. We

are grateful for discussions with colleagues that contributed to this

work including Iain Davidson-Hunt, Amy Flasko, Laura Hebert,

Sam McFarlane, Pauline Priadka, Paul Galpern, and Sandra

Marken. Jesse Tigner of Explor provided helicopter flight time.

General funding for this research was provided by the SRRB, ENR,

Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program, Environmental Studies

Research Fund, Parks Canada, University of Manitoba, and an

NSERC Strategic Grant held by MM and PW. JLP thanks Claire

Polfus, Morgan Moffitt, Jonaki Bhattacharyya, and Joe Hanlon

for reviewing early versions of the manuscript and the Wilburforce

Foundation for support through the Wilburforce Fellowship in

Conservation Science.

LITERATURE CITED

Abel, K. M. 2005. Drum songs: glimpses of Dene history. McGill-

Queen’s University Press, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Agar, M., and J. MacDonald. 1995. Focus groups and

ethnography. Human Organization 54:78-86. http://dx.doi.

org/10.17730/humo.54.1.x102372362631282

Alcorn, J. B. 1993. Indigenous peoples and conservation.

Conservation Biology 7:424-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/

j.1523-1739.1993.07020424.x

Andrews, T., G. MacKay, L. Andrew, W. Stephenson, A. Barker,

C. Alix, and the Shúhtagot'ine Elders of Tulita. 2012a. Alpine ice

patches and Shúhtagot'ine land use in the Mackenzie and Selwyn

Mountains, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic 65:22-42.

Andrews, T. D., G. MacKay, and L. Andrew. 2012b.

Archaeological investigations of alpine ice patches in the Selwyn

Mountains, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic 65:1-21.

Arnold, M. L., and N. D. Fogarty. 2009. Reticulate evolution and

marine organisms: the final frontier? International Journal of

Molecular Sciences 10:3836-3860.

Atran, S. 1990. Cognitive foundations of natural history: towards

an anthropology of science. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK.

Ball, M. 2007. Conservation genetics of Canadian boreal caribou

(Rangifer tarandus caribou). Dissertation. Trent University,

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

Ball, M. C., L. Finnegan, M. Manseau, and P. Wilson. 2010.

Integrating multiple analytical approaches to spatially delineate

and characterize genetic population structure: an application to

boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in central Canada.

Conservation Genetics 11:2131-2143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s10592-010-0099-3

Banfield, A. W. F. 1961. A revision of the reindeer and caribou,

genus Rangifer. Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Basso, K. 1996. Wisdom sits in places: landscape and language

among the Western Apache. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

Beaulieu, D. 2012. Dene traditional knowledge about caribou

cycles in the Northwest Territories. Rangifer 32:59-67. http://dx.

doi.org/10.7557/2.32.2.2252

Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred ecology. Third edition. Taylor and Francis,

New York, New York, USA.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke, editors. 2003. Navigating

social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and

change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.

doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511541957

Berlin, B. 1973. Folk systematics in relation to biological

classification and nomenclature. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics 4:259-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.

es.04.110173.001355

Berman, M., and G. Kofinas. 2004. Hunting for models: grounded

and rational choice approaches to analyzing climate effects on

subsistence hunting in an Arctic community. Ecological

Economics 49:31-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.12.005

Bernard, H. R. 2002. Research methods in anthropology:

qualitative and quantitative approaches. AltaMira Press, Lanham,

Maryland, USA.

Bishop, M. D., S. M. Kappes, J. W. Keele, R. T. Stone, S. L. F.

Sunden, G. A. Hawkins, S. S. Toldo, R. Fries, M. D. Grosz, J. Y.

Yoo, and C. W. Beattie. 1994. A genetic-linkage map for cattle.

Genetics 136:619-639.

Bodin, Ö., and M. Tengö. 2012. Disentangling intangible social-

ecological systems. Global Environmental Change 22:430-439.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.005

Boroditsky, L. 2011. How language shapes thought. Scientific

American 304:62-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62

Boulet, M., S. Couturier, S. D. Côté, R. D. Otto, and L.

Bernatchez. 2007. Integrative use of spatial, genetic, and

demographic analyses for investigating genetic connectivity

between migratory, montane, and sedentary caribou herds.

Molecular Ecology 16:4223-4240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1365-294X.2007.03476.x

Bowen, B. W. 1999. Preserving genes, species, or ecosystems?

Healing the fractured foundations of conservation policy.

Molecular Ecology 8:S5-S10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/

j.1365-294x.1999.00798.x

Brightman, R. A. 2002. Grateful prey: Rock Cree human-animal

relationships. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of

Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Brook, R. K., S. J. Kutz, A. M. Veitch, R. A. Popko, B. T. Elkin,

and G. Guthrie. 2009. Fostering community-based wildlife health

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

monitoring and research in the Canadian north. EcoHealth

6:266-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-009-0256-7

Brown, G. S., W. J. Rettie, R. J. Brooks, and F. F. Mallory. 2007.

Predicting the impacts of forest management on woodland

caribou habitat suitability in black spruce boreal forest. Forest

Ecology and Management 245:137-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.foreco.2007.04.016

Chan, K. M. A., and S. A. Levin. 2005. Leaky prezygotic isolation

and porous genomes: rapid introgression of maternally inherited

DNA. Evolution 59:720-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.

tb01748.x

Collins, S. L., S. R. Carpenter, S. M. Swinton, D. E. Orenstein,

D. L. Childers, T. L. Gragson, N. B. Grimm, J. M. Grove, S. L.

Harlan, J. P. Kaye, et al. 2011. An integrated conceptual

framework for long-term social-ecological research. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment 9:351-357. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1890/100068

Colson, K. E., K. H. Mager, and K. J. Hundertmark. 2014.

Reindeer introgression and the population genetics of caribou in

southwestern Alaska. Journal of Heredity 105:585-596. http://dx.

doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esu030

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

(COSEWIC). 2011. Designatable units for caribou (Rangifer

tarandus) in Canada. COSEWIC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes. 1995. What is participatory

research? Social Science & Medicine 41:1667-1676.

Courtois, R., J. P. Ouellet, L. Breton, A. Gingras, and C. Dussault.

2007. Effects of forest disturbance on density, space use, and

mortality of woodland caribou. Ecoscience 14:491-498. http://dx.

doi.org/10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[491:EOFDOD]2.0.CO;2

Crandall, K. A. 2009. A multifaceted approach to species

conservation. Animal Conservation 12:105-106. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00254.x

Crandall, K. A., O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, G. M. Mace, and R.

K. Wayne. 2000. Considering evolutionary processes in

conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15:290-295.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01876-0

Cronin, M. A., M. D. MacNeil, and J. C. Patton. 2005. Variation

in mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA in caribou

(Rangifer tarandus) in North America. Journal of Mammalogy

86:495-505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2005)86[495:VIMDAM]

2.0.CO;2

Cruikshank, J. 1981. Legend and landscape: convergence of oral

and scientific traditions in the Yukon Territory. Arctic

Anthropology 18:67-93.

Davidson-Hunt, I. J. 2006. Adaptive learning networks:

developing resource management knowledge through social

learning forums. Human Ecology 34:593-614. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/s10745-006-9009-1

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., P. Jack, E. Mandamin, and B. Wapioke.

2005. Iskatewizaagegan (Shoal Lake) plant knowledge: an

Anishinaabe (Ojibway) ethnobotany of Northwestern Ontario.

Journal of Ethnobiology 25:189-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771

(2005)25[189:ISLPKA]2.0.CO;2

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., K. L. Turner, A. T. P. Mead, J. Cabrera-

Lopez, R. Bolton, C. J. Idrobo, I. Miretski, A. Morrison, and J.

P. Robson. 2012. Biocultural design: a new conceptual framework

for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local

communities. Sapiens 5:33-45.

Deutscher, G. 2010. Through the language glass: how words colour

your world. William Heinemann, London, UK.

Dyke, L. D. 2000. Climate of the Mackenzie River valley. Pages

21-30 in L. D. Dyke and G. R. Brooks, editors. The physical

environment of the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories: a base

line for the assessment of environmental change. Geological Survey

of Canada Bulletin 547. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa,

Ontario, Canada.

Earl, D. A., and B. M. vonHoldt. 2012. STRUCTURE

HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing

STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method.

Conservation Genetics Resources 4:359-361. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7

Eizaguirre, C., and M. Baltazar-Soares. 2014. Evolutionary

conservation—evaluating the adaptive potential of species.

Evolutionary Applications 7:963-967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

eva.12227

Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery strategy for the Woodland

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in

Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series.

Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Evans, N. 2012. Anything can happen: the verb lexicon and

interdisciplinary fieldwork. Pages 183-208 in N. Thieberger,

editor. The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork. Oxford

University Press, New York, New York, USA. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571888.013.0009

Excoffier, L., and H. E. L. Lischer. 2010. Arlequin suite ver 3.5:

a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses

under Linux and Windows. Molecular Ecology Resources

10:564-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x

Falush, D., M. Stephens, and J. K. Pritchard. 2003. Inference of

population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci

and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164:1567-1587.

Ferreira, M. P., and F. Gendron. 2011. Community-based

participatory research with traditional and indigenous

communities of the Americas: Historical context and future

directions. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy

3:153-168.

Fitzpatrick, B. M., M. E. Ryan, J. R. Johnson, J. Corush, and E.

T. Carter. 2015. Hybridization and the species problem in

conservation. Current Zoology 61:206-216. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1093/czoolo/61.1.206

Flagstad, Ø., and K. H. Røed. 2003. Refugial origins of reindeer

(Rangifer tarandus L.) inferred from mitochondrial DNA

sequences. Evolution 57:658-670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.0014-3820.2003.tb01557.x

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Ford, D. 2008. Report upon a survey of karst landforms around

Norman Wells, Northwest Territories. Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the

Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories,

Canada.

Fraser, D. J., and L. Bernatchez. 2001. Adaptive evolutionary

conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation

units. Molecular Ecology 10:2741-2752.

Fraser, D. J., T. Coon, M. R. Prince, R. Dion, and L. Bernatchez.

2006. Integrating traditional and evolutionary knowledge in

biodiversity conservation: a population level case study. Ecology

and Society 11(2):4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.

org/vol11/iss2/art4/

Galpern, P., M. Manseau, P. Hettinga, P. Wilson, and K. Smith.

2012b. ALLELEMATCH: an R package for identifying unique

multilocus genotypes where genotyping error and missing data

may be present. Molecular Ecology Resources 12:771-778.

Galpern, P., M. Manseau, and P. Wilson. 2012a. Grains of

connectivity: analysis at multiple spatial scales in landscape

genetics. Molecular Ecology 21:3996-4009.

Gavin, M. C., J. McCarter, A. Mead, F. Berkes, J. R. Stepp, D.

Peterson, and R. Tang. 2015. Defining biocultural approaches to

conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30:140-145. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005

Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded

theory: strategies for qualitative research. Transaction, New

Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Good, J. M., S. Hird, N. Reid, J. R. Demboski, S. J. Steppan, T.

R. Martin-Nims, and J. Sullivan. 2008. Ancient hybridization and

mitochondrial capture between two species of chipmunks.

Molecular Ecology 17:1313-1327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1365-294X.2007.03640.x

Gordon, B. 2003. Rangifer and man: an ancient relationship.

Rangifer 23:15-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/2.23.5.1651

Gordon, B. C. 2005. 8000 years of caribou and human seasonal

migration in the Canadian Barrenlands. Rangifer 16:155-162.

http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/2.25.4.1780

Gullickson, D. B., and M. Manseau. 2000. South Nahanni

woodland caribou herd seasonal range use and demography. Parks

Canada Agency, Gatineau, Québec, Canada.

Hale, K., M. Krauss, L. J. Watahomigie, A. Y. Yamamoto, C.

Craig, L. M. Jeanne, and N. C. England. 1992. Endangered

languages. Language 68:1-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/416368

Hall, B. L. 1979. Knowledge as a commodity and participatory

research. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Education 9:393-408.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02331493

Hall, T. A. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence

alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT.

Nucleic Acids Symposium Series. Oxford University Press,

Oxford, UK.

Hamilton, J. A., and J. M. Miller. 2016. Adaptive introgression

as a resource for management and genetic conservation in a

changing climate. Conservation Biology 30:33-41. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/cobi.12574

Hardy, O. J., and X. Vekemans. 2002. SPAGeDi: a versatile

computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the

individual or population levels. Molecular Ecology Notes

2:618-620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-8286.2002.00305.x

Harnum, B., J. Hanlon, T. Lim, J. Modeste, S. Deborah, and A.

Spring. 2014. Best of both worlds: Sahtú gonę́nę́ t'áadets'enı̨tǫ.

(Depending on the land in the Sahtú region). The Pembina

Institute and Ɂehdzo Got'ı̨nę Gots'ę́ Nákedı (Sahtú Renewable

Resources Board). Tulit'a, Northwest Territories, Canada.

Harrison, K. D. 2007. When languages die: the extinction of the

world’s languages and the erosion of human knowledge. Oxford

University Press, New York, New York, USA. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181920.001.0001

Hebblewhite, M., C. White, and M. Musiani. 2010. Revisiting

extinction in national parks: mountain caribou in Banff.

Conservation Biology 24:341-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1523-1739.2009.01343.x

Heginbottom, J. A. 2000. Permafrost distribution and ground ice

in surficial materials. Pages 31-39 in L. D. Dyke and G. R. Brooks,

editors. The physical environment of the Mackenzie Valley,

Northwest Territories: a base line for the assessment of

environmental change. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 547.

Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Helm, J. N., L. Oestreich, and T. S. Carterette. 2000. The people

of Denendeh: ethnohistory of the Indians of Canada’s Northwest

Territories. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montréal, Québec,

Canada.

Hettinga, P. N., A. N. Arnason, M. Manseau, D. Cross, K.

Whaley, and P. J. Wilson. 2012. Estimating size and trend of the

North Interlake woodland caribou population using fecal-DNA

and capture-recapture models. Journal of Wildlife Management

76:1153-1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.380

Hey, J. 2001. Genes, categories and species: the evolutionary and

cognitive causes of the species problem. Oxford University Press,

New York, New York, USA.

Hey, J. 2006. On the failure of modern species concepts. Trends

in Ecology & Evolution 21:447-450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

tree.2006.05.011

Hird, S., and J. Sullivan. 2009. Assessment of gene flow across a

hybrid zone in red-tailed chipmunks (Tamias ruficaudus).

Molecular Ecology 18:3097-3109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1365-294X.2009.04196.x

Hunn, E. 2006. Meeting of minds: how do we share our

appreciation of traditional environmental knowledge? Journal of

the Royal Anthropological Institute 12:S143-S160.

Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays on

livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London, UK. http://dx.

doi.org/10.4324/9780203466025

Ingold, T. 2011. Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and

description. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK.

Jakobsson, M., and N. A. Rosenberg. 2007. CLUMPP: a cluster

matching and permutation program for dealing with label

switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure.

Bioinformatics 23:1801-1806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/

btm233

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Johnson, C. J., L. P. W. Ehlers, and D. R. Seip. 2015. Witnessing

extinction - cumulative impacts across landscapes and the future

loss of an evolutionarily significant unit of woodland caribou in

Canada. Biological Conservation 186:176-186. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.012

Kalinowski, S. T. 2005. HP-Rare 1.0: a computer program for

performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Molecular

Ecology Notes 5:187-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1471-8286.2004.00845.x

Klütsch, C. F. C., M. Manseau, V. Trim, J. L. Polfus, and P. J.

Wilson. 2016. The eastern migratory caribou: the role of genetic

introgression in ecotype evolution. Royal Society Open Science

3:150469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150469

Klütsch, C. F. C., M. Manseau, and P. J. Wilson. 2012.

Phylogeographical analysis of mtDNA data indicates postglacial

expansion from multiple glacial refugia in woodland caribou

(Rangifer tarandus caribou). PLoS ONE 7:e52661. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052661

Kokelj, S. A. 2001. Hydrologic overview of the Gwich'in and Sahtu

settlement areas. Water Resources Division, Indian and Northern

Affairs Canada, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada.

Krauss, M. E., and V. K. Golla. 1981. North Athapaskan

languages. Pages 469-480 in J. Helm, editor. Handbook of North

American Indians. Vol. 6, Subarctic. Smithsonian Institution,

Washington, D.C., USA.

Lakoff, G. 1990. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what

categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Legat, A. 2012. Walking the land, feeding the fire: knowledge and

stewardship among the Tɬi̜cho̜ Dene. University of Arizona Press,

Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Letts, B., T. L. Fulton, M. Stiller, T. D. Andrews, G. MacKay, R.

Popko, and B. Shapiro. 2012. Ancient DNA reveals genetic

continuity in mountain woodland caribou of the Mackenzie and

Selwyn Mountains, Northwest Territories, Canada. Arctic

65:80-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4186

Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, M. Alberti, C. Folke, E. Moran,

A. N. Pell, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, J. Lubchenco, et al. 2007.

Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science

317:1513-1516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1144004

Loh, J., and D. Harmon. 2014. Biocultural diversity: threatened

species, endangered languages. WWF Netherlands, Zeist, The

Netherlands.

Mace, G. M. 2004. The role of taxonomy in species conservation.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series

B-Biological Sciences 359:711-719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/

rstb.2003.1454

Mager, K. H. 2012. “I'd be foolish to tell you they were caribou”:

local knowledge of historical interactions between reindeer and

caribou in Barrow, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 49:162-181.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/arc.2012.0023

Mager, K. H., K. E. Colson, and K. J. Hundertmark. 2013. High

genetic connectivity and introgression from domestic reindeer

characterize northern Alaska caribou herds. Conservation

Genetics 14:1111-1123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10592-013-0499-2

Mallet, J. 2005. Hybridization as an invasion of the genome.

Trends in Eecology & Evolution 20:229-237.

Mallet, J. 2008. Hybridization, ecological races and the nature of

species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:

Biological Sciences 363:2971-2986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/

rstb.2008.0081

Markman, E. M., and J. E. Hutchinson. 1984. Children’s

sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: taxonomic versus

thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology 16:1-27. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/0010-0285(84)90002-1

McDevitt, A. D., S. Mariani, M. Hebblewhite, N. J. Decesare, L.

Morgantini, D. Seip, B. V. Weckworth, and M. Musiani. 2009.

Survival in the Rockies of an endangered hybrid swarm from

diverged caribou (Rangifer tarandus) lineages. Molecular Ecology

18:665-679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.04050.

McFarlane, K., A. Gunn, and C. Strobeck, editors. 2009.

Proceedings from the caribou genetics and relationship workshop.

Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Government of the Northwest Territories, Edmonton, Alberta,

Canada.

McMillan, R., and B. Parlee. 2013. Dene hunting organization in

Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories: “ways we help each other

and share what we can.” Arctic 66:435-447. http://dx.doi.

org/10.14430/arctic4330

Mee, J. A., L. Bernatchez, J. D. Reist, S. M. Rogers, and E. B.

Taylor. 2015. Identifying designatable units for intraspecific

conservation prioritization: a hierarchical approach applied to

the lake whitefish species complex (Coregonus spp.). Evolutionary

Applications 8:423-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12247

Miller, A. M., and I. Davidson-Hunt. 2013. Agency and resilience:

teachings of Pikangikum First Nation elders, northwestern

Ontario. Ecology and Society 18(3):9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/

es-05665-180309

Moir, J. S. 1998. Petitot, Émile. Dictionary of Canadian Biography

Vol. 14(1911-1920). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario and

Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada. [online] URL:

http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/petitot_emile_14E.html

Morgan, D. L. 1996. Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology

22:129-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129

Morgan, S., and K. Anderson. 2013. State of knowledge:

watersheds of concern to Fort Good Hope, NWT. A review of

available research for the central Mackenzie-Ramparts and Hare

Indian watersheds. A component of the vulnerability assessment for

Fort Good Hope. Pembina Institute. Yellowknife, Northwest

Territories, Canada.

Moritz, C. 2002. Strategies to protect biological diversity and the

evolutionary processes that sustain it. Systematic Biology

51:238-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150252899752

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Nagy, J. A., D. L. Johnson, N. C. Larter, M. W. Campbell, A. E.

Derocher, A. Kelly, M. Dumond, D. Allaire, and B. Croft. 2011.

Subpopulation structure of caribou (Rangifer tarandus L.) in

arctic and subarctic Canada. Ecological Applications

21:2334-2348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/10-1410.1

Nazarea, V. D. 2006. Local knowledge and memory in

biodiversity conservation. Annual Review of Anthropology

35:317-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123252

Newmaster, S. G., S. Ragupathy, F. I. Rebecca, and C. B. Nirmala.

2006. Mechanisms of ethnobiological classification. Ethnobotany

18:4-26.

Newmaster, S. G., R. Subramanyam, N. C. Balasubramaniyam,

and R. F. Ivanoff. 2007. The multi-mechanistic taxonomy of the

Irulas in Tamil Nadu, south India. Journal of Ethnobiology

27:233-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771(2007)27[233:TMTOTI]

2.0.CO;2

Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics. 2014. Language:

Language by community. Excel spreadsheet. NWT Bureau of

Statistics, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada. online

URL: http://www.statsnwt.ca/language/

O’Brien, D., M. Manseau, A. Fall, and M. J. Fortin. 2006. Testing

the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for

woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biological

Conservation 130:70-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.014

O’Flaherty, R. M., I. J. Davidson-Hunt, and M. Manseau. 2008.

Indigenous knowledge and values in planning for sustainable

forestry: Pikangikum First Nation and the Whitefeather Forest

Initiative. Ecology and Society 13(1):6. http://www.ecologyandsociety.

org/vol13/iss1/art6/

Padial, J. M., A. Miralles, I. De la Riva, and M. Vences. 2010.

Review: the integrative future of taxonomy. Frontiers in Zoology

7:1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-7-16

Peakall, R., and P. E. Smouse. 2006. GENALEX 6: genetic

analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and

research. Molecular Ecology Notes 6:288-295. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01155.x

Peakall, R., and P. E. Smouse. 2012. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis

in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research -

an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537-2539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/

bioinformatics/bts460

Petitot, É. F. 1893. Exploration of the Great Bear Lake region

(End of Quinze ans sous le cercle polaire). Téqui, Bookseller and

Publisher, Paris, France.

Polfus, J. L., M. Hebblewhite, and K. Heinemeyer. 2011.

Identifying indirect habitat loss and avoidance of human

infrastructure by northern mountain woodland caribou.

Biological Conservation 144:2637-2646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.biocon.2011.07.023

Polfus, J. L., K. Heinemeyer, M. Hebblewhite, and Taku River

Tlingit First Nation. 2014. Comparing traditional ecological

knowledge and western science woodland caribou habitat models.

Journal of Wildlife Management 78:112-121. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1002/jwmg.643

Pond, B. A., G. S. Brown, K. S. Wilson, and J. A. Schaefer. 2016.

Drawing lines: spatial behaviours reveal two ecotypes of

woodland caribou. Biological Conservation 194:139-148. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.005

Pritchard, J. K., M. Stephens, and P. Donnelly. 2000. Inference of

population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics

155:945-959.

Puckett, E. E., P. D. Etter, E. A. Johnson, and L. S. Eggert. 2015.

Phylogeographic analyses of American black bears (Ursus

americanus) suggest four glacial refugia and complex patterns of

post-glacial admixture. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32

(9):2338-2350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv114

Ragupathy, S., S. G. Newmaster, M. Murugesan, and V.

Balasubramaniam. 2009. DNA barcoding discriminates a new

cryptic grass species revealed in an ethnobotany study by the hill

tribes of the Western Ghats in southern India. Molecular Ecology

Resources 9:164-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02641.

Rhymer, J. M., and D. Simberloff. 1996. Extinction by

hybridization and introgression. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics 27:83-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83

Rice, K. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin,

Germany. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110861822

Røed, K. H., G. Bjørnstad, Ø. Flagstad, H. Haanes, A. K.

Hufthammer, P. Jordhøy, and J. Rosvold. 2014. Ancient DNA

reveals prehistoric habitat fragmentation and recent domestic

introgression into native wild reindeer. Conservation Genetics

15:1137-1149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10592-014-0606-z

Rosenberg, N. A. 2004. DISTRUCT: a program for the graphical

display of population structure. Molecular Ecology Notes

4:137-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00566.x

Rousset, F. 2008. GENEPOP'007: a complete re-implementation

of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Molecular

Ecology Resources 8:103-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x

Sangris, F. 2012. Renewing our traditional laws through joint

ekwǫ (caribou) management. Rangifer 32:75-80. http://dx.doi.

org/10.7557/2.32.2.2254

Scott, C. 2011. Science for the west, myth for the rest? The case

of James Bay Cree knowledge construction. Pages 175-197 in S.

Harding, editor. The postcolonial science and technology studies

reader. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Species at Risk Committee. 2012. Species status report for boreal

caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the Northwest Territories.

Species at Risk Committee, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories,

Canada.

Statistics Canada. 2012. Region 2, Northwest Territories (Code

6102) and Northwest Territories (Code 61). Census Profile. 2011

Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Statistics

Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Stevenson, M. G. 1998. Traditional knowledge and environmental

management: from commodity to process. Sustainable Forest

Ecology and Society 21(2): 18

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art18/

Management Network working paper 1998-14. University of

Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Stiebens, V. A., S. E. Merino, C. Roder, F. J. J. Chain, P. L. M.

Lee, and C. Eizaguirre. 2013. Living on the edge: how philopatry

maintains adaptive potential. Proceedings of the Royal Society of

London B: Biological Sciences 280:20130305. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0305

Stronen, A. V., E. L. Navid, M. S. Quinn, P. C. Paquet, H. M.

Bryan, and C. T. Darimont. 2014. Population genetic structure

of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in a marine archipelago suggests

island-mainland differentiation consistent with dietary niche.

BMC Ecology 14:11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-14-11

Stuart-Smith, A. K., C. J. A. Bradshaw, S. Boutin, D. M. Hebert,

and A. B. Rippin. 1997. Woodland caribou relative to landscape

patterns in northeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management

61:622-633. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3802170

Twomey, E., J. S. Vestergaard, and K. Summers. 2014.

Reproductive isolation related to mimetic divergence in the poison

frog Ranitomeya imitator. Nature Communications 5:1-8. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5749

Vors, L. S., and M. S. Boyce. 2009. Global declines of caribou

and reindeer. Global Change Biology 15:2626-2633. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01974.x

Weckworth, B. V., M. Musiani, A. D. McDevitt, M. Hebblewhite,

and S. Mariani. 2012. Reconstruction of caribou evolutionary

history in western North America and its implications for

conservation. Molecular Ecology 21:3610-3624. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05621.x

Wilson, G. A., C. Strobeck, L. Wu, and J. W. Coffin. 1997.

Characterization of microsatellite loci in caribou Rangifer

tarandus, and their use in other artiodactyls. Molecular Ecology

6:697-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.00237.x

Wood, D. A., R. N. Fisher, and A. G. Vandergast. 2014. Fuzzy

boundaries: color and gene flow patterns among parapatric

lineages of the western shovel-nosed snake and taxonomic

implication. PLoS ONE 9:e97494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/

journal.pone.0097494

Yannic, G., L. Pellissier, J. Ortego, N. Lecomte, S. Couturier, C.

Cuyler, C. Dussault, K. J. Hundertmark, R. J. Irvine, D. A.

Jenkins, L. Kolpashikov, K. Mager, M. Musiani, K. L. Parker, K.

H. Røed, T. Sipko, S. G. Þórisson, B. V. Weckworth, A. Guisan,

L. Bernatchez, and S. D. Côté. 2014. Genetic diversity in caribou

linked to past and future climate change. Nature Climate Change

4:132-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2074

Polfus, J. L., M. Manseau, D. Simmons, M. Neyelle, W. Bayha, F. Andrew, L. Andrew, C. F. C. Klütsch, K. Rice,

and P. Wilson. 2016. eghágots'enet (learning together): the importance of indigenous perspectives in the

identification of biological variation. Ecology and Society 20:(2)

Appendix 1. Community-collaborative research background.

In northern Canada, landscapes, people and wildlife are inextricably and compellingly

intertwined. Federal control over wildlife and the exclusion of indigenous people in wildlife

management and decision-making for much of the 19th century has generated environmental,

jurisdictional, and political conflicts revolving around natural resources (Sandlos 2011). For

many years science-based wildlife conservation approaches often had negative impacts on the

traditional harvesting practices of indigenous peoples. For example, concerns about declining

populations led to legislative controls by the federal government in the early 1900s, prohibiting

(and in some cases criminalizing) subsistence hunting of caribou and other large mammals and

birds by Dene and Inuit hunters in the Northwest Territories (Sandlos 2011). Understanding the

historical context of unequal power relations is an important part of developing new approaches

to environmental research (Fletcher 2003, Nadasdy 2005, McGregor et al. 2010, Tobias et al.

2013).

In the 1970s researchers working in the north began to acknowledge the importance of

indigenous people’s knowledge and priorities in natural resource research (Cruikshank 1981).

However, early traditional knowledge (TK) research focused mostly on collecting objective and

quantifiable information that could be packaged and accessed within scientific frameworks

(Stevenson 1998). This led to substantial misrepresentation and the appropriation of knowledge

(Nadasdy 2005, Castleden et al. 2012). A more recent shift in the orientation of research

advocates for collaborative processes that serve indigenous interests, provide ownership and

control of research outcomes, and include local people in decision-making processes (Hall 1979,

21:(2).

18.

Simpson 1999, Smith 1999, Simpson and Driben 2000). For example, community-based

participatory research frameworks emerged in response to disrespectful and exclusionary

approaches that concentrated research on people rather than with people (Simpson and Driben

2000, Fletcher 2003)

Participatory research (also including community-engaged, community-participatory,

community-based, collaborative, cooperative; Ferreira and Gendron 2011) is intended to include

people as active participants in all phases of the research process to “facilitate a more accurate

and authentic analysis of social reality” (Hall 1979) and have been adapted in the fields of

education (Hall 2005), public health (Christopher et al. 2011, Ferreira and Gendron 2011, Tobias

et al. 2013), social science (Fletcher 2003), resource management (McKinley et al. 2012), and

linguistics (Czaykowska-Higgins 2009) among others. The principles of participatory research

include fostering a co-learning environment, answering relevant community-driven questions,

focusing on co-capacity building and sustainable solutions, sharing decision-making

responsibilities, and above all reflecting critically on the roles and power relations of those

involved in the research process (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995, O'Fallon and Dearry 2002,

Davidson-Hunt and O'Flaherty 2007)

In alignment with the principals of participatory research we brought together an

interdisciplinary team of research partners and co-authors to build a solid foundation across

diverse fields. Our research process was iterative and built on information and questions

developed and refined over time. Significant knowledge exchange and gots'enet “learning

together” between the co-authors and research partners occurred as ideas for the project were

developed, at focus group meetings, during the selection of the field sampling sites, while

collecting samples, and on the land during day trips, hunting trips and overnight trips to cabins.

The distinct disciplinary backgrounds of team members, who spoke different first languages,

necessitated significant dialogue to come to common understanding for a project.

The commitment, interest and openness of community research partners in the Saht

region was crucial to the collaborative research process. Michael Neyelle, Walter Bayha,

Frederick Andrew, and Leon Andrew are all native Dene language speakers and have significant

TK experience and knowledge from their personal experiences and their parents and ehts

“grandparents”. They have worked in collaboration with the ehdzo Got' '

(Sahtú Renewable Resources Board; SRRB) and other non-Dene researchers on various research

projects over the years. Their interest in this research project, commitment to helping support the

research, guidance on TK practices, and help with interpretation of the language, and their

leadership positions within the communities allowed for new knowledge to be created and a

common understanding to be reached. A focus on language during the research process was a

means for Dene and non-Dene speakers to explore knowledge and understanding of the

environment in more depth. For example, TK holders were able to unearth older knowledge that

is not used every day. Non-Dene partners were able to explore the ways in which the words we

use and the ideas we express influence the collaborative environment.

The project also included extended place-based research by non-Dene partners (Jean

Polfus and Deborah Simmons live and work in the community of Tul t'a) that allowed for

opportunities to participate in activities on-the-land and in the communities (thus learning was

not restricted to research activities/agendas). Jean Polfus also traveled throughout the

communities in the Sahtú to provide support for the ehdzo Got' n (Renewable Resources

Councils), collect caribou fecal samples with community members, participate in hunting

activities, meet with students at local schools and Aurora Colleges and coordinate sampling

efforts. The understanding required to respond appropriately to cultural cues and respectfully

engage in gots'enet “learning together” is on-going, intangible and personal (for all

research partners and co-authors) – but this exploration provides the necessary foundation

needed to produce truly collaborative research.

Over time relationships were fostered that provided space for non-Dene researchers to

learn important lessons regarding hunting traditions, on-the-land safety, and Dene ekw

“caribou laws” required to demonstrate respect for the land and wildlife. Likewise, community

members were also able to benefit from the collaborative relationship through increased contact

with “outsider knowledge” (Caine et al. 2007), including expertise in wildlife biology,

population genetics and linguistics, the chance to be involved in long-term natural resource

management research and planning, and access to other resources that the non-Dene researchers

could more easily acquire. The union of knowledge traditions can only be achieved though

shared experiences, considerable time, and strong local and regional governance (McGregor et

al. 2010). A large amount of knowledge was gained over time and cannot be readily summarized

in a manuscript. The research process was organic and agreement on the interpretation of the

results was gradual, forcing everyone to explore their own knowledge in depth, and in some

cases leading to new questions and additional analysis.

Meeting the demands of academic requirements, funding agencies, and indigenous

communities in the same process is fundamentally challenging and levels of participation,

control and ownership of the research process and products often vary based on the complex

constraints on each project (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995, Simpson and Driben 2000, Tondu et al.

2014). Our research benefitted considerably from the partnership with the SRRB. The board is a

land-claim organization responsible for managing renewable resources. The SRRB’s

contributions to this project allowed our research to be firmly grounded in the communities

needs and questions from the onset of the research because the project was built on past-

experiences and related work. The SRRB also facilitated ongoing communication with the public

and local research partners by developing connections between various research agendas and

other co-occurring projects. The opportunity for long-term planning and stability in the research

process (implemented through connections with multiple community-driven projects and long

term institutional research strategies and programs) is an important contribution of collaborative

interdisciplinary research and the SRRB’s involvement was essential to the success of the long

term collaborative project. Thus, we were able to produce research contributions that were

deeper and more robust than could have been achieved by a single, stand-alone academic

research project.

Figure A1.1. We discussed traditional knowledge themes, language, and genetic data with a local

group of experts (advisory group, including co-authors) in two separate 3-day meetings to clarify

and develop important concepts and themes related to caribou populations in the Saht region

and Nahanni National Park Reserve of the Northwest Territories, Canada. Advisory group

members June 2014 in Tul t'a, Northwest Territories: Gordon Yakeleya, Frederick Andrew,

Michael Neyelle, Jean Polfus, Walter Bayha, Camilla Rabisca, Deborah Simmons, Michel

Lafferty, and Judy Lafferty.

Figure A1.2. Advisory group members February 2015 at Deochah (Bennett Field), Northwest

Territories: Back two rows – Jean Polfus, Gordon Yakeleya, Frederick Andrew, Richard

Kochon, Jimmy Dillon, Walter Bayha, Deborah Simmons, Leon Andrew, Nicole Beaudry

(ethnomusicologist), Michael Neyelle, and Lucy Jackson. Front row – Corrine Andrew (cook),

Gabe Kochon, Maurice Mendo, and Hyacinth Kochon.

LITERATURE CITED

Caine, K. J., M. J. Salomons, and D. Simmons. 2007. Partnerships for social change in the

Canadian north: revisiting the insider-outsider dialectic. Development and Change

38:447-471.

Castleden, H., V. S. Morgan, and C. Lamb. 2012. “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring

Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community based participatory research

involving Indigenous peoples. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien

56:160-179.

Christopher, S., R. Saha, P. Lachapelle, D. Jennings, Y. Colclough, C. Cooper, C. Cummins, M.

J. Eggers, K. FourStar, and K. Harris. 2011. Applying indigenous community-based

participatory research principles to partnership development in health disparities research.

Family & community health 34:246-255.

Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes. 1995. What is participatory research? Social science & medicine

41:1667-1676.

Cruikshank, J. 1981. Legend and landscape: Convergence of oral and scientific traditions in the

Yukon Territory. Arctic Anthropology 18:67-93.

Czaykowska-Higgins, E. 2009. Research models, community engagement, and linguistic

fieldwork: Reflections on working within Canadian indigenous communities. Language

documentation & conservation 3:15-50.

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and R. M. O'Flaherty. 2007. Researchers, indigenous peoples, and place-

based learning communities. Society and Natural Resources 20:291-305.

Ferreira, M. P., and F. Gendron. 2011. Community-based participatory research with traditional

and indigenous communities of the Americas: Historical context and future directions.

The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3:153-168.

Fletcher, C. 2003. Community-based participatory research relationships with Aboriginal

communities in Canada: an overview of context and process. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of

Aboriginal & Indigenous Community Health 1:27-62.

Hall, B. L. 1979. Knowledge as a commodity and participatory research. Prospects: Quarterly

Review of education 9:393-408.

Hall, B. L. 2005. In from the Cold? Reflections on Participatory Research from 1970-2005.

Convergence 38:5-24.

McGregor, D., W. Bayha, and D. Simmons. 2010. Our responsibility to keep the land alive:

voices of northern indigenous researchers. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and

Indigenous Community Health 8:101-123.

McKinley, D. C., R. D. Briggs, and A. M. Bartuska. 2012. When peer-reviewed publications are

not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management. Forest Policy and

Economics 21:1-11.

Nadasdy, P. 2005. The anti-politics of TEK: the institutionalization of co-management discourse

and practice. Anthropologica:215-232.

O'Fallon, L. R., and A. Dearry. 2002. Community-based participatory research as a tool to

advance environmental health sciences. Environmental health perspectives 110:155-159.

Sandlos, J. 2011. Hunters at the margin: Native people and wildlife conservation in the

Northwest Territories. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Simpson, L. R. 1999. The construction of traditional ecological knowledge: issues, implications

and insights. PhD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Simpson, L. R., and P. Driben. 2000. From expert to acolyte: learning to understand the

environment from an Anishinaabe point of view. American Indian culture and research

journal 24:1-19.

Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books

Ltd, London, UK.

Stevenson, M. G. 1998. Traditional Knowledge and environmental management: from

commodity to process. Sustainable Forest Management Network working paper 1998-14.

University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Tobias, J. K., C. A. Richmond, and I. Luginaah. 2013. Community-based participatory research

(CBPR) with indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research.

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal

8:129-140.

Tondu, J. M. E., A. M. Balasubramaniam, L. Chavarie, N. Gantner, J. A. Knopp, J. F.

Provencher, P. B. Y. Wong, and D. Simmons. 2014. Working with northern communities

to build collaborative research partnerships: perspectives from early career researchers.

Arctic 67:419-429.

Appendix 2. Population genetic summary statistics for caribou genetic samples collected in the

Saht region and Nahanni National Park of the Northwest Territories, Canada from 2012 to

2014.

Table 1. Summary of genetic diversity estimates for each microsatellite loci including allelic size

range in base pairs, number of alleles (NA), observed (HO) and expected (HE) heterozygosity, FIS

estimates and standard errors (SE) for caribou genetic data from the Northwest Territories,

Canada. The original references for each loci are provided.

Microsatellite

Locus

Allelic

Range

NA HO SE HE SE FIS Source

BM848 356-386 16 0.819 0.0234 0.864 0.0150 0.053 Bishop et al. 1994

BM888 162-260 51 0.882 0.0041 0.865 0.0071 -0.019 Bishop et al. 1994

Map2C 89-115 16 0.824 0.0113 0.850 0.0232 0.030 Moore et al. 1992

RT5 88-116 15 0.768 0.0283 0.816 0.0373 0.058 McLoughlin et al. 2004†,

Wilson et al. 1997‡

RT6 88-112 14 0.837 0.0122 0.833 0.0245 -0.005 Wilson et al. 1997

RT7 210-232 12 0.746 0.0242 0.772 0.0109 0.033 Wilson et al. 1997

RT9 100-128 15 0.840 0.0257 0.859 0.0077 0.022 Wilson et al. 1997

RT24 205-227 24 0.780 0.0497 0.786 0.0707 0.008 Wilson et al. 1997

RT30

183

211

0.829

0.0130

0.862

0.0242

0.039

Wilson et al. 1997

†Reverse primer

‡Forward primer

Polfus, J. L., M. Manseau, D. Simmons, M. Neyelle, W. Bayha, F. Andrew, L. Andrew, C. F. C. Klütsch, K. Rice,

and P. Wilson. 2016. eghágots'enet (learning together): the importance of indigenous perspectives in the

identification of biological variation. Ecology and Society 21:(2).

Wilson. 2016. Ł

Table 2. Pairwise FST values based on microsatellites for the three major groups identified by

structure analysis (below diagonal) and pairwise P values (above diagonal).

FST Barren-

ground

Boreal

woodland Mountain

Barren-ground - 0.0000 0.0000

Boreal woodland 0.040 - 0.0000

Mountain 0.011 0.041 -

Table 3. Pairwise RST values based on microsatellites for the three major groups identified by

structure analysis (below diagonal) and pairwise P values (above diagonal).

RST Barren-

ground

Boreal

woodland

Mountain

Barren-ground - 0.0303 0.0028

Boreal woodland 0.030 - 0.0269

Mountain 0.003 0.027 -

Table 4. ST values based on mtDNA for the three major groups identified by structure

analysis (below diagonal) and pairwise P values (above diagonal).

ST Barren-

ground

Boreal

woodland Mountain

Barren-ground - 0.0000 0.0000

Boreal woodland 0.079 - 0.0000

Mountain 0.138 0.173 -

Table 5. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) based on mtDNA haplotype data for the

three groups identified by structure analysis. FST represents the variance within groups relative to

the total variance.

Source of variation d.f. Variance

components % Variation F P

Among groups 2 0.63 13.9

Within groups 334 3.91 86.1 FST = 0.139 0.0000

Figure 1. Most likely number of population clusters (K = 2) identified by the Evanno method

(Evanno et al. 2005) using Structure Harvester v0.6.94 (Earl and vonHoldt 2012).

Figure 2. Mean likelihood for each K plus standard deviation as retrieved from Structure

Harvester v0.6.94 (Earl and vonHoldt 2012).

Figure 3. Frequency of mtDNA haplotypes for the three major groups identified by structure

analysis: 1) barren-ground (blue), 2) boreal woodland (green), and 3) mountain woodland (red).

Three haplotypes belong to the woodland haplogroup lineage: 50, 522 and 523, all other

haplotypes belong to the Beringian haplogroup lineage.

Figure 4. During a focus group meeting, Gabe Kochon of Fort Good Hope, Northwest

Territories, Canada, described a historic event where a large herd of caribou crossed the Dehcho

(Mackenzie River) and headed into the foothills of the mountains many years ago. We collected

samples from the area identified by the arrow during our 2 April 2014 helicopter survey and

identified 9 individual caribou from the site in subsequent genetic analysis. Structure analysis of

these samples found a high probability of assignment (average 0.73) to the barren-ground

caribou cluster (shown as blue in bottom bar and represented as blue on the map). Genetic

structure analysis identified k=3 clusters of 1) barren-ground (blue) 2) boreal woodland (green)

and 3) mountain (red).

LITERATURE CITED

Bishop, M. D., S. M. Kappes, J. W. Keele, R. T. Stone, S. Sunden, G. A. Hawkins, S. S. Toldo,

R. Fries, M. D. Grosz, and J. Yoo. 1994. A genetic linkage map for cattle. Genetics

136:619-639.

Earl, D. A., and B. M. vonHoldt. 2012. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for

visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conservation

Genetics Resources 4:359-361.

Evanno, G., S. Regnaut, and J. Goudet. 2005. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals

using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Molecular Ecology 14:2611-2620.

McLoughlin, P. D., D. Paetkau, M. Duda, and S. Boutin. 2004. Genetic diversity and relatedness

of boreal caribou populations in western Canada. Biological Conservation 118:593-598.

Moore, S., W. Barendse, K. Berger, S. Armitage, and D. Hetzel. 1992. Bovine and ovine DNA

microsatellites from the EMBL and GENBANK databases. Animal Genetics 23:463-467.

Wilson, G., C. Strobeck, L. Wu, and J. Coffin. 1997. Characterization of microsatellite loci in

caribou Rangifer tarandus, and their use in other artiodactyls. Molecular Ecology 6:697-

699.

Nearly half of Colombian artisan craft plant species lack national and international vulnerability assessments

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

Humanity has maintained cultural connections with our environments from time immemorial. Plants and artisan crafts are a prime example, as craft purpose, skill, design and species used can vary greatly between communities and the loss of a critical plant species can result in a loss of access to cultural craft practices. To mitigate global biodiversity loss, conservationists are faced with the challenge of assessing species vulnerability to extinction and prioritizing species for conservation funding using information instruments, like the IUCN red list. This process does not necessarily consider a species’ cultural importance. In this paper, we address this gap for plant species used in artisan crafts in Colombia. We aim to answer the following: (1) how represented are endemic species in artisan crafts; (2) how threatened are artisan craft species according to (a) international and (b) national vulnerability status? We used the number of species-associated common names as a proxy for cultural awareness. We found that continentally regional species were far more represented in Colombian artisan crafts than national endemics. We also found a strong positive relationship between the number of common names and national vulnerability assessment status, but no statistically significant relationship for international vulnerability status. Based on our results, well-known plants used in Colombian artisan crafts are more likely to be assessed nationally than internationally. While the IUCN is thorough in their recommendations, more can be done to prioritize the inclusion of conservation assessments for species based on their contributions to cultural diversity.

Centering community values in marine planning

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2024
MAR POLICY

Centering community values in conservation decision-making can mitigate harm to social-ecological systems caused by the climate, biodiversity, and social justice crises. However, it can be unclear how to weave these values into complicated processes, such as marine spatial planning (MSP), that have historically favoured western and biophysical knowledge and can perpetuate inequitable and status-quo power dynamics. Here, we contribute a community-led approach to create knowledge in support of MSP that works to center local and Indigenous values. Indigenous, academic, and non-profit partners co-created a mixed-methods participatory mapping approach to characterize place-based values within a fjord in the Salish Sea. We conducted 30 interviews and 300 surveys to map ocean-based values and characterize interactions across values (e.g., perceptions of conflicts and compatibilities). Communities strongly supported ecological values and identified places where spatial conservation and management opportunities could be explored with minimal perceived trade-offs. Results were shared with a community MSP decision-support tool to improve data accessibility and bridge the gap between knowledge and action. This mixed-methods approach can be replicated in other coastal communities to elevate the inclusion of social and cultural data in MSP and enhance harmonization of planning processes across governance scales (e.g., Indigenous, local, provincial, federal, transboundary). Overall, this case study contributes a local and Indigenous-partnered approach that centers community values and knowledge in early MSP stages so that both ocean and community health are meaningfully protected.

Co-creating Ethical Space in wildlife conservation: a case study of moose (Mooz; Alces alces) research and monitoring in the Robinson Huron Treaty region (Ontario, Canada)

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2024

The strengths of Indigenous Knowledges and need for reconciliation are increasingly recognized within conservation, leading to a rise in collaborative, cross-cultural research initiatives. As both a cultural keystone and important harvest species, moose are of value to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, presenting an opportunity to pursue moose monitoring strategies that embrace the strengths of Indigenous and Western knowledges. While various frameworks provide theoretical direction on how to do so, few resources outline how to apply them in practice. Leaning on guidance of the Ethical Space framework, we explored the meaning and application of value-based approaches in the context of moose monitoring in central Ontario through semi-structured interviews with First Nation communities, the Ontario provincial crown government, and academic researchers. Collectively, 20 core values were identified to be important when bringing Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners together, coupled with a range of tangible actions necessary for fostering Ethical Space. Values and actions reflected three main themes: an emphasis on the long term, the importance of building and maintaining relationships, and the ability to evolve and adapt over time. Insights from this research provide tools and guidance for others interested in enacting Ethical Space in the context of cross-cultural wildlife monitoring and research.

Centering relationships to place for more meaningful research and engagement

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024
P NATL ACAD SCI USA

Research has the potential to simultaneously generate new knowledge and contribute meaningful social–ecological benefits; however, research processes and outcomes can also perpetuate extractive patterns that have manifested the climate, biodiversity, and social justice crises. One approach to enhance the societal value of research processes is to strengthen relationships with places of study and the peoples of those places. Deepening relational engagement with the social–ecological context and history of a place can lead to more accurate results and improved public trust in the scientific process and is particularly important for natural scientists who work at the interface of nature and society. We provide three actionable pathways that range from individual to systemic change to enhance place-based relationships within research systems: 1) deepen reflection and communication about relationships with places and peoples; 2) strengthen collaboration among research teams and partners; and 3) transform systems of knowledge creation to foster place-based roots. Action on any of these proposed pathways, but especially action taken across all three, can build empathy and connections to place and people, strengthening the meaningful impact of research both locally and globally.

Genomic population structure and inbreeding history of Lake Superior caribou

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2023

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) have experienced dramatic declines in both range and population size across Canada over the past century. Boreal caribou (R. t. caribou), 1 of the 12 Designatable Units, has lost approximately half of its historic range in the last 150 years, particularly along the southern edge of its distribution. Despite this overall northward contraction, some populations have persisted at the trailing range edge, over 150 km south of the continuous boreal caribou range in Ontario, along the coast and nearshore islands of Lake Superior. The population history of caribou along Lake Superior remains unclear. It appears that these caribou likely represent a remnant distribution at the trailing edge of the receding population of boreal caribou, but they may also exhibit local adaptation to the coastal environment. A better understanding of the population structure and history of caribou along Lake Superior is important for their conservation and management. Here, we use high-coverage whole genomes (N = 20) from boreal, eastern migratory, and barren-ground caribou sampled in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec to investigate population structure and inbreeding histories. We discovered that caribou from the Lake Superior range form a distinct group but also found some evidence of gene flow with the continuous boreal caribou range. Notably, caribou along Lake Superior demonstrated relatively high levels of inbreeding (measured as runs of homozygosity; ROH) and genetic drift, which may contribute to the differentiation observed between ranges. Despite inbreeding, caribou along Lake Superior retained high heterozygosity, particularly in genomic regions without ROH. These results suggest that they present distinct genomic characteristics but also some level of gene flow with the continuous range. Our study provides key insights into the genomics of the southernmost range of caribou in Ontario, beginning to unravel the evolutionary history of these small, isolated caribou populations.

Benefits and challenges of reviewing across knowledge systems: ‘Gourmet omnivore’ pigs foraging in the wild

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Evidence‐based conservation can benefit substantially from multiple knowledge sources and different knowledge systems. While traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and collaborative research are increasingly acknowledged, detailed cross‐knowledge system reviews are scarce and their methodology underdeveloped. We have two objectives: to prepare such a review and to discuss the benefits and challenges of such reviews. We review pig keeping in forests and marshes, a historically widespread but nowadays almost extinct practice in Europe, but one with high potential for organic farming, conservation and restoration. We focus on what, when and how free‐ranging pigs forage in the wild. We review five knowledge sources: living and archived TEK, pig and wild boar scientific literature, and the authors' observations of foraging. Unexpectedly, given the amount of available information, archived TEK differed considerably from living TEK of svinjars (Serbian: traditional pig keepers), and scientific knowledge on pig and boar foraging from TEK. Svinjars deeply understood the consumption and avoidance behaviour of pigs towards 98 and 56 plant taxa, and 42 and 17 animal taxa, respectively. Our review showed that pigs are gourmet omnivores, optimizing and switching between foraging on earthworms, acorns, grasses and corn. Discrepancies between knowledge sources were rare, for example on the consumption of woody roots, earthworms, mushrooms and snakes/lizards. Sources were also complementary, filling each other's knowledge gaps. Topics where the cross‐knowledge system review was most fruitful were acorn foraging, browsing, earthworm and mushroom consumption. Differences in the contributions of the knowledge sources to the enriched picture resulted from the diverging interests and methodologies of the knowledge generators. We identified and discussed both the benefits (different approaches of knowledge generation; expanded time scales; complementarity; novel cause–effect explanations; identification of knowledge gaps; and biases) and the challenges (how to identify relevant publications and knowledgeable TEK holders; how to collate knowledge and verify its reliability; and how to conduct a culturally respectful synthesis) of cross‐knowledge system reviewing. Synthesis and applications. Cross‐knowledge system reviews help overcome limitations in ecological understanding and may provide a shared understanding among collaborating partners, build trust and foster acceptance of each other's knowledge as legitimate. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Snowmelt Onset and Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Spring Migration

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) undergo exceptionally large, annual synchronized migrations of thousands of kilometers, triggered by their shared environmental stimuli. The proximate triggers of those migrations remain mysterious, though snow characteristics play an important role due to their influence on the mechanics of locomotion. We investigate whether the snow melt–refreeze status relates to caribou movement, using previously collected Global Positioning System (GPS) caribou collar data. We analyzed 117 individual female caribou with >30,000 observations between 2007 and 2016 from the Bathurst herd in Northern Canada. We used a hierarchical model to estimate the beginning, duration, and end of spring migration and compared these statistics against snow pack melt characteristics derived from 37 GHz vertically polarized (37V GHz) Calibrated Enhanced-Resolution Brightness Temperatures (CETB) at 3.125 km resolution. The timing of migration for Bathurst caribou generally tracked the snowmelt onset. The start of migration was closely linked to the main melt onset in the wintering areas, occurring on average 2.6 days later (range −1.9 to 8.4, se 0.28, n = 10). The weighted linear regression was also highly significant (p-value = 0.002, R2=0.717). The relationship between migration arrival times and the main melt onset on the calving grounds (R2 = 0.688, p-value = 0.003), however, had a considerably more variable lag (mean 13.3 d, se 0.67, range 3.1–20.4). No migrations ended before the main melt onset at the calving grounds. Thawing conditions may provide a trigger for migration or favorable conditions that increase animal mobility, and suggest that the snow properties are more important than snow presence. Further work is needed to understand how widespread this is and why there is such a relationship.

Surveying First Nations perspectives on marine genetic conservation practices

Article

Apr 2024
BIOL CONSERV

Decolonizing Science: Undoing the Colonial and Racist Hegemony of Western Science

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2023

Mirjam Held

Decolonization is the complicated and unsettling undoing of colonization. In a similarly simplified definition, science is a structured way of pursuing knowledge. To decolonize science thus means to undo the past and present racist and colonial hegemony of Western science over other, equally legitimate, ways of knowing. This paper discusses the paradigmatic prerequisites and consequences of decolonizing Western science. Only if Western science is toppled from its pedestal and understood in a cultural way can it engage with other sciences at eye level. Such equal collaboration that results in the co-creation of new knowledge based on the scientific method and Indigenous scientific inquiry is what decolonizing science is all about. What it looks like in practice is highly variable as there is no one-size-fits-all approach due to the fact that Indigenous knowledge is rooted in the local, the land. Therefore, decolonizing science is much more a path than a destination. This path, however, will also pave the way to a new multiparadigmatic space. A quick look into the history and philosophy of science reveals that new paradigms have always emerged after a few trailblazers started engaging in a new way of doing science.

Alejandro Frid: Changing Tides: An Ecologist’s Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, 2020, (ISBN 9780865719095), Price 19.99 USD (Softcover), xv + 181 Pages, Index

Article

Apr 2023

Sara B. Wickham

This article reviews Alejandro Frid’s book, Changing tides: an ecologist’s journey to make peace with the Anthropocene.

An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social-ecological research

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2011

The global reach of human activities affects all natural ecosystems, so that the environment is best viewed as a social–ecological system. Consequently, a more integrative approach to environmental science, one that bridges the biophysical and social domains, is sorely needed. Although models and frameworks for social–ecological systems exist, few are explicitly designed to guide a long-term interdisciplinary research program. Here, we present an iterative framework, “Press–Pulse Dynamics” (PPD), that integrates the biophysical and social sciences through an understanding of how human behaviors affect “press” and “pulse” dynamics and ecosystem processes. Such dynamics and processes, in turn, influence ecosystem services –thereby altering human behaviors and initiating feedbacks that impact the original dynamics and processes. We believe that research guided by the PPD framework will lead to a more thorough understanding of social–ecological systems and generate the knowledge needed to address pervasive environmental problems.

The eastern migratory caribou: The role of genetic introgression in ecotype evolution

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2016

Understanding the evolutionary history of contemporary animal groups is essential for conservation and management of endangered species like caribou (Rangifer tarandus). In central Canada, the ranges of two caribou subspecies (barren-ground/woodland caribou) and two woodland caribou ecotypes (boreal/eastern migratory) overlap. Our objectives were to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the eastern migratory ecotype and to assess the potential role of introgression in ecotype evolution. STRUCTURE analyses identified five higher order groups (i.e. three boreal caribou populations, eastern migratory ecotype and barren-ground). The evolutionary history of the eastern migratory ecotype was best explained by an early genetic introgression from barren-ground into a woodland caribou lineage during the Late Pleistocene and subsequent divergence of the eastern migratory ecotype during the Holocene. These results are consistent with the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet and the colonization of the Hudson Bay coastal areas subsequent to the establishment of forest tundra vegetation approximately 7000 years ago. This historical reconstruction of the eastern migratory ecotype further supports its current classification as a conservation unit, specifically a Designatable Unit, under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. These findings have implications for other sub-specific contact zones for caribou and other North American species in conservation unit delineation.

Genes, Categories, and Species: The Evolutionary and Cognitive Causes of the Species Problem

Book

Oct 2023

Jody Hey

In Genes, Categories and Species, Jody Hey provides an enlightening new solution to one of biology’s most ironic and perplexing puzzles. When Darwin showed that life evolves, and that it does so by natural selection, he transformed our understanding of living things. But the very question Darwin addressed-the nature of species-continues to pose an awkward conundrum for biologists. Despite enormous efforts by a great many scholars, biologists still cannot agree on how to identify species or even how to define the word “species.” Genes, Categories, and Species is not like other books on the species problem, for it does not begin by asking, “What is a species?” Instead, it focuses on the very fact that biologists are stumped by species and their curious behavior in coping with that uncertainty. Faced with a persistent conundrum-and no lack of data on the subject-biologists who ponder the species problem have ceased to ask the most essential of scientific questions: “What new information do we need to resolve the problem?” This is the question that motivates this book and leads to the discoveries it reveals. The answer to the species problem lies not with the processes and patterns of biological diversity, Hey contends, but rather in the way the human mind perceives and categorizes that diversity. The promise of this book is twofold. First, it allows biologists to understand the causes of the species problem and to use this knowledge to avoid the major confusions that arise over species. Second, with its explanation of the species problem, it gives scholars and students of human nature a humbling example of how ill-suited the human mind is for certain kinds of scientific questions.

Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science.

Article

Jun 1994

The People of Denendeh: Ethnohistory of the Indians of Canada's Northwest Territories

Book

Apr 2002

Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples

Article

May 2000

Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data

Article

Jun 2000
GENETICS

We describe a model-based clustering method for using multilocus genotype data to infer population structure and assign individuals to populations. We assume a model in which there are K populations (where K may be unknown), each of which is characterized by a set of allele frequencies at each locus. Individuals in the sample are assigned (probabilistically) to populations, or jointly to two or more populations if their genotypes indicate that they are admixed. Our model does not assume a particular mutation process, and it can be applied to most of the commonly used genetic markers, provided that they are not closely linked. Applications of our method include demonstrating the presence of population structure, assigning individuals to populations, studying hybrid zones, and identifying migrants and admixed individuals. We show that the method can produce highly accurate assignments using modest numbers of loci—e.g., seven microsatellite loci in an example using genotype data from an endangered bird species. The software used for this article is available from http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~pritch/home.html.

Science for the West, myth for the rest? The case of James Bay Cree knowledge production

Article

Jan 1996

Colin Scott

Subpopulation structure of caribou (Rangifer tarandus L.) in arctic and subarctic Canada

Article

Sep 2011

Effective management and conservation of species, subspecies, or ecotypes require an understanding of how populations are structured in space. We used satellite-tracking locations and hierarchical and fuzzy clustering to quantify subpopulations within the behaviorally different barren-ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus), Dolphin and Union island caribou (R. t. groenlandicus X pearyi), and boreal (R. t. caribou) caribou ecotypes in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, Canada. Using a novel approach, we verified that the previously recognized Cape Bathurst, Bluenose-West, Bluenose-East, Bathurst, Beverly, Qamanirjuaq, and Lorillard barren-ground subpopulations were robust and that the Queen Maude Gulf and Wager Bay barren-ground subpopulations were organized as individuals. Dolphin and Union island and boreal caribou formed one and two distinct subpopulation, respectively, and were organized as individuals. Robust subpopulations were structured by strong annual spatial affiliation among females; subpopulations organized as individuals were structured by migratory connectivity, barriers to movement, and/or habitat discontinuity. One barren-ground subpopulation used two calving grounds, and one calving ground was used by two barren-ground subpopulations, indicating that these caribou cannot be reliably assigned to subpopulations solely by calving-ground use. They should be classified by annual spatial affiliation among females. Annual-range size and path lengths varied significantly among ecotypes, including mountain woodland caribou (R. t. caribou), and reflected behavioral differences. An east-west cline in annual-range sizes and path lengths among migratory barren-ground subpopulations likely reflected differences in subpopulation size and habitat conditions and further supported the subpopulation structure identified.

Anything Can Happen: The Verb Lexicon and Interdisciplinary Fieldwork

Chapter

Jan 2012

N. Evans

The centrality of language in human life means we cannot document any language without understanding all the spheres of knowledge it is used to talk about. Equally, undocumented languages contain too much information to be wasted on linguists alone. As the medium through which the whole fabric of traditional knowledge about everything in the world is transmitted, the importance of these languages stretches out in the direction of many fields of enquiry, from ethnoecology to comparative jurisprudence to deep history to the study of musical and verbal art. Linguists, then, have a responsibility not just to their own field but to all areas of scholarship concerned with the almost infinite varieties of human creativity, and we abrogate this responsibility if we do not seek to follow our documentation of the languages we study down all these lanes and by ways of orally transmitted lore. One of the appeals of fieldwork is that we get the opportunity to develop interests in many new subjects, from botany through ethnography to thatch-making. But few linguists reach the point where we are able to really penetrate to the heart of all these fields, and in practice the best way to extend our documentary coverage is through some form of interdisciplinary fieldwork. The advantages of interdisciplinary fieldwork are most obvious in the way it can extend the detailed lexicon of targeted areas - botanical terms with the botanist, rock types with the geologist, terms for spear or personal adornment types with the material culture specialist, and so forth. © editorial matter and organization Nicholas Thieberger 2012.

Łeghágots’enetę (learning together): The importance of indigenous perspectives in the identification of biological variation

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Preparation of mullite/B 4 C composites: A comparative study on the effect of heating methods

Characteristics of lightweight aggregate produced from lime-treated sewage sludge and palm oil fuel...

Characterization of small microsatellite loci isolated in endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) fo...

Seasonal Changes in Arctic Hare (Lepus arcticus) Diet Composition and Differential Digestibility