Merging indigenous and scientific knowledge links climate with the growth of a large migratory caribou population

Abstract

Climate change in the Arctic is two to three times faster than anywhere else in the world. It is therefore crucial to understand the effects of weather on keystone arctic species, particularly those such as caribou (Rangifer tarandus) that sustain northern communities. Bridging long‐term scientific and indigenous knowledge offers a promising path to achieve this goal, as both types of knowledge can complement one another. We assessed the influence of environmental variables on the spring and fall body condition of caribou from the Porcupine Caribou Herd. This herd ranges in the Yukon and Northwest Territories (Canada) and Alaska (USA), and is the only large North American herd that has not declined since the 2000s. Using observations recorded through an indigenous community‐based monitoring programme between 2000 and 2010, we analysed temporal trends in caribou condition and quantified the effects of weather and critical weather‐dependent variables (insect harassment and vegetation growth), on spring (n = 617 individuals) and fall (n = 711) caribou condition. Both spring and fall body condition improved from 2000 to 2010, despite a continuous population increase of ca. 3.6% per year. Spring and fall caribou condition were influenced by weather on the winter and spring ranges, particularly snow conditions and spring temperatures. Both snow conditions and spring temperatures improved during our study period, likely contributing to the observed caribou population increase. Insect harassment during the previous summer and the frequency of icing events also influenced caribou condition. Synthesis and applications. Our study shows how untangling the relative influences of seasonal weather variables allows a much better understanding of variation in seasonal body condition of caribou. It indicates that a large migratory caribou population can grow and improve condition in a global context of caribou decline and climate warming, thereby warning against generalizations about the influence of climate on all caribou populations. Finally, it testifies how data from indigenous community‐based monitoring can remarkably improve ecological understanding of wildlife sustaining human communities. Where possible, we recommend management practices that respectfully engage with indigenous community‐based monitoring, as this can enhance knowledge and relationships with communities, both prerequisites of successful resource management.

Informing decision‐making with Indigenous and local knowledge and science

“…In Gagnon et al. (2020, this feature) long‐term community‐based monitoring of the Porcupine caribou herd in northern Canada and Alaska gives access to important transnational data on caribou condition, which is outside the scope of current scientific observations (Gagnon et al., 2020, this feature).…”

“…Practice‐focused and decision‐making‐oriented approaches addressed in this feature include informing strategic decision‐making for conservation (priority threat management in Pacific salmon, Walsh et al., 2020, this feature), ecosystem‐based adaptation (reindeer husbandry and land use decisions, Hausner et al., 2020, this feature), understanding the role of Indigenous and local practice in conservation (cattle foraging preferences and conservation herding practice, Molnàr et al, 2020, this feature), understanding the social conditions that promote adaptation to change (Indigenous communities and sea otter recovery, Burt et al., 2020, this feature), and adaptation of Indigenous knowledge and practice to globalization (Congretel & Pinton, 2020, this feature) and informing conservation translocations (Rayne et al., 2020, this feature). More knowledge production‐focused approaches include understanding of complex interactions between seasonal weather and wildlife condition (Gagnon et al., 2020, this feature) and contributions of Indigenous and local knowledge to global contexts, including recently through the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). McElwee et al (2020, this feature) highlight in their assessment of the global IPBES processes that different aspects and qualities of different knowledge systems may align better with some questions than others, and the balance of contributions from knowledge systems might reflect their alignment with different questions.…”

The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board’s Community-Based Monitoring Network: documenting Inuit harvesting experience using modern technology

“…Community-based monitoring is a promising strategy that has local resource users collaborate to monitor and respond to locally important issues or areas of interest (Dowsley 2009). This approach may be used to provide information to improve wildlife co-management and has become increasingly widespread among Indigenous communities, institutions, and governments across the Arctic (Whitelaw et al 2003;Danielsen et al 2014;Johnson et al 2015;Wiseman and Bardsley 2016;Gagnon et al 2020). Examples of community-based monitoring program in the Arctic include the Nunavut Coastal Resource Inventory program developed by the Government of Nunavut (Misiuk et al 2019), the George River watershed IMALIRIJIIT community-based monitoring program in Nunavik (Gérin-Lajoie et al 2018), the PISUNA program in Greenland (Danielsen et al 2014), and the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society caribou health monitoring program in the western Arctic (Gagnon et al 2020).…”

“…If designed and appropriately implemented, community-based monitoring has the potential to improve wildlife co-management (Berkes et al 2007;Gagnon et al 2020) through expanding the scale and scope of information gathered and mobilizing local Indigenous knowledge. Using the involvement of local Indigenous harvesters, communitybased monitoring can provide long-term data needed to understand wildlife population dynamics through its ability to temporally extend data collection year-round and expand the spatial extent of studies (Whitelaw et al 2003;Pollock and Whitelaw 2005;Danielsen et al 2014).…”

“…There is significant potential for data collected through community-based monitoring to complement or contrast results produced by conventional scientific research methods and inform adaptive wildlife co-management (Berkes et al 2007;Gagnon et al 2020). However, some decision-makers may question the validity and applicability of these data in co-management decision-making frameworks that are mostly structured around conventional science and Indigenous knowledge documented by other means.…”