Assessing indirect biodiversity conservation benefits of fisheries closures in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada

Marine biodiversity loss is a pressing global issue, intensified by human activities and climate change. Complementary to marine protected areas (MPAs), Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) have emerged as a key tool to mitigate this loss by providing long-term biodiversity protection. However, while OECMs primarily target specific taxa, they can also offer indirect biodiversity conservation benefits (BCBs) to a wider range of taxa. In this study, we assess the indirect BCBs of eleven OECMs in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, focusing on their role in supporting the life-history processes of commercially important species such as Atlantic halibut, Greenland halibut, and redfish. We apply an integrated assessment that combines knowledge and data previously unconnected to provide information to support OECM management. Our analysis reveals that eight of the eleven OECMs overlap with potential spawning habitats for these species, suggesting important life-history benefits. However, projected climate-driven changes in bottom temperature, oxygen concentration, and pH levels pose a threat to these habitats, potentially undermining the long-term effectiveness of OECMs. These findings underscore the need for adaptive management strategies that incorporate climate-informed ecosystem indicators and broaden the conservation focus beyond economically important species. Such approaches are crucial to ensuring that OECMs continue to provide both direct and indirect BCBs in the face of accelerating climate change, thereby contributing to global marine biodiversity conservation efforts.

Studying Chinook salmon in northern river ecosystems through ecological methods and Indigenous, Teslin Tlingit knowledge

In this study, we examined Pacific salmon decline and ecosystem function through Western science and Indigenous, Teslin Tlingit knowledge. We tested relationships of riparian tree growth and nitrogen composition at the limit of Pacific salmon distribution on the Teslin Tlingit Council (TTC) Traditional Territory in Southern Yukon, studied ecosystem roles of salmon and population declines in the area, and the interactions of these processes. Within sites, tree growth was positively related to salmon escapement at all salmon-bearing sites and not at the negative (salmon-free) control site. Mean δ15N was significantly higher at salmon-bearing sites compared to the negative control, showing similar patterns to comparable studies. Between sites, mean site tree growth did not show a clear response to salmon. Interviews conducted with Teslin Tlingit knowledge holders revealed measures of a healthy salmon run and large population declines that have negatively impacted local ecosystems (particularly bears, key to delivering salmon nutrients to terrestrial ecosystems) and human wellbeing on the Traditional Territory. Although this study was limited by available sites and data, we demonstrate that the health of salmon and riparian forests on the Traditional Territory are deeply linked, and the importance of considering multiple ways of knowing to improve ecological research.

Using positionality and reflexivity to support equity in partnership-driven research

Social and economic position and power shape everyone, including scientists and researchers. The way researchers do conservation science and the voices centered in the process are a result of researcher upbringing, experiences, access to resources, and values and are a manifestation of positionality. Positionality is a concept that can help one think about one's position and power in one's work. Creating a successful research partnership requires careful thinking about how equity, diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility are accounted for in the research environment. We drew on our own experiences as early career, mid-career, and Indigenous researchers to explore researcher positionality and how understanding one's positionality can bring to the fore power dynamics in conservation science and research. We focused on the use of reflexive practice to recognize diverse roles and responsibilities, build strong project governance, and enrich relationships. We considered 2 large research partnerships, Apoqnmatulti'k (Mi'kmaw for we help each other) and the SakKijânginnaniattut Nunatsiavut Sivunitsangit (Inuttitut for Sustainable Nunatsiavut Futures) project, to examine moments of tension and interrogation of power and the ways in which this interrogation led to stronger relationships and better research. We advise that large transdisciplinary and cross-cultural research teams use positionality and reflexivity to explicitly make choices about power dynamics in the context of executing partnership-driven work. This can be accomplished through personal and collective interrogation of the power dynamics at play in project administration, research questions, and interpersonal relationships.

Comparative review of One Health and Indigenous approaches to wildlife research in Inuit Nunangat

There is increasing interest in One Health and Indigenous methodologies and approaches in wildlife research, but they are not widely used research applications in the Arctic. Both approaches are wide in scope and originate from different knowledge systems but are often compared synonymously. We review the literature of overlap between the term One Health and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit Indigenous Knowledge) throughout Inuit Nunaat on wildlife research. Three databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, and BIOSIS) were used to find English language articles and books within the bounds of Inuit Nunaat. While One Health and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit research approaches share synergies, they are fundamentally disparate owing to their differences in epistemology, including views on the natural environment and wildlife management. We describe current examples of One Health being operationalized in Inuit Nunaat and identify potential to address larger and more complex questions about wildlife health, with examples from terrestrial and marine Arctic wildlife. Both Indigenous methodologies and One Health naturally have a human component at their core, which seamlessly lends itself to discussions on wildlife management, as human actions and regulations directly impact environment and wildlife health.

A Typology of National Park Co-management Agreements in the Era of Reconciliation in Canada

Parks Canada, in response to commitments undertaken towards reconciliation, has signaled its readiness to reassess the participation of Indigenous peoples in the co-management of national parks, national park reserves, and national marine conservation areas (NMCAs). However, the effectiveness of co-management, as the established framework underpinning these and other longstanding partnerships between the state and Indigenous groups, has been disputed, based on an uneven track record in meeting the needs, interests, and aspirations of Indigenous communities. This paper explores the potential of co-management to facilitate reconciliation within national parks, reserves and NMCAs by developing a typology of various types of co-management agreements. Addressing a critical knowledge gap in co-management governance, we provide a comprehensive review of 23 negotiated co-management agreements involving the state and Indigenous groups in a national park context. The resulting typology categorizes these agreements according to contextual factors and governance arrangements, offering insights into the feasibility of shared governance approaches with Parks Canada. Moreover, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of co-management agreements in fulfilling reconciliation commitments. Our findings indicate that, although Parks Canada has implemented innovative approaches to co-management and shown a willingness to support Indigenous-led conservation efforts, true shared governance with Indigenous groups, as defined by international standards, is limited by the Canadian government's evident reluctance to amend the foundational legislation to effectively share authority in national parks.

Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges

Group authorship (also known as corporate authorship, team authorship, consortium authorship) refers to attribution practices that use the name of a collective (be it team, group, project, corporation, or consortium) in the authorship byline. Data shows that group authorships are on the rise but thus far, in scholarly discussions about authorship, they have not gained much specific attention. Group authorship can minimize tensions within the group about authorship order and the criteria used for inclusion/exclusion of individual authors. However, current use of group authorships has drawbacks, such as ethical challenges associated with the attribution of credit and responsibilities, legal challenges regarding how copyrights are handled, and technical challenges related to the lack of persistent identifiers (PIDs), such as ORCID, for groups. We offer two recommendations: 1) Journals should develop and share context-specific and unambiguous guidelines for group authorship, for which they can use the four baseline requirements offered in this paper; 2) Using persistent identifiers for groups and consistent reporting of members' contributions should be facilitated through devising PIDs for groups and linking these to the ORCIDs of their individual contributors and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the published item.

Relational place-based solutions for environmental policy misalignments

Current reductionist approaches to environmental governance cannot resolve social-ecological crises. Siloed institutions fail to address linked social and ecological processes, thereby neglecting issues of equity, justice, and cumulative effects. Global insights can be gained from Indigenous-led initiatives that support the resilience of relationships within and among places.

Disrupting and diversifying the values, voices and governance principles that shape biodiversity science and management

With climate, biodiversity and inequity crises squarely upon us, never has there been a more pressing time to rethink how we conceptualize, understand and manage our relationship with Earth's biodiversity. Here, we describe governance principles of 17 Indigenous Nations from the Northwest Coast of North America used to understand and steward relationships among all components of nature, including humans. We then chart the colonial origins of biodiversity science and use the complex case of sea otter recovery to illuminate how ancestral governance principles can be mobilized to characterize, manage and restore biodiversity in more inclusive, integrative and equitable ways. To enhance environmental sustainability, resilience and social justice amid today's crises, we need to broaden who benefits from and participates in the sciences of biodiversity by expanding the values and methodologies that shape such initiatives. In practice, biodiversity conservation and natural resource management need to shift from centralized, siloed approaches to those that can accommodate plurality in values, objectives, governance systems, legal traditions and ways of knowing. In doing so, developing solutions to our planetary crises becomes a shared responsibility. This article is part of the theme issue 'Detecting and attributing the causes of biodiversity change: needs, gaps and solutions'.

Mapping nationally and globally at-risk species to identify hotspots for (and gaps in) conservation

Protecting habitat of species at risk is critical to their recovery, but can be contentious. For example, protecting species that are locally imperilled but globally common is often thought to distract from protecting globally imperilled species. However, such perceived trade-offs are based on the assumption that threatened groups have little spatial overlap, which is rarely quantified. We compiled range maps of terrestrial species at risk in Canada to assess the geographic overlap of nationally and globally at-risk species with each other, among taxonomic groups, and with protected areas. While many nationally at-risk taxa only occur in Canada at their northern range edge, they are not significantly more peripheral in Canada than globally at-risk species. Further, 56% of hotspots of nationally at-risk taxa are also hotspots of globally at-risk species, undercutting the perceived trade-off in their protection. While strong spatial overlap across threat levels and taxa should facilitate efficient habitat protection, less than 7% of the area in Canada's at-risk hotspots is protected, and two-thirds of nationally and globally at-risk species in Canada have less than 10% of their Canadian range protected. Our results counter the perception that protecting nationally versus globally at-risk species are at odds, and identify critical areas to target as Canada strives to increase its protected areas and promote recovery of species at risk.

Indicators are Relational: Navigating Knowledge and Power in the Development and Implementation of Coastal-Marine Indicators

In many environment and resource management contexts (e.g., integrated coastal management, ecosystem-based fisheries management), indicator selection and development are perceived as a largely technical, bureaucratic, and scientific challenge. As such, choices about indicators and their application are often treated as external from everyday politics and dynamics of social power. Our aim here is to highlight the value of a relational perspective that weaves power and knowledge together in the context of indicator development and implementation. We highlight four critical dimensions of this relational perspective that may lead to better indicator process outcomes: 1) centering identity and positionality to reflect power differentials; 2) emphasizing the importance of indicator 'fit' and the politics of scale; 3) engaging rather than erasing social-ecological complexity; and 4) reflecting on social norms and relationships to foster adaptation and learning. These four dimensions are rarely considered in most indicator initiatives, including those that are more participatory in design and implementation. The dimensions we outline here emerge from the grounded experience of managers and practitioners, including indicator processes in which we are currently engaged, as well as a scoping review of the literature on indicators for coastal and marine governance and conservation specifically. However, the four dimensions and relational focus are relevant to a wide range of resource and environmental management contexts and provide a pathway to catalyze more effective indicator processes for decision-making and governance more generally.

How percentage-protected targets can support positive biodiversity outcomes

Global targets for the percentage area of land protected, such as 30% by 2030, have gained increasing prominence, but both their scientific basis and likely effectiveness have been questioned. As with emissions-reduction targets based on desired climate outcomes, percentage-protected targets combine values and science by estimating the area over which conservation actions are required to help achieve desired biodiversity outcomes. Protected areas are essential for achieving many biodiversity targets, in part because many species are highly sensitive to human-associated disturbance. However, because the contribution of protected areas to biodiversity outcomes is contingent on their location, management, governance, threats, and what occurs across the broader landscape matrix, global percentage-protected targets are unavoidably empirical generalizations of ecological patterns and processes across diverse geographies. Percentage-protected targets are insufficient in isolation but can complement other actions and contribute to biodiversity outcomes within a framework that balances accuracy and pragmatism in a global context characterized by imperfect biodiversity data. Ideally, percentage-protected targets serve as anchors that strengthen comprehensive national biodiversity strategies by communicating the level of ambition necessary to reverse current trends of biodiversity loss. If such targets are to fulfill this role within the complex societal process by which both values and science impel conservation actions, conservation scientists must clearly communicate the nature of the evidence base supporting percentage-protected targets and how protected areas can function within a broader landscape managed for sustainable coexistence between people and nature. A new paradigm for protected and conserved areas recognizes that national coordination, incentives, and monitoring should support rather than undermine diverse locally led conservation initiatives. However, the definition of a conserved area must retain a strong focus on biodiversity to remain consistent with the evidence base from which percentage-protected targets were originally derived.

Understanding the Impact of Equitable Collaborations between Science Institutions and Community-Based Organizations: Improving Science through Community-Led Research

To advance justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in science, we must first understand and improve the dominant-culture frameworks that impede progress and, second, we must intentionally create more equitable models. The present authors call ourselves the ICBOs and Allies Workgroup (ICBOs stands for independent community-based organizations), and we represent communities historically excluded from the sciences. Together with institutional allies and advisors, we began our research because we wanted our voices to be heard, and we hoped to bring a different perspective to doing science with and not on communities. We created a community framework to guide our research and we led all aspects of our work, from creating research protocols to analyzing and interpreting the data to disseminating the results. We share our research framework, methods, and results so that science institutions can better understand how to intentionally create more equitable research partnerships with our communities.

Weaving place‐based knowledge for culturally significant species in the age of genomics: Looking to the past to navigate the future

Relationships with place provide critical context for characterizing biocultural diversity. Yet, genetic and genomic studies are rarely informed by Indigenous or local knowledge, processes, and practices, including the movement of culturally significant species. Here, we show how place‐based knowledge can better reveal the biocultural complexities of genetic or genomic data derived from culturally significant species. As a case study, we focus on culturally significant southern freshwater kōura (crayfish) in Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu (New Zealand, herein Aotearoa NZ). Our results, based on genotyping‐by‐sequencing markers, reveal strong population genetic structure along with signatures of population admixture in 19 genetically depauperate populations across the east coast of Te Waipounamu. Environment association and differentiation analyses for local adaptation also indicate a role for hydroclimatic variables—including temperature, precipitation, and water flow regimes—in shaping local adaptation in kōura. Through trusted partnerships between community and researchers, weaving genomic markers with place‐based knowledge has both provided invaluable context for the interpretation of data and created opportunities to reconnect people and place. We envisage such trusted partnerships guiding future genomic research for culturally significant species in Aotearoa NZ and beyond.

Transformational changes for achieving the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework ecological connectivity goals

The first draft of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) includes an unprecedented call for states that have ratified the treaty (Parties) to implement measures to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity as urgent actions to abate further biodiversity loss and ecosystem decline. Considering the challenges that lie ahead for Parties to the CBD, we highlight the ways in which effective and equitable connectivity conservation can be achieved through four transformative changes, including: (1) mainstreaming connectivity retention and restoration within biodiversity conservation sector and influencing sectors (e.g., transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry); (2) mainstreaming financial resources and incentives to support effective implementation; (3) fostering collaboration with a focus on cross-sector collective action; and (4) investing in diverse forms of knowledge (co-)production and management in support of adaptive governance. We detail 15 key actions that can be used to support the implementation of these transformative changes. While ambitious, the transformative changes and associated key actions recommended in this perspective will need to be put in place with unprecedented urgency, coherency, and coordination if Parties to the CBD truly aspire to achieve the goals and targets of the forthcoming Post-2020 GBF in this new decade of biodiversity.

Learning from Indigenous knowledge holders on the state and future of wild Pacific salmon

In response to colonial research paradigms that have subjugated Indigenous Peoples, knowledges, lands, and waters, Indigenous research methodologies have emerged to center Indigenous visions and voices in research practice. Here, we employ such methodologies to improve collective understanding of the state and future of wild Pacific salmon ( Oncorhynchus spp.) and fish–people–place relationships across British Columbia’s three largest salmon-producing rivers: the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass. Through partnerships with 18 communities of “Salmon People” and semi-structured interviews with 48 knowledge holders (i.e., Elders), we learned that, on average, Elders spent more than half of a century actively engaged in salmon fishing and processing. Modern salmon catches are reported to be approximately one-sixth of what they were estimated to be five to seven decades ago, and the top five threats to salmon identified by Elders included ( i) aquaculture, ( ii) climate change, ( iii) contaminants, ( iv) industrial development, and ( v) infectious diseases. Threat priorities varied regionally, reflecting distinct lived experiences and regional variation in the prevalence and impact of different threats. Elders perceived threats to salmon equally as threats to aquatic health and human well-being, with evidence that the relationships between people and water, and salmon and people, are being profoundly transformed.

Clair C, Coristine L, Higgs E, Smith R, Pellatt M, Beaty C, Cheskey E, Cooke SJ, Crawford L, Davis R, Forbes G, Gadallah F(Z, Kendall P, Mandrak N, Moola F, Parker S, Quayle J, Ray JC, Richardson K, Smith K, Snider J, Smol JP, Sutherland WJ, Vallillee A, White L, Woodley A. Emerging issues for protected and conserved areas in Canada

Horizon scanning is increasingly used in conservation to systematically explore emerging policy and management issues. We present the results of a horizon scan of issues likely to impact management of Canadian protected and conserved areas over the next 5–10 years. Eighty-eight individuals participated, representing a broad community of academics, government and nongovernment organizations, and foundations, including policymakers and managers of protected and conserved areas. This community initially identified 187 issues, which were subsequently triaged to 15 horizon issues by a group of 33 experts using a modified Delphi technique. Results were organized under four broad categories: ( i) emerging effects of climate change in protected and conserved areas design, planning, and management (i.e., large-scale ecosystem changes, species translocation, fire regimes, ecological integrity, and snow patterns); ( ii) Indigenous governance and knowledge systems (i.e., Indigenous governance and Indigenous knowledge and Western science); ( iii) integrated conservation approaches across landscapes and seascapes (i.e., connectivity conservation, integrating ecosystem values and services, freshwater planning); and ( iv) early responses to emerging cumulative, underestimated, and novel threats (i.e., management of cumulative impacts, declining insect biomass, increasing anthropogenic noise, synthetic biology). Overall, the scan identified several emerging issues that require immediate attention to effectively reduce threats, respond to opportunities, and enhance preparedness and capacity to react.