Abstract Conservation research is rooted in racism and white supremacy culture, with many examples of historic wrongdoings of white saviourism. There is a gap in both published guidelines and established community practices on conducting conservation research in a reciprocal and respectful manner. In this article, we reflect on the harm done and provide guidance for researchers, facilitators and practitioners to approach project and program development with an anti‐colonial lens. We walk through a guide and model, which asks reflective and critical questions throughout the design process. The Seattle Aquarium's sea otter research program was selected as a case study detailing a team committed to advancing anti‐colonial conservation research. Our 16‐year engagement with the Makah Tribe showcases trust building, communication and ongoing anti‐colonialist work, while our relationship with the Quinault Nation exemplifies a newer partnership actively working towards this goal. Historic context of Tribal engagement, retrospective acknowledgements, current and future plans for this ongoing long‐term project are described. Practical Implication: We hope this guide and model framework encourages the conservation field to critically evaluate how the work is conducted and to apply an anti‐colonial lens to current and future practices. Sharing this guide widely will help move the needle in conservation at large.
Abstract The replacement of native forests by exotic tree species planted for forestry threatens biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and fire resilience across many regions. In Galicia, extensive plantations of Eucalyptus globulus have displaced native Atlantic forests, yet the long‐term effectiveness of Eucalyptus removal for ecological restoration remains poorly understood. Vegetation composition, plant diversity, canopy structure and soil properties were assessed across a 17‐year chronosequence following E. globulus felling using field vegetation surveys, soil physicochemical analyses and soil environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding, with historically managed native forest stands as reference sites. This targets a specific knowledge gap assessing the role of eDNA metabarcoding in monitoring forest recovery trends using above‐ground taxa. Plant community composition differed significantly among Eucalyptus , intervention and native forest plots. Intervention plots showed compositional change away from Eucalyptus site assemblies and supported a more diverse ground‐flora layer than Eucalyptus plots. However, early successional species, particularly bracken fern ( Pteridium aquilinum ), remained abundant and late‐successional woodland species were underrepresented relative to native reference sites. Canopy structure showed limited recovery post‐intervention, with non‐linear trajectories indicating slow or uncertain mid‐ to long‐term canopy development after Eucalyptus removal. Soil properties improved over time after intervention, with increased soil porosity and organic matter content suggesting recovery of soil structure facilitated by low‐impact removal methods. Soil eDNA and field surveys revealed contrasting community signals, indicating methodological differences in detecting restoration progress. Practical Implication . At this site, complete removal of Eucalyptus globulus was followed by the recovery of plant community composition and key soil properties. Native reference sites in this study reflect historically managed broadleaf woodland rather than mature forest, and the true restoration debt could be greater than chronosequence comparisons suggest. Low‐impact felling methods preserved soil integrity and may have supported regeneration from legacy vegetation. To accelerate succession and woodland recovery, managers could consider complementary actions such as assisted regeneration or targeted planting of late‐successional species; however, targeted research in these areas would provide valuable further guidance. These findings suggest that soil eDNA is best used as a complementary tool rather than a standalone method for monitoring restoration outcomes in this context.
Abstract Land management and natural resource conservation involve assessment of multiple factors, including climate vulnerability and resource value, yet rarely do research efforts or decision‐making processes involve both facets in tandem. We develop a ‘climate‐smart’ conservation framework which combines an analysis of potential future climate impacts to vegetation derived from moderate‐resolution remote sensing imagery, random forest modelling and water‐balance projections with resource value scores as determined by local experts in order to identify management goals within the ‘resist‐accept‐direct’ framework. Our framework is applied through a case study in the context of pinyon–juniper ecosystems in Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and demonstrates how spatially explicit understandings of vegetation value and vulnerability to climate conditions interact in the context of natural resource management. Of the eight areas identified as management priority areas, three areas show an expected increase in productivity and thus managers may ‘accept’ the trajectory of change. Four of the management priority areas with relatively small expected decreases in productivity and/or very high value are determined to be areas in which managers might ‘resist’ the trajectory of change. We find one area of lower management importance and large expected vegetation decline, which may be considered a candidate to ‘direct’ to a desirable state compatible with future climate conditions. Solution . The proposed framework is readily adaptable to all natural, managed lands and serves as a template for future land‐management research and decision‐making processes which are pragmatic and value‐informed in the face of climate change.
Abstract With increasing land‐use pressures and climate change, spatially explicit maps and models are key to inform wildlife conservation and management. Indigenous science and Western wildlife research inherently share extensive overlap in their objectives and scope of study. However, Western research also has caused harm to Indigenous people. A paradigm shift is needed to create the ethical space to equitably bridge and braid knowledge systems, thus co‐creating the strongest evidence base. We used the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines to quantify metadata and methods of peer‐reviewed and grey literature in English involving spatial modelling and mapping of caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) that leveraged Indigenous knowledge. We also counted criteria related to Indigenous peoples' self‐determination in research under the ‘Six Rs of Indigenous Research’ (Tsosie et al. 2022) to select ‘Bright Spot’ case studies. Our systematic map included 59 documents published between 1976 and 2019, with most studies (80%) including regions in North America. Only 22% of documents defined the Indigenous knowledge system being used (employing 52 unique terms). Twelve qualitative research methods, primarily interviews and community consultation, were used when gathering data and information from Indigenous knowledge holders. Co‐production of knowledge was reported in 61% of documents, with the instances of Indigenous people listed as project leads/co‐leads increasing after 2005. One‐third of documents (34%) reported sharing findings with Indigenous communities. Formal provisions for Indigenous peoples' control over knowledge and data were rarely reported (12%). Discussions of colonization (19%) or consultation fatigue (3%) were uncommon. We recommend Western‐trained researchers engaged in wildlife research or spatial modelling and mapping support Indigenous research priorities, adhere to Indigenous ethics reviews, describe their methods and paradigms for knowledge co‐production and community engagement, and ensure knowledge holders retain control over their knowledge and data. We present four ‘Bright Spots’ of good practice for researchers to learn from. Solution . Future reviews regarding Indigenous knowledge systems in ecology should not be limited to peer‐reviewed articles as they generally did not perform highly. We challenge researchers to defy common scholarly conventions and better explain their positionality, worldviews and approaches to collaboration with Indigenous partners.
Abstract Understanding spatial variability in resource selection and potential carrying capacity can improve management of wildlife species. In the southeastern United States, white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ; hereafter ‘deer’) are an important game species, yet deer management faces new threats from emerging diseases and invasive species such as wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ). We modelled habitat suitability for deer and wild pigs in Mississippi and subsequently estimated potential carrying capacity, which we validated using matrix population models in conjunction with current estimates of abundance and deer harvest or pig removals. Deer and wild pigs selected for greater proportions of hardwood forest and decreasing distance to water. Wild pigs also selected for, while deer avoided, increasing proportions of herbaceous and shrubby land coverages. These preferences meant that 87% and 95% of the state for deer and pigs, respectively. Depending on density, estimated carrying capacities ranged from 1.3 to 2 million deer and 370,000 to 1.2 million wild pigs. Both matrix population models for deer, assuming a maximum density of both 14.3 and 22 deer/km 2 stabilized near the state agency population estimate of 1.6 million deer; however, implied demographic rates indicated a better fit using 14.3 deer/km 2 . Population models of wild pig abundance at 27 pigs/km 2 greatly exceeded the resource‐based carrying capacity estimate, while adjustments in removals had to be conducted for the model at 8 pigs/km 2 to obtain model stability. We expect a maximum density of approximately 22 pigs/km 2 for the agency estimated carrying capacity of approximately 1 million pigs. Practical implications. Our maps indicate substantial overlap in suitable habitat for both species which could lead to habitat degradation, greater interspecific competition, or accelerated disease spread when both species are at high densities. Additionally, our work supports the idea that habitat suitability can provide a good proxy for landscape scale estimates of potential carrying capacity. While this provides a valuable baseline for management, further work to determine local scale density and vital rates will be an important next step in developing spatially explicit population models for managing deer and wild pigs.
