Applied Filters
- Integrative Sciences
- Cooke, Steven JRemove filter
Journal Title
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Bennett, Joseph R7
- Nguyen, Vivian M5
- Young, Nathan3
- Danylchuk, Andy J2
- DeRosa, Maria C2
- Dick, Melissa2
- Higgs, Eric2
- Hinch, Scott G2
- Lapointe, Nicolas W R2
- Murray, Stuart J2
- Provencher, Jennifer F2
- Roche, Dominique G2
- Rous, Andrew M2
- Sopinka, Natalie M2
- Abrams, Alice E I1
- Aiken, Alice1
- Alamenciak, Tim1
- Alexander, Steven M1
- Algera, Dirk A1
- Ali, Abdullahi H1
- Amirfazli, Alidad1
- Anagnostou, Michelle1
- Anastakis, Dimitry1
- Ansari, Daniel1
Access Type
1 - 20of23
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSContemporary conservation problems are typically positioned at the interface of complex ecological and human systems. Traditional approaches aiming to compartmentalize a phenomenon within the confines of a single discipline and failing to engage non-science partners are outmoded and cannot identify solutions that have traction in the social, economic, and political arenas in which conservation actions must operate. As a result, conservation science teams must adopt multiple disciplinary approaches that bridge not only academic disciplines but also the political and social realms and engage relevant partners. Five reasons are presented that outline why conservation problems demand multiple disciplinary approaches in order to move forward because: (i) socio-ecological systems are complex, (ii) multiple perspectives are better than one, (iii) the results of research must influence practice, (iv) the heterogeneity of scale necessitates it, and (v) conservation involves compromise. Presenting reasons that support multiple disciplinarity demands a review of the barriers that impede this process, as we are far from attaining a model or framework that is applicable in all contexts. Two challenges that impede multiple disciplinarity are discussed, in addition to pragmatic solutions that conservation scientists and practitioners can adopt in their work. Overall, conservation researchers and practitioners are encouraged to explore the multiple disciplinary dimensions of their respective realms to more effectively solve problems in biodiversity and sustainability.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Michael R. Donaldson,
- Nicholas J. Burnett,
- Douglas C. Braun,
- Cory D. Suski,
- Scott G. Hinch,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Jeremy T. Kerr
While greater research on threatened species alone cannot ensure their protection, understanding taxonomic bias may be helpful to address knowledge gaps in order to identify research directions and inform policy. Using data for over 10 000 animal species listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, we investigated taxonomic and geographic biodiversity conservation research trends worldwide. We found extreme bias in conservation research effort on threatened vertebrates compared with lesser-studied invertebrates in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats at a global scale. Based on an analysis of common threats affecting vertebrates and invertebrates, we suggest a path forward for narrowing the research gap between threatened vertebrates and invertebrates. - OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Austin J. Gallagher,
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Rachel A. Skubel,
- Neil Hammerschlag,
- Sarah Boon,
- Nathan Young, and
- Andy J. Danylchuk
It is increasingly common for scientists to engage in sharing science-related knowledge with diverse knowledge users—an activity called science communication. Given that many scientists now seek information on how to communicate effectively, we have generated a list of 16 important considerations for those interested in science communication: (1) Define what science communication means to you and your research; (2) Know—and listen to—your target audience; (3) Consider a diverse but coordinated communication portfolio; (4) Draft skilled players and build a network; (5) Create and seize opportunities; (6) Be creative when you communicate; (7) Focus on the science in science communication; (8) Be an honest broker; (9) Understand the science of science communication; (10) Think like an entrepreneur; (11) Don’t let your colleagues stop you; (12) Integrate science communication into your research program; (13) Recognize how science communication enhances your science; (14) Request science communication funds from grants; (15) Strive for bidirectional communication; and (16) Evaluate, reflect, and be prepared to adapt. It is our ambition that the ideas shared here will encourage readers to engage in science communication and increase the effectiveness of those already active in science communication, stimulating them to share their experiences with others. - OPEN ACCESS
- OPEN ACCESS
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Laura E. Coristine,
- Maria C. DeRosa,
- Chelsea M. Rochman,
- Brian L. Owens, and
- Steven J. Cooke
Consider for a moment the rate of advancement in the scientific understanding of DNA. It is formidable; from Fredrich Miescher’s nuclein extraction in the 1860s to Rosalind Franklin’s double helix X-ray in the 1950s to revolutionary next-generation sequencing in the late 2000s. Now consider the scientific paper, the medium used to describe and publish these advances. How is the scientific paper advancing to meet the needs of those who generate and use scientific information? We review four essential qualities for the scientific paper of the future: (i) a robust source of trustworthy information that remains peer reviewed and is (ii) communicated to diverse users in diverse ways, (iii) open access, and (iv) has a measurable impact beyond Impact Factor. Since its inception, scientific literature has proliferated. We discuss the continuation and expansion of practices already in place including: freely accessible data and analytical code, living research and reviews, changes to peer review to improve representation of under-represented groups, plain language summaries, preprint servers, evidence-informed decision-making, and altmetrics. - OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Dimitry Anastakis,
- Shannon D. Scott,
- Merritt R. Turetsky,
- Alidad Amirfazli,
- Alison Hearn,
- Cynthia E. Milton,
- Laura Loewen,
- Eric E. Smith,
- D. Ryan Norris,
- Kim L. Lavoie,
- Alice Aiken,
- Daniel Ansari,
- Alissa N. Antle,
- Molly Babel,
- Jane Bailey,
- Daniel M. Bernstein,
- Rachel Birnbaum,
- Carrie Bourassa,
- Antonio Calcagno,
- Aurélie Campana,
- Bing Chen,
- Karen Collins,
- Catherine E. Connelly,
- Myriam Denov,
- Benoît Dupont,
- Eric George,
- Irene Gregory-Eaves,
- Steven High,
- Josephine M. Hill,
- Philip L. Jackson,
- Nathalie Jette,
- Mark Jurdjevic,
- Anita Kothari,
- Paul Khairy,
- Sylvie A. Lamoureux,
- Kiera Ladner,
- Christian R. Landry,
- François Légaré,
- Nadia Lehoux,
- Christian Leuprecht,
- Angela R. Lieverse,
- Artur Luczak,
- Mark L. Mallory,
- Erin Manning,
- Ali Mazalek,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Lenore L. Newman,
- Valerie Oosterveld,
- Patrice Potvin,
- Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham,
- Jennifer Rowsell,
- Dawn Stacey,
- Susan L. Tighe,
- David J. Vocadlo,
- Anne E. Wilson, and
- Andrew Woolford
Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues. - OPEN ACCESS
- Dominique G. Roche,
- Monica Granados,
- Claire C. Austin,
- Scott Wilson,
- Gregory M. Mitchell,
- Paul A. Smith,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Governments worldwide are releasing data into the public domain via open government data initiatives. Many such data sets are directly relevant to environmental science and complement data collected by academic researchers to address complex and challenging environmental problems. The Government of Canada is a leader in open data among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, generating and releasing troves of valuable research data. However, achieving comprehensive and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) open government data is not without its challenges. For example, identifying and understanding Canada’s international commitments, policies, and guidelines on open data can be daunting. Similarly, open data sets within the Government of Canada are spread across a diversity of repositories and portals, which may hinder their discoverability. We describe Canada’s federal initiatives promoting open government data, and outline where data sets of relevance to environmental science can be found. We summarize research data management challenges identified by the Government of Canada, plans to modernize the approach to open data for environmental science and best practices for data discoverability, access, and reuse. - OPEN ACCESS
- Adam T. Ford,
- Abdullahi H. Ali,
- Sheila R. Colla,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Clayton T. Lamb,
- Jeremy Pittman,
- David S. Shiffman, and
- Navinder J. Singh
Conservation relies on cooperation among different interest groups and appropriate use of evidence to make decisions that benefit people and biodiversity. However, misplaced conservation occurs when cooperation and evidence are impeded by polarization and misinformation. This impedance influences actions that directly harm biodiversity, alienate partners and disrupt partnerships, waste resources, misinform the public, and (or) delegitimize evidence. As a result of these actions, misplaced conservation outcomes emerge, making it more difficult to have positive outcomes for biodiversity. Here we describe cases where a failed appreciation for cooperation, evidence, or both have eroded efforts to conserve biodiversity. Generally, these case studies illustrate that averting misplaced conservation requires greater adherence to processes that elevate the role of evidence in decision-making and that place collective, long-term benefits for biodiversity over the short-term gains of individuals or groups. Efforts to integrate human dimensions, cooperation, and evidence into conservation will increase the efficacy and success of efforts to conserve global biodiversity while benefiting humanity. - OPEN ACCESS
- Audrey Turcotte,
- Natalie Kermany,
- Sharla Foster,
- Caitlyn A. Proctor,
- Sydney M. Gilmour,
- Maria Doria,
- James Sebes,
- Jeannette Whitton,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Since the implementation of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003, deficiencies in SARA and its application have become clear. Legislative and policy inconsistencies among responsible federal agencies and the use of a subjective approach for prioritizing species protection lead to taxonomic biases in protection. Variations in legislation among provinces/territories and the reluctance of the federal government to take actions make SARA’s application often inefficient on nonfederally managed lands. Ambiguous key terms (e.g., critical habitat) and disregard for legislated deadlines in many steps impede the efficacy of SARA. Additionally, the failure to fully recognize Indigenous knowledge and to seek Indigenous cooperation in the species protection process leads to weaker government accountability, promotes inequity, and leads to missed opportunities for partnerships. New legislative amendments with well-defined and standardized steps, including an automatic listing process, a systematic prioritization program, and clearer demands (e.g., mandatory threshold to trigger safety net/emergency order) would improve the success of species at risk protection. Moreover, a more inclusive approach that brings Indigenous representatives and independent scientists together is necessary for improving SARA’s effectiveness. These changes have the potential to transform SARA into a more powerful act towards protecting Canada’s at-risk wildlife. (The graphical abstract follows.) - OPEN ACCESS
- Connor H. Reid,
- Emma J. Hudgins,
- Jessika D. Guay,
- Sean Patterson,
- Alec M. Medd,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Invasive alien species (IAS) pose threats to native biodiversity globally and are linked to numerous negative biodiversity impacts throughout Canada. Considering the Canadian federal government’s commitments to environmental stewardship (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity), the successful management of IAS requires an understanding of how federal infrastructure, strategies, and decisions have contributed to previous outcomes. Here, we present an analysis of current efforts by the federal government to prevent IAS establishment in Canadian ecosystems and the unique challenges associated with Canadian IAS management. We then examine historical and current case studies of IAS in Canada with variable outcomes. By drawing comparisons with IAS management in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, we discuss how the Canadian government may refine its policies and practices to enable more effective responses to IAS threats. We conclude by considering how future interacting stressors (e.g., climate change) will shape how we address IAS threats, and list six lessons for successful management. Most importantly, Canada must regard biodiversity impacts from IAS with as much urgency as direct economic impacts that have historically garnered more attention. Although we focus on Canada, our findings may also be useful in other jurisdictions facing similar challenges with IAS management. - OPEN ACCESS
- Dirk A. Algera,
- Kate L. Neigel,
- Kerri Kosziwka,
- Alice E.I. Abrams,
- Daniel M. Glassman,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Nicolas W.R. Lapointe
American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) were used as a case study to assess whether Ontario’s Endangered Species Act proponent-driven regulatory approach resulted in successful imperilled species management outcomes. American Eel observation databases and proponent-prepared mitigation plans and monitoring data were used to assess whether: (i) facilities within the distribution range were registered, (ii) effects monitoring protocols were adequate to evaluate adverse effects of facilities, (iii) proponents implemented mitigation actions that followed best management practices (BMPs), and (iv) effectiveness monitoring designs were adequate to evaluate effectiveness of mitigation actions. Less than half of the facilities (8 of 17) within the extant species range were registered. Few eels were observed at each facility, precluding proponents from effectively evaluating the facilities’ effects. Mitigation actions following BMPs were only implemented for eel out-migration at three facilities. Half of the registered facilities implemented effectiveness monitoring, but experimental designs did not follow best practices and standards. To improve this proponent-driven approach, regulators could reduce ambiguity in regulation language and provide clearer, quantitative requirements for facility registration, effects monitoring, mitigation actions, and effectiveness monitoring. Proponents could improve monitoring efforts to establish species occurrence and generate baseline data to measure facility effects and mitigation action effectiveness. - OPEN ACCESS
- OPEN ACCESS
- Sabine Dietz,
- Karen F. Beazley,
- Christopher J. Lemieux,
- Colleen St. Clair,
- Laura Coristine,
- Eric Higgs,
- Risa Smith,
- Marlow Pellatt,
- Carolynn Beaty,
- Edward Cheskey,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Lindsay Crawford,
- Rob Davis,
- Graham Forbes,
- Fawziah (ZuZu) Gadallah,
- Peter Kendall,
- Nick Mandrak,
- Faisal Moola,
- Scott Parker,
- James Quayle,
- Justina C. Ray,
- Karen Richardson,
- Kevin Smith,
- James Snider,
- John P. Smol,
- William J Sutherland,
- Andre Vallillee,
- Lori White, and
- Alison Woodley
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. - OPEN ACCESSIn 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.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Jordanna N. Bergman,
- Rachel T. Buxton,
- Hsien-Yung Lin,
- Magdalena Lenda,
- Kayla Attinello,
- Adrianne C. Hajdasz,
- Stephanie A. Rivest,
- Thuong Tran Nguyen,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Given its extensive volume and reach, social media has the potential to widely spread conservation messaging and be a powerful tool to mobilize social change for conserving biodiversity. We synthesized gray and primary academic literature to investigate the effects of social media on wildlife conservation, revealing several overarching benefits and risks. We found that social media can increase pro-conservation behaviours among the public, increase conservation funding, and incite policy changes. Conversely, social media can contribute to species exploitation and illegal trade, cause unprecedented increases in tourism in protected areas, and perpetuate anti-conservation behaviours via misinformation. In most cases, we found that content sharing on social media did not result in a detectable impact on conservation; in this paper, however, we focus on providing examples where conservation impact was achieved. We relate these positive and negative outcomes of social media to psychological phenomena that may influence conservation efforts and discuss limitations of our findings. We conclude with recommendations of best practices to social media administrators, public social media users, nongovernmental organizations, and governing agencies to minimize conservation risks while maximizing beneficial outcomes. By improving messaging, policing online misconduct, and providing guidance for action, social media can help achieve wildlife conservation goals. - OPEN ACCESS
- Morgan L. Piczak,
- Jill L. Brooks,
- Brittany Bard,
- Christian J. Bihun,
- Andrew Howarth,
- Amanda L. Jeanson,
- Luc LaRochelle,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Nicolas W. R. Lapointe,
- Nicholas E. Mandrak, and
- Steven J. Cooke
A seminal report by Peter H. Pearse (1988; Rising to the Challenge: A New Policy for Canada’s Freshwater Fisheries, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa) outlined 62 policy recommendations focused on the management of Canada’s inland fisheries. Over three decades later, freshwater ecosystems and inland fisheries in Canada are still facing similar challenges with many emerging ones that could not have been foreseen. Here, we reflect on the contemporary relevance of the Pearse Report and propose recommendations that policy makers should consider. Broadly, our recommendations are: (1) manage fishes, fisheries, and habitat using a holistic co-management framework, with clearly defined fishery jurisdictions and partnerships with Indigenous governments; (2) engage in transparent, inclusive, and agile research to support decision-making; (3) facilitate knowledge co-production, involving interdisciplinary projects with diverse groups of actors and sectors including Indigenous Peoples, anglers, policy makers, scientists/researchers, governments, and the public; (4) embrace technological advances to support freshwater fisheries stock assessment and management; and (5) align policy and management activities in Canada with global initiatives related to increasing the sustainability of inland fisheries. We advocate for an updated comprehensive report such as the Pearse Report to ensure that we embrace robust, inclusive, and sustainable management strategies and policies for Canada’s inland fisheries for the next 30 years. It is time to again rise to the challenge. - OPEN ACCESS
- Alana A. E. Wilcox,
- Jennifer F. Provencher,
- Dominique A. Henri,
- Steven M. Alexander,
- Jessica J. Taylor,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Philippe J. Thomas, and
- Lydia R. Johnson
The braiding of Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences offers insights into ecology and has emerged as a way to help address complex environmental issues. We reviewed the publicly available ecological research involving the braiding of Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences to support collaborative work in the Alberta oil sands region of Canada. We conducted a systematic review, coding for 78 questions in six categories: (1) literature search and bibliographic information; (2) research themes; (3) study setting and design; (4) knowledge systems; (5) power relationships, colonization, and ethical considerations in research; and (6) benefits and challenges of braiding. We identified six articles that braided knowledge, with those articles focusing on environmental management and monitoring for impacts of industrial activity in northern Alberta. Researchers used a broad range of approaches to gather Indigenous knowledge and scientific data and identified multiple challenges (e.g., asymmetries of power, resource availability, and funding) to research. Our findings show that more support is needed to foster, promote, and disseminate interdisciplinary collaborative work involving braiding. Additional support is also required to address Indigenous community research needs related to the assessment of environmental impact and reclamation, as well as the understanding of ecological threats across the region. - OPEN ACCESS
- Tim Alamenciak,
- Dorian Pomezanski,
- Nancy Shackelford,
- Stephen D. Murphy,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Line Rochefort,
- Sonia Voicescu, and
- Eric Higgs
Much has been achieved by research into ecological restoration as a nature-based solution to the destruction of ecosystems, particularly in Canada. We conducted a national-level synthesis of Canadian restoration ecology research to understand strengths and gaps. This synthesis answers the following questions: Who is studying restoration? What ecosystem types are studied? Where is restoration studied? Which themes has restoration research focused on? Why is restoration happening? And how is restoration monitored and evaluated? We employed systematic searching for this review. Our results show that restoration research is conducted mainly by academics. Forest, peatland, grassland, and lake ecosystem types were the most commonly studied. There was a concentration of research in four provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia). Research into restoration has changed its thematic focus over time from reforestation to climate change. Legislation was the most common reason given for restoration. Restoration research frequently documented results of less than 5 years of monitoring and included one category of response variable (e.g., plant response but not animal response). Future research could investigate the outcomes of restoration prompted by legislation. At the dawn of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, this work demonstrates Canada's momentum and provides a model for synthesis in other countries. - OPEN ACCESS
- Delon Omrow,
- Michelle Anagnostou,
- Phillip Cassey,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Sheldon Jordan,
- Andrea E. Kirkwood,
- Timothy MacNeill,
- Tanner Mirrlees,
- Isabel Pedersen,
- Peter Stoett, and
- Michael F. Tlusty
International and transnational cooperation is needed to strengthen environmental governance initiatives with advanced technologies. In January 2023, Ontario Tech University hosted a symposium entitled Tech With a Green Governance Conscience: Exploring the Technology–Environmental Policy Nexus. Attendees spanned diverse disciplines, sectors, and countries, bringing unique and diverse perspectives to the technology–environmental policy nexus. Emergent themes arising from the symposium include the role of artificial intelligence in environmental governance, while eliminating the detrimental social impacts associated with these advanced technologies via algorithmic bias, misunderstanding, and unaccountability. The symposium explored the tech–society–ecology interface, such as the authoritarian intensification of digitalized environmental governance, “technocracy”, and the ethical implications of sacrificing democratic legitimacy in the face of imminent environmental destruction. Select participants (i.e., co-authors) at the symposium provided input on a preliminary framework, which led to this perspective article focused on the politics surrounding green governance in the 21st century. We conclude that while emerging technologies are being deployed to address grand environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion, the use of these various technologies for progressive environmental policy development and enforcement requires co-productivist approaches to constructive technology assessments and embracing the concept of technologies of humility. This necessitates a space for dialogue, reflection, and deliberation on leading adaptive environmental governance in the face of power and politics, as we interrogate the putative neutrality of advanced technology and techno-solutionism. - OPEN ACCESS
- Neil J. Mochnacz,
- Matthew M. Guzzo,
- Michael J. Suitor,
- Cameron C. Barth,
- Elodie Ledee,
- Andrew J. Chapelsky,
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Douglas P. Tate, and
- Lee F.G. Gutowsky
The movement ecology of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in watersheds at the northern geographic range extent is not well understood. We implanted 54 Bull Trout with acoustic transmitters in the Prairie Creek watershed, Northwest Territories, Canada and tracked fish from July 2011 to October 2012 using 19 stationary hydrophones. Bull Trout movement patterns generally corresponded to two groups, as a result of individual variation within and across seasons. The first group exhibited seasonal variations in movement and habitat use, moving most (range 11.7–115.9 km) and occupying the largest home ranges in summer and autumn, while exhibiting little movement during winter and spring. The second group made negligible movements within seasons and resided in localized areas. Restricted movement in winter resulted in a severe range contraction. The average distance moved within a season was 11.5 km (range 0.3–64.9 km per fish). The unusually high prevalence of stationarity in this watershed suggest fish can complete all life processes (spawning, feeding, and rearing) in short reaches (<10 km) of Prairie Creek and tributaries. We encourage researchers to replicate our work in other northern watersheds to determine if the life history we describe represents a regional divergence from more southerly populations.