Search for: All records

Understanding the indirect and interactive effects of environmental stressors is critical to planning conservation interventions, but such effects are poorly understood. For example, invasive species may modify fire effects by altering fire intensity or frequency, increasing or decreasing their abundance in response to fire, and/or changing the trajectory of post‐fire recovery. Without a clear understanding of the direct, indirect, and interactive effects of prescribed fire and invasive species on native plants, managers cannot design effective conservation measures and risk exacerbating invasion through fire or wasting resources on approaches that do not yield desired results. In this study, researchers worked directly with the manager of a wet meadow in southern Idaho to explore how prescribed fire would directly and indirectly impact an iconic native herb (Camassia quamash) in areas invaded by a perennial pasture grass (Alopecurus arundinaceus). We found that spring prescribed fire increased the abundance of invasiveA. arundinaceus, which indirectly strengthened its suppression ofC. quamashgrowth and reproduction. In contrast, fire reversed the negative influence ofA. arundinaceusonC. quamashsurvival. Survival rates ofC. quamashwere higher after fire in areas with greater invasive grass abundance. This study points to the importance of understanding the indirect and interactive effects of prescribed fire and invasives on native plants across their life cycle for restoration projects and suggests fire, at least in spring, is not an appropriate management strategy for reducingA. arundinaceusinvasion at this site. 

Abstract Research partnerships between Tribal Nations and rural colleges and universities can support rural development and strengthen Tribal Nation building through reclamation of economic, political, cultural, and social affairs. However, Tribal Nation–University relationships have received little attention in rural sociology. While scholars identify best practices for research engagement in light of colonial harms, the ideal visions that Tribally and university‐affiliated people have for research partnerships and the barriers to achieving those ideals are poorly understood. Without identifying these visions and barriers, we risk making wrong assumptions about each party's needs and cannot implement appropriate policies. Semi‐structured interviews with Tribally‐affiliated (n = 20) and university‐affiliated (n = 20) people in rural southeastern Idaho suggest, contrary to literature on best practices for collaborative research, that participants in both groups viewed what we term “Tribally‐responsive research engagement” as ideal, though few projects met this goal. Tribally‐responsive research directly addressed Tribal priorities but did not necessarily involve close collaboration. The University's failure to acknowledge past or colonial harms, university‐affiliated researchers' historicization of those harms, and negative Native student experiences reinforced distrust, limiting desired research engagement. In sum, Tribally‐responsive research engagement could strengthen Native Nation building, but requires universities to acknowledge harms, create more welcoming campus environments, and prioritize Tribal benefits in research. 

Contemporary efforts to strengthen Indigenous food sovereignty can take many forms, some of which may depart from traditional food gathering practices. Common camas ( Camassia quamash) is a wild-gathered geophyte that served as a staple food for Indigenous Peoples prior to colonialism. Because the abundance of camas has declined and gathering areas are difficult to access, this project sought to increase Shoshone-Bannock Tribal citizen access to camas by experimenting with ways to grow camas locally. We also held events that provided an opportunity for Tribal citizens to interact with camas. Strengthening relationships with camas in these ways not only can enhance the health of Indigenous communities because of camas’ nutritional value, but also because renewing practices and values associated with camas brings Indigenous Peoples together to redefine and assert their nationhood. Our team of authors includes Tribal- and university-affiliated professionals and students who worked collaboratively to develop this project. We evaluated how different growing conditions and seed sources influence camas cultivation. We found that soil type, stratification setting, and seed source significantly affected seed percent germination. While cold-moist stratifying seeds in a controlled setting in potting soil generally led to the highest percent germination, soil type interacted with seed source, suggesting some degree of local adaptation across gathering areas. Transplanted bulbs had high survival rates, suggesting both seeds and bulbs as viable options to increase local access to camas. This project contributes to our understanding of camas ecology while also demonstrating one approach to help strengthen traditional foodways through Tribal-university partnerships. 

Abstract Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research–practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among ‘on-the-ground’ practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.