Science, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
Biology, Department of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Richter, Carmen Jessie
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
In Canada, many wildlife species are in decline, and some of these species, like caribou, are central to the food sovereignty and cultural practices of many Indigenous communities. Alongside actions by the federal and provincial governments, First Nations in northeastern British Columbia are leading recovery efforts for the Klinse-Za caribou herd. Providing natural forage during recovery actions is important for caribou during maternal pens, supplemental feeding, and habitat protection. Since 2013, the Saulteau First Nations and the West Moberly First Nations have captured 12-22 pregnant caribou and held them in a pen for several months per year. The pen prevents predation on mothers and young. At the same time the Nations provide caribou with high quality food resources that include a mixture of commercial pellets and Cladonia lichens (C. rangiferina, C. abbuscula, C. stellaris, C. stygia, C. uncilalis) collected by the Nations. Community members are recruited to pick lichen, which is then dried, stored, and provided to the temporarily penned caribou. Understanding where lichen is available on the landscape and the rates of recovery following lichen harvest are important for the future sustainability of the caribou penning project. Our research project aimed to quantify lichen availability for the next 5 years by: (1) ground-truthing lichen sites to validate and re-parametrize a lichen distribution model; (2) marking new lichen patch extents with a handheld GPS in areas where lichen occurrence, but not extent, was known to the community; (3) monitoring lichen growth and recovery rates, following the harvest of lichen in large patches (> 3 ha) (4) measuring lichen to quantify lichen growth at a fine scale (1m2 plots) following harvest. Our research project led to the discovery of new lichen patches and the extension of existing patches. This will help supply caribou with supplemental food for the next 5-years of caribou recovery in this area. The 5-Year Harvest Plan includes a 1-year supply of lichen produced through increasing the extents of lichen patches, a 2-year supply of lichen based on the predictions from the model, and a 2-year supply of lichen through the re-harvest of two lichen patches.
MAPPING WINTER FOOD SECURITY FOR THE KLINSE-ZA CARIBOU HERD by Carmen Jessie Richter B.Sc., University of British Columbia- Okanagan, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Biology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) March 2024 © Carmen Richter, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled: Mapping winter food security for the Klinse-Za caribou herd. Submitted by Carmen Richter in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science. Dr. Adam Ford, Faculty of Science, Biology Supervisor Dr. Miranda Hart, Faculty of Science, Biology Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Jean Polfus, Faculty of Science, Biology Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Gabrielle Legault, Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Indigenous Studies University Examiner iii Abstract In Canada, many wildlife species are in decline, and some of these species, like caribou, are central to the food sovereignty and cultural practices of many Indigenous communities. Alongside actions by the federal and provincial governments, First Nations in northeastern British Columbia are leading recovery efforts for the Klinse-Za caribou herd. Providing natural forage during recovery actions is important for caribou during maternal pens, supplemental feeding, and habitat protection. Since 2013, the Saulteau First Nations and the West Moberly First Nations have captured 12-22 pregnant caribou and held them in a pen for several months per year. The pen prevents predation on mothers and young. At the same time the Nations provide caribou with high quality food resources that include a mixture of commercial pellets and Cladonia lichens (C. abbuscula, C. rangiferina,, C. stellaris, C. stygia, C. uncilalis) collected by the Nations. Community members are recruited to pick lichen, which is then dried, stored, and provided to the temporarily penned caribou. Understanding where lichen is available on the landscape and the rates of recovery following lichen harvest are important for the future sustainability of the caribou penning project. Our research project aimed to quantify lichen availability for the next 5 years by: (1) ground-truthing lichen sites to validate and re-parametrize a lichen distribution model; (2) marking new lichen patch extents with a handheld GPS in areas where lichen occurrence, but not extent, was known to the community; (3) monitoring lichen growth and recovery rates, following the harvest of lichen in large patches (> 3 ha) iv (4) measuring lichen to quantify lichen growth at a fine scale (1m2 plots) following harvest. Our research project led to the discovery of new lichen patches and the extension of existing patches. This will help supply caribou with supplemental food for the next 5-years of caribou recovery in this area. The 5-Year Harvest Plan includes a 1-year supply of lichen produced through increasing the extents of lichen patches, a 2-year supply of lichen based on the predictions from the model, and a 2-year supply of lichen through the re-harvest of two lichen patches. v Lay Summary First Nations in northeastern British Columbia are leading caribou recovery efforts. Every year, the Saulteau First Nations and the West Moberly First Nations capture 12-22 pregnant caribou. For several months these caribou are held in a pen to protect them from predation and provide a high resource diet through supplemental feeding. The food resources provided are a mixture of commercial pellets and terrestrial Cladonia lichens (C. abbuscula, C. rangiferina,, C. stellaris, C. stygia, C. uncilalis) harvested by community members for caribou. This research aims to secure the lichen supply for penning operations over the next five years. Our research project led to the discovery of new lichen patches, that will help supply caribou with supplemental food over the next 5-years. The 5-Year Harvest Plan includes 1 years of harvest in the marked extents, 2 years from the model, and 2 years in the re-harvest of two patches. vi Preface I coauthored the following publication with collaborators Dr. Adam Ford and Dr. Scott McNay, along with many helpful edits by Dr. Jean Polfus. Lamb, Clayton T., Roland Willson, Carmen Richter, Naomi Owens-Beek, Julian Napoleon, Bruce Muir, R. Scott McNay, Estelle Lavis, Mark Hebblewhite, Line Giguere, Tamara Dokkie, Stan Boutin, and Adam T. Ford. 2022. “Indigenous-Led Conservation: Pathways to Recovery for the Nearly Extirpated Klinse-Za Mountain Caribou.” Ecological Applications 32(5): e2581 My role in reviewing and editing the paper focused on management action levers such as the caribou maternal pen. The current Master of Science research is linked to the maternal pen operations through supplemental feeding. The paper was selected as the 2023 Wildlife Publication of the year by The Wildlife Society. Because the research project included collaboration with my community, Saulteau First Nations, plural pronouns are used throughout the research. vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................ v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... xii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Declining caribou herds and the importance of the Klinse-Za project ................................ 1 Research questions, approaches and intended outcomes. ....................................................... 8 1.2. Cultural context .................................................................................................................... 8 This section outlines how the Saulteau First Nations (SFN) migration story shapes core beliefs and objectives in the Klinse-Za caribou recovery project. We will then explore community lichen knowledge across time; 1) historic (informing collection), 2) present (collection/storage) and 3) future/prediction (fire modelling) within the context of this research project. ...................................................................................................................... 9 Saulteau First Nations migration story ................................................................................... 9 Historic knowledge: Lichen and caribou use ........................................................................ 10 Present knowledge: Lichen harvesting ................................................................................. 12 Prediction: Harvest and fire impacts on lichen ..................................................................... 14 The localized area context and background .......................................................................... 16 2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................. 17 2.1. Modelling ........................................................................................................................... 17 Step 1. Bayesian approach to updating the terrestrial lichen forage abundance model ........ 17 Step 2. Spatialization of terrestrial lichen forage abundance ................................................ 19 Step 3. Field data collection .................................................................................................. 21 Step 4. A terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TFLA) confusion matrix .............................. 23 Step 5. Mapping an updated terrestrial lichen forage abundance model of lichen ............... 24 2.2. Marking .............................................................................................................................. 25 Lichen patch extents search for additional harvest sites ....................................................... 25 2.3. Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 26 Monitoring methods to determine re-harvest on a patch scale ............................................. 27 2.4. Measuring ........................................................................................................................... 28 Measuring post-harvest growth rates and lichen regrowth at a fine scale ............................ 28 viii 3.0 Results .................................................................................................................................... 30 3.1. Overview of the section...................................................................................................... 30 3.2. Modelling ........................................................................................................................... 30 The Bayesian approach to produce an output node of terrestrial lichen forage abundance . 30 Spatialization of terrestrial lichen forage abundance ............................................................ 30 Field Data collection methods including randomized points and manageable features. ...... 31 Model vs Field- terrestrial lichen abundance confusion matrix............................................ 31 Predicted Terrestrial Lichen Forage Abundance (TLFA) ..................................................... 33 Raw GIS output of lichen capability ..................................................................................... 35 Research leads to new lichen patches ................................................................................... 36 3.3. Marking .............................................................................................................................. 37 Extending the parameters of known lichen patches .............................................................. 37 3.4. Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 38 Transect determining age of lichen patch re-harvest. ........................................................... 38 3.5. Measuring ........................................................................................................................... 39 Quadrat method; Measure post-harvest growth rates to determine re-harvest ..................... 39 4.0 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 43 4.1 Model Validation................................................................................................................. 43 4.2 What does this project mean for caribou recovery? ............................................................ 47 5.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 49 ix List of Tables Table 1. Research Questions shaping the approach and outcome of lichen research. .............. 8 Table 2. The confusion matrix which compares the model predictions to the observed field data in an abundance output comparison. ........................................................................... 24 Table 3. Confusion matrix test result summary including each abundance category, error rates and notes. .................................................................................................................... 32 Table 4. Predicted vs Observed TFLA output percent difference variance of input nodes .... 33 Table 5: Lichen regeneration plot results measurements including; canopy density, light, and annual lichen growth. .................................................................................................. 40 x List of Figures Figure 1. A map of the 7 Caribou herd ranges in northeastern B.C and Alberta. The key herds related to the research are the Klinse-za and Quintette. ................................................ 5 Figure 2. Visualization of the Bayesian Belief Network utilized to predict output node of the Terrestrial Lichen Forage Abundance (TLFA). The output node TLFA has many inputs such as; Aspect, Ecological unit and Site Index that influence the category output. . 18 Figure 3. The lichen abundance predicted in Bayesian belief network (black = low predicted abundance to white = high predicted abundance) and randomized points (red points) that were the target of data collection in the field. ............................................................. 20 Figure 4. Map of lichen abundance categories equally represented across the landscape in different colours. The data collection objective was to visit an equal amount of lichen densities across the Quintette caribou range. .............................................................. 23 Figure 5.Network of lines to guide field operations to marking new extents of lichen patches in the Quintette range, primarily in Moose Lake area. The research was based on previous lichen patch locations with a goal of searching the known perimeters for new extents.25 Figure 6. 1–8-year-old human harvested lichen patches in Moose Lake area. Various colour squares represent different years. Note there is some overlap depicted with the transparent shades. ...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 7. The predicted relationship of observable collection grabs decreasing as time increases, based on initial field observations. We noted up to 40 grabs in a new transect of 150 paces to none in a 7-year-old patch............................................................................. 28 Figure 8. Lichen regrowth plot, demonstrating a measure method in a 1m2 plot with two hand picked areas circled in red in the Moose Lake area. ................................................... 29 Figure 9. The results of the visited and unvisited sites on the terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TLFA) in the Quintette herd range. The turquoise represents the visited sites where the green circle represents the unvisited sites. Note not all points were assessable due to terrain, weather (fires) and road access limitations. ................................................... 31 Figure 10. Results of Observed (small dots) vs Predicted (white to black shades) outcomes. The red coloured dot where there was a difference in terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TLFA) determination and yellow indicates the same result. ..................................... 33 xi Figure 11.Example of Netica software matrix ability to adjust the model feature weighting. The green representing the Terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TFLA) output in green. Manageable features listed above (TLFA) illustrates the pathways of weighting adjustments. ................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 12. Raw Terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TLFA) output map prior to field data collection in March 2022. Categories of Scarce, Moderately Abundant and Abundant are displayed over the Quintette herd range. .................................................................... 35 Figure 13. Raw Terrestrial Lichen forage abundance (TFLA) output post field work including refinements from field work conducted up to May 2023. The white box shows some of the areas that differ between the map in Figure 14. .................................................... 36 Figure 14. 5-year harvest map including all lichen research methods. Note the patches in blue discovered through the research in the Moose Lake area and the two polygons in black represent the re-harvest of existing patches. ............................................................... 37 Figure 15. Relationship of year since lichen patch harvest and lichen grab detection per meter, displaying the decreasing average lichen grab detection over time. ........................... 38 Figure 16. A map of Moose Lake lichen regeneration plots from 2022 and 2023. Note the regeneration plots are limited to existing patches. ...................................................... 39 Figure 17. Comparison of 1m2 lichen regeneration plots from 2022 (left) and 2023 (right) in the Moose lake area. The grab is circiled in red and shows that some growth is apparent on the edges of the 2023 plot. ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 18. Example of horizontal lichen growth in a grab, note the growth in the open space of the grab extending into the open space by leaning in. The yellow arrow is where the lichen thalli have changed growth direction. The plots were spread throughout the Moose Lake area. ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. xii Acknowledgements I would like to first express my gratitude to my community Saulteau First Nations and jointly West Moberly First Nations for all the contributions to the larger Klinse-Za caribou recovery project. Kinanaskomitin (Thank you) to the SFN guardians and elders who helped every step of the way to contribute to the research and community objectives. I thank the team at UBC-O for the support in continuing my research in my home territory, helping utilize western tools for Indigenous recovery objectives. 1.0 Introduction 1.1. Declining caribou herds and the importance of the Klinse-Za project Indigenous land management practices meet or exceed many targets for ecosystem restoration and biodiversity protection. Vertebrate biodiversity is higher across 5.8 million km2 of Indigenous managed lands in Canada, Australia, and Brazil, compared to either protected or non-protected areas (Schuster et al. 2019). Currently, Indigenous Peoples take care of or have tenure rights to over a quarter of the world’s terrestrial land (Garnett et al. 2018). In response to biodiversity loss due to colonial practices, Indigenous-led conservation efforts are restoring wildlife and their habitat in our country. The Canada’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan’s aim is to reduce the decline of biodiversity in Canada. Target 15 of the 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets for Canada states: “Indigenous knowledge is respected, promoted and, where made available by Indigenous peoples, regularly, meaningfully and effectively informing biodiversity conservation and management decision-making” (ECCC 2019). Thus, at a global and national scale, Indigenous Peoples are central to the prioritization and deployment of conservation actions. Here we will explore how Indigenous-led recovery is making a difference in securing food for atihk (nēhiyawēwin /cree: caribou) in British Columbia (BC). Across much of Canada, caribou are an at risk species, with many populations listed as threatened or endangered by Canada’s Species at Risk Act (Ray et al. 2015). In 2018, ten local population units (LPU) of southern mountain caribou in BC were found to be facing ‘imminent threats’ to their recovery, prompting the Minister to recommend that the federal government issue an emergency order to halt all industrial development in critical caribou habitat (ECCC, 2021) Alongside actions by the federal and provincial governments, First Nations in northeastern BC are leading recovery efforts 2 for the Klinse-Za caribou herd. West Moberly (WMFN) and Saulteau First Nations (SFN) brought together Indigenous knowledge and western science to recover caribou through a SARA section 11 Partnership Agreement in collaboration with multiple levels of government by protecting over 7986-km2 of caribou habitat (Lamb et al. 2022). A decade prior to the Partnership Agreement, the Nations led recovery efforts with success, forming the Nîkanêse Wah tzee Stewardship Society (NWSS) and creating a network with the collaborative team. This Indigenous-led strategy has created a rare upward recovery for Klinse-Za caribou that is likely to support a future sustainable harvest of caribou by community members. Caribou recovery efforts in Canada require different inputs, have trade-offs in cost and effectiveness, and face different levels of social license. These efforts include structural-based approaches by blocking linear features to reduce predator mobility, and habitat protection to prevent future disturbance (Coupal and Bentham 2014). Serrouya et al. 2019 lists recovery efforts applied to caribou populations; such as predator reduction (to reduce mortality); primary prey reduction (to reduce the growth of predator populations); translocation (to introduce new, or augment, existing populations); and supplemental feeding (introduces additional nutrition). Serrouya et al. 2019 looked at affects of population growth rate (λ) of 12 caribou populations before and after a treatment. They found that the Klinse-Za population showed most improvement (λ=0.86–1.14) and included a combination of predator reduction, supplemental feeding plus maternal penning approaches. Examples of success rates of other herd recovery actions are included as a comparison in the paper. For example; the primary prey reduction of moose (Parsnip herd range) of 40% did not improve λ , translocation (Purcells South herd range) of 20 animals in 2012 also did not improve λ. Wolf removal (Quintette herd range) increased λ from 0.86 to 1.13. 3 Maternal penning involves moving pregnant caribou mothers to a pen and allowing partition to occur with no predation and increased nutrition. The method has been used for 10 years for the Klinse-Za herd, successfully increasing the herd from 16 to 130 individuals. The benefit includes reducing predation on young to bolster population growth rates for this herd. Challenges are that while the herd is recovering in numbers, the landscape doesn’t supply enough food due to habitat limitations. Mothers receive additional nutrition in the maternal pen and are fed a mixture of lichens and pellets. The nutrient rich pellets are introduced slowly with lichen, this is done to ensure smooth gut biome transitions. We learned the importance of this through experience. One year a female was not fed lichens initially and died as a result. The research team now collectively agrees that lichen must be fed initially during introduction to the pen. My research is directly tied to supplying natural winter foods for the maternity penning recovery method. Some caribou recovery strategies achieve overlapping outcomes. For example, maternal pens reduce exposure to predators for adults and young and provide opportunity for supplemental feeding. Further, some of these strategies are carried out simultaneously. In the Klinse-Za range, habitat protection, predator reduction, and maternal penning are being conducted at the same time (Lamb et al 2022). Every year, the NWSS captures 12-22 pregnant caribou and for several months holds them in a pen where they experience no predation and have access to a high-quality resource diet through supplemental feeding. Engaging multiple recovery actions at the same time has been considered one of the more effective approaches to recovery (Serrouya et al. 2019). Currently, over 50% of the landscape within the Klinse-Za range has been altered by cumulative impacts resulting from recreation and industrial activities (Unplub. Data, BC Lands, 4 Water and Resource Stewardship; Fort St John, BC). The federal Recovery Strategy for Woodland Caribou aims to ensure that the footprint of disturbance does not exceed 35% in low elevation winter range and type-1 matrix range (Environment Canada. 2014). With limited undisturbed habitat, the current landscape will not provide enough habitat for caribou. A key to the recovery of the Klinse-Za caribou herd is ensuring that landscape-level forage availability is quantified, both to support penning operations and to support evidence-based decisions for habitat protections. While caribou diet includes a variety of understory plants, lichen plays a vital role in balancing nutritional demands over the course of a year. Cladonia lichen are the primary lichen genus consumed by caribou (Johnson et al 2001). In the maternity pen, the caribou’s diet consists of pellets, lichens, and native plants naturally growing in the pen. Dentryer et al. 2017 found high-quality habitats for caribou are associated primarily with lichens in northeastern B.C. In some caribou populations terrestrial lichen dominates summer diet in boreal black spruce bogs and fens and boreal black spruce uplands. In northeastern B.C. caribou also eat 28 species of plants including deciduous shrubs, terrestrial lichens, forbs, graminoids, mushrooms, and arboreal lichens (Dentryer et al. 2017). 5 The caribou in the Klinse-Za maternity pen are provided a mixture of pellets and Cladonia lichens (C. abbuscula, C. rangiferina,, C. stellaris, C. stygia, C. uncilalis). The most accessible lichens for human collection are available in the Quintette herd. There is a critical need to quantify the amount of lichen available for penning operations. This understanding can come from: 1) modelling to predict lichen presence by using a Bayesian belief network. 2) marking areas to extend the parameters of known lichen patches. 3) monitoring the grab detection rate on a larger site wide scale of pre-harvested patches. 4) measuring recovery rates individual lichen grabs on a smaller site-specific plot. While a purely biophysical model of lichen occurrence is valuable, the maternity pen requires that lichen be harvested by people. Therefore, we need to know where lichen occurs in areas that are accessible to members of the Figure 1. A map of the 7 Caribou herd ranges in northeastern B.C and Alberta. The key herds related to the research are the Klinse-za and Quintette. Figure 1 from © Lamb et al, (2012). Indigenous-Led Conservation: Pathways to Recovery for the Nearly Extirpated Klinse-Za Mountain Caribou. Ecological Applications, 32(5), e2581. Page 4. 6 community so that they can participate in harvest. Proximity of lichen to roads, terrain complexity, and distance to communities are important variables that affect accessibility. Considering these factors make the area in the Quintette range the best for picking. Through a decade of harvesting, it is still the best location as seen in Figure 2 below. Figure 2. Moose Lake lichen harvesting area (green) and the Klinse-Za caribou herd range (dark blue). Lichen harvesting happens outside of the Klinse-Za herd range in the Quintette caribou range. The Moose Lake area is not currently occupied by the Quintette caribou herd. Lichen is harvested by community members with diverse abilities and ages and involves knowledge sharing between generations. For example, during collection teachings on sustainable picking and knowledge of caribou is shared. Taking as little from the plant as possible so it can recover from a pick ensures further harvest is sustainable (more details in Section 1.2). Blending the human limitations into models based on biophysical predictions will better aid lichen harvest efficiency by the community. 7 To support lichen management for the Klinse-Za caribou recovery, my thesis will address two questions (see Table 1) that seek to understand the current distribution of lichen patches economically efficient for humans to pick (>3 ha) across the landscape and define growth rates of lichen following harvest by people for the penning operations. The four approaches in Table 1 to these questions include; Modelling predicts where new patches of lichen are likely to be found. Marking lichen means quantifying new extents: the size of known, but unmeasured, lichen patches. Monitoring determines the rate at which entire lichen patches (> 3ha) recover from recent harvests. Measuring quantifies fine scale (1m2 plots) lichen growth following harvest. 8 Research questions, approaches and intended outcomes. Table 1. Research Questions shaping the approach and outcome of lichen research. Question Rationale Approach Community-directed outcomes of the research Where is lichen distributed across the Quintette herd of the Southern Mountain Caribou? Support maternal penning operations. Support management of cumulative effects and industrial activity by communicating nations use of patch to industry. Model validate and update a Bayesian belief network model of lichen occurrence (McNay et al. 2006). Map of lichen coverage. Communities know which areas to protect. Mark extent of known lichen collection areas. Map new parameters of lichen patches to harvest or protect. What is the growth rate of lichen following harvest by people? Assess how long the community can harvest lichen from an area to support penning operations. Measure lichen growth in 30x 1m2 plots, using an experimental design. Estimate of lichen regrowth rate. Design more efficient lichen harvesting protocols and annual design. Monitor regrowth of harvested areas via transects. Determine future re-harvest timing of patches. 1.2. Cultural context Position statement: I am an Indigenous researcher, my project presents a unique opportunity to share and learn from Indigenous worldviews, perspectives and knowledge. I share and articulate community voices and ways of knowing throughout the thesis as an opportunity for others to learn about Indigenous led recovery. Though it is still unconventional to include Indigenous community voices in science writing, my approach was encouraged by my committee as a way of helping to provide more equality and balance between knowledge systems. 9 This section outlines how the Saulteau First Nations (SFN) migration story shapes core beliefs and objectives in the Klinse-Za caribou recovery project. We will then explore community lichen knowledge across time; 1) historic (informing collection), 2) present (collection/storage) and 3) future/prediction (fire modelling) within the context of this research project. Saulteau First Nations migration story SFN is an Indigenous group of peoples settled in Northeast BC. My Saulteaux ancestors began their journey to the Twin Sisters mountains in the late 1800s. Oppressed by the colonization of Canada; they fled west from Manitoba on a journey that led to BC twelve years later. The leader, kakagooganis, had a vision that the Twin Sisters area was sacred and a place of refuge in times of hardship. The group originally spent some time in the Klinse-Za mountains but later came to nearby Moberly Lake. The Saulteaux (Anishinabe), Nehiyaw (cree) and Mountain Dunne-Za (Beaver) people existed together in this area prior to adhering to Treaty 8 in 1914 and agreeing to coexist in the Peace region of northeastern BC (in the Peace River watershed). Upon settling in the Peace region, our ancestors lived off the land and practiced seasonal rounds of hunting, gathering, and fishing. The area was plentiful with game and fish, which help us survive to this day. Historically, the populations of the caribou were so abundant that they were referred to as a “sea of caribou” and described as “like bugs on the land”; the modern-day phenomenon of small, separate groups of caribou or caribou herds (or subpopulations) was not characteristic of baseline caribou population levels (WMFN 2009). Caribou helped sustain the community over the winter months when necessities were limited. The caribou provided food, clothing and tools. Today the same caribou that provided for us are in danger of extinction and need our help. It is this belief of reciprocity that drives the Indigenous-led values of the Klinse-Za recovery project. 10 Historic knowledge: Lichen and caribou use The collective knowledge at SFN/WMFN has been instrumental in guiding research on lichen availability. Previous land use studies have documented SFN knowledge of caribou movement, hunting and camps (WMFN, 2014). In interviews, community member’s knowledge of lichen is tied to caribou information. Members link the lichen presence to potential caribou hunting and camp sites. Caribou were often hunted when they were eating lichen, so caribou harvesting sites lead to lichen areas. The community identified caribou harvest sites within lichen areas of the Quintette caribou herd (Saulteau First Nations 2013), which is the herd of caribou to the south of Klinse-Za. Timing and location of the caribou migration is known within the current Klinse-za and Quintette ranges (Figure 1). Community members also identify 3 types of caribou; woodland, mountain and muskeg. They noted that the muskeg caribou share habitat with moose (Saulteau First Nations, 2013). Many caribou sightings and harvest locations were documented in caribou migration corridors as they knew and following the movement of caribou. Caribou hunting also used to support the guide outfitter economy that our community relied upon to support many families. Members also note the impacts the W.A.C. Bennett hydroelectric dam and Williston Reservoir had on caribou herd migration, which blocked the north to south migration to the Moberly Lake area in the spring (Saulteau First Nations, 2013). Historically, SFN members did not harvest lichen for consumption because it has little nutritional value to humans. Caribou are one of the few mammals that can produce the enzyme “lichenase” to break down and metabolize lichen (McCleary 1988). However, lichen does have a place in life cycles rituals and child rearing in cultural practices in community. Lichen was used for absorption in diapers and for women’s moon time cycles. In addition, lichen was used for padding and 11 insulation in child rearing holders including the moss bag and cradleboard, helping with bonding and the start of the child’s education (Mahkesis Consulting 2017). Lichen was recognized as an important food source for caribou, and areas with abundant lichen were indicative of good hunting locations. By following the caribou, our elders know where the large lichen patches are. Elders can show us where caribou game trails are still present in lichen patches. At the beginning of the recovery project, SFN elders with the help of Wildlife Infometrics informed the SFN staff where to pick lichen. In subsequent years I looked for similar areas to find new patches. The lichen patches identified each year have the highest density of lichens within the herd range to aid in efficient harvest by humans for the caribou in the maternal pen. “Caribou habitat - lots of thick lichen grows in this area, both on the ridges and some in the lower areas as well.” - Elder Sandy Cameron (Saulteau First Nations, 2013). Interestingly, caribou antler sheds are often found in lichen patches, indicating their presence in the area in the early winter. Figure 3. Community lichen knowledge sites at the Moose Lake area within the Quintette caribou herd range. Note the polygons are caribou habitat- lichen areas, where the points are lichen harvesting sites (© 2013 Saulteau First Nations, by permission). Legend Green - Identified lichen polygon Orange - Lichen knowledge point 12 The Treaty Rights and Environmental Protection department at SFN stores all traditional land use data provided by SFN members, they provided the following data for my research project. SFN member’s knowledge about lichen includes habitat and collection sites and is stored in a community managed database (orange triangles in Figure 3). Community members indicated that the Moose Lake “lichen collecting” polygon (see the east-west corridor in Figure 3) had dense lichen, which was connected to caribou movement through the area. This information was used by SFN staff to pick locations to scout for dense lichen patches1 beginning in 2013. Present knowledge: Lichen harvesting Feeding the penned caribou supplemental lichen required new methods be developed to guide human harvest of lichen. Lichen harvesting and processing requires knowledge of the land, sustainable picking practices, and adaptive management. Transporting lichen from the forest to the pen happens in three phases: 1) harvest, 2) storage, and 3) monitoring consumption at the pen. In phase one, community members sustainably harvest lichen by picking (grabbing) a circle less than 20 cm wide in diameter (see Figure 10) to mimic a caribou bite. The dirt and needles are then cleaned off the lichen and it is placed in mesh bags. Over the years, we have learned that environmental conditions affect collection. Ideally, lichen harvesting occurs between May and October during periods of mild temperature (around 20 o C) and 1-2 days after a rain event to provide some moisture. Picking lichen on a hot dry day is not recommended, as the lichen is too brittle and breaks upon extraction, leading to loss during truck transport. On warm days, to mitigate damage and breakage, water is sprayed on the lichen prior to removal. Too much 1 A lichen patch for the purpose of collection is an area over 3 hectares that contains more than 80% lichen coverage. 13 moisture can also be a problem as the lichen becomes too slimy and prone to mold growth during storage. While caribou can locate lichen under the snow by smell (Lance and Eastland 2000), humans cannot, making finding lichen during the winter very difficult (winter collection would require snow blowers and digging leading to too much effort and time). Phase two involves storing the lichen up to 7 months post harvest. Mold contamination is a primary concern when storing and preparing lichen. When lichen is collected, dirt and wet material must be removed to allow faster drying times. Once in the bag, we call it caribou cotton candy, and it must be packed lightly so the lichen can breathe and dry (lichen that is compact, in an effort to store more lichen in the bag, is not ideal). We hang the bags of lichen or place them on metal racks to air dry. Drying is important, because in 2016, we learned that mold deters caribou from consuming lichen. Wet lichen resulted in a lot of mold growth, and very little caribou consumption. We store the lichen in a dry location for over 7 months until the pen is in operation. We routinely inspect the bags for mold, visually looking for a white growth on the exterior of the bag. Phase three involves monitoring and adaptive management of caribou food preferences in the maternal pen. Once the caribou mothers arrive in the maternal pen in March, the lichen bags are gradually transported to the pen for consumption. The caribou mothers eat lichen upon arrival in March and are transitioned to eat pellets over time. Because of habitat loss, caribou food resources in the wild may be low. The caribou mothers are supplemented with pellets in the pen to provide more nutrients for birth and calf rearing. In the summer, prior to release from the pen, caribou eat the native vegetation that occurs in the pen, as well as pellets. During release some lichen is spread out to encourage the mothers to leave the pen with their young. When the 14 caribou eat lichen in the pen, Indigenous guardians (part of the caribou recovery team) note the caribou mother’s diet preferences. From these observations we know that caribou: • will refuse to eat Stereocaulon paschale spp (Lance and Eastland 2000), (this lichen species was picked at the beginning of the project because it grows with Cladonia), • will remove pine needles, • sometimes like mushrooms, • will each eat 3 kg of lichen per day, if fed only lichen (this changes as they transition to pellets), • will only eat lichen that is moistened with water prior to consumption, • calves start eating lichen just days after birth. In the first years of collection, we used the information gathered by the Indigenous guardians at the pen to adaptively manage our lichen picking protocols to effectively meet the caribou’s diet preferences. Prediction: Harvest and fire impacts on lichen In the 2021 field season, we encountered large terrestrial lichen patches (>3 ha) that had survived mild fire impacts. SFN elders indicated the fire promoted lichen growth. Similarly, western scientific research also suggests that fire plays a role in terrestrial lichen survival (Coxson and Marsh 2001). For example, low intensity fires helped Cladonia lichens and Cladina mitis lichens return to pre-fire densities (Coxson and Marsh 2001). The researchers also noted following a mild fire a dense regeneration of pine leading to a mature forest that creates habitat for lichens (especially Cladonia spp.) and that lichen may survive low and moderate fires but are eliminated by high severity fires (Coxson and Marsh 2001). 15 Understanding lichen regrowth time following harvest is important because if there is a link to compensatory regrowth (i.e., that lichen may be more productive under low to moderate harvest regimes when compared to growth in the absence of harvest), this would impact our harvest planning. In Finland, den Herder et al. (2003) found that lichen growth rates increased when reindeer grazing and trampling seem to change the vegetation towards a type that is dominated by small dwarf shrubs, bare soil and minute-cup lichens (Cladonia spp.) and removed the most unproductive basal parts of the lichen. When reindeer grazed the most productive upper parts of the lichen, lichen growth rates were reduced (den Herder et.al, 2003). A review of 17 studies from 6 countries that determined the mean linear growth rates of three reindeer lichen groups, Cladonia arbuscula/mitis (mean = 4.7 mm/yr.), C. rangiferina/ C. stygia (mean = 5.1 mm/yr.), and C. stellaris (mean = 4.8 mm/yr.) (McMullin and Rapai 2020). Our observations in the field indicate that post-human harvest, lichen grew quickly. We found that it was difficult to identify where lichen was picked seven years ago on grabs over 100 mm in width. Our observations led us to form research questions about lichen regeneration in our territory, as the human harvested lichen seems to have grown quicker than the non-harvested lichen in the McMullin and Rapai study. Compensatory regrowth has been noted in Indigenous science. In her book “Braiding Sweetgrass” (Kimmerer 2013), Robin Wall Kimmerer describes the concept of reciprocity of harvest; describing a plant’s need of harvest to promote growth. Likewise, (Gaare 1986) found that clipping lichen impeded growth, while thinning lichens moderately increase growth. (Gaio-Oliveira et al. 2006) found that lichen growth was highest with some grazing (below 25% coverage) compared to the absence of grazing. When harvesting lichen for the caribou in the pen, we remove approximately 20% of the lichen organism, like trimming a tree. While we are not 16 testing hypothesis on harvest rates that maximize growth, we are seeking to understand if lichen harvest by humans impacts lichen growth. The localized area context and background The Moose Lake area is the primary focus area of the lichen collection for the Klinse-Za caribou herd maternity pen. Based on SFN community knowledge we were guided to Moose Lake by our elders. The 33,000-hectare area is located approximately 100 km south of the Klinse-Za caribou herd range in the range of the Quintette caribou herd. According to the BBN output terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TLFA), developed by McNay et al. 2006, lichen in this area varies from 0-80% coverage within a 1 hectare pixel. The area has elevation gradients between 800 meters to 1100 meters with primarily mature pine forest over 70 years old on poor nutrient soils creating ideal lichen habitat. Mountain ridges border the generally flat area in all directions. The slope is overall less than 10%, making collection and transport of lichen ideal in the summer months. Being part of the isolated permafrost, the area is covered in snow from mid-September to May each year. 17 2.0 Methods 2.1. Modelling The terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TLFA) model was built to help predict and quantify where lichen was located on landscape, including the ranges of the Klinse-Za and Quintette caribou herds. We modelled where lichens are likely to grow based on existing literature and expert opinion. Lichen abundance is influenced by; forest type, forest age, soil type, aspect and elevation to name a few. The model did not include every aspect but the most influential at the time. We used the predictions from the TLFA to help guide us to new lichen harvesting areas within the Quintette caribou's range. We also verified the TLFA model predictions in the field during our collections. The model categorizes lichen as: Scarce, Moderately Scarce, or Abundant. We attempted to ground truth all the lichen categories equally. Dr. McNay helped refine the results to update the model and predictive map to more accurately predict the lichen abundance on the landscape, and further help us find lichen to harvest for caribou in the pen. We built upon the existing TLFA model (McNay et al. 2006) through the following steps: 1) using a Bayesian approach to produce a new TLFA output; 2) spatially mapping the TLFA; 3) field data collection; and 4) a TLFA confusion matrix; 5) Re-mapping the updated TLFA model of lichen categories to increase the effectiveness of lichen harvesting. Step 1. Bayesian approach to updating the terrestrial lichen forage abundance model To update the TLFA model, we first used NeticaTM (version 2.17 Norsystems, Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia) software to visualize the lichen abundance output in the BBN on the landscape. The software aided as a field guide to ensure data was verified in various lichen abundance categories and finally used to map the verified output. Updating the model was useful as some of the resource layers were 18 years old, requiring updates to be relevant in the field. For 18 example, the forest age layer update could yield more old growth pine stands resulting in lichen habitat. A BBN consists of nodes and linkages, where the nodes represent environmental correlates and disturbance factors (Marcot et al., 2006). Intermediate nodes contain tables of conditional probabilities based on empirical studies and expert judgement and output nodes are calculated as posterior probabilities (McNay et al., 2006). The original TLFA model inputs were based on indicators of lichen habitat such as leading tree species of pine or spruce greater than 70 years old, poor dry soil condition, elevation above 1000m, and site index over 14.5m. The BBN model is built with the assumptions that lichen generally grows in south-facing sites with soils that are well drained with poor nutrient levels. Lodgepole pine also grows well on these sites and therefore were used as an indicator of terrestial lichens (Sulyma 2001). The BBN used forest age, density of trees and forest floor characteristics to determine the current suitability of the sites for producing terrestrial lichens. Figure 2. Visualization of the Bayesian Belief Network utilized to predict output node of the Terrestrial Lichen Forage Abundance (TLFA). The output node TLFA has many inputs such as; Aspect, Ecological unit and Site Index that influence the category output. © A Bayesian approach to evaluating habitat for woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:3117–3133. 19 The BBN model can be readily adjusted with new data or scenarios to help make better management decisions. It also enables spatial projections for a large area and incorporates expert opinion. It works well in larger areas where field validation can be logistically challenging. The BBN also produces an error rate which informs weighting options and scenarios at the outputs. The error rate is quantified to aid in decision-making. The model is built on professional characterization, supported by the available data, research, and observations (McNay et al., 2006). However, the BBN model is limited because it may not be well suited for systems that are based primarily on specific repeats of historical observations. It relies on an expert opinion that can be biased or not translated well in a model. Its time consuming to set up compared to other models, and finally it can be difficult to project spatially. There are further limitations to the model when a combination of empirical, spatial and temporal data is not available. Step 2. Spatialization of terrestrial lichen forage abundance Figure 3. is a visualization of the lichen abundance in the Quintette range was created to be used by the SFN guardians to ground test the model. In the model lichen abundance coverage is highest at 90% in white and lowest shown in black. The map was used to help the guardians find different densities of lichen for ground-truthing verification. 20 Figure 3. The lichen abundance predicted in Bayesian belief network (black = low predicted abundance to white = high predicted abundance) and randomized points (red points) that were the target of data collection in the field. (© 2023 Wildlife Infometrics by permission) Model mapping contained both manageable and enduring features. Enduring features such as aspect will not change with data collection, however manageable features can influence the model, and can change over time. Considering the available GIS layers and field program, a subset of model features was collected in the field included below: • Ecological unit (ECOP) ̶ Soil condition: dry poor, other, undetermined • Stand removal method (SRM) ̶ forest intact, cut block, or wildfire • Stand age (FA) ̶ Age category: < 70 years, > 70 years, and > 100 years • Pine percent composition (PCLS) ̶ percent of trees that are pine 0-100% • Stocking standard (stem/ha) (STOK) ̶ density of low or high We also included enduring features in the map of: • Elevation (E) ̶ over 1000m 21 • Aspect (A) ̶ greater than 45 and less than 135 degrees • Site Index (SI) ̶ m in height over 14.5 @ 50 years Step 3. Field data collection Within the Quintette herd range, we first created 100 ground truthing points within 500 m of a road, using GIS software to store data. These 100 locations were stratified across 5 quantiles (at 20% increments) of predicted lichen abundance from the McNay et al. model (Figure 6). The road buffer is used to factor in accessibility of patches for human use. We attempted to visit 4-6 sampling locations per day. In the field, we used a GPS with ArcGIS Pro Survey 123TM software to navigate to the sample location. We collected the following data at each site: • Stand removal method observation visually selecting; 1) forest, 2) cut block with stumps, or 3) cut block-stump removed. • Tree core/ Haglof borer auger 14” 4.3mm to drill and count the age of the average sized trees • Densiometer used to measure the open space of crown canopy. • A Basal area factor (BAF) 10 and 7 prism was used to determine the stocking standard per acre. • Leading Tree species ID reference Plants of Northern BC (Plants of Northern British Columbia 1992) • Weather conditions • Time and location • Aspect with a compass • Slope with a clinometer • Elevation with a GPS 22 • Lichen coverage was recorded within a 1m x 1m carpenter square on 4 random sites within the lichen patch. We recorded lichen species, visual lichen percent coverage in square and animal or vegetation sign. If no lichen was found at the sampling location, all field other site measurements were still recorded. When lichen patches were encountered, guardians walked the perimeter of the patch using ArcGIS Pro Survey 123 software via iPad to create a polygon. To estimate lichen yield per patch (in bags), I took an average bag yield per hectare of previous harvest patches to extrapolate harvest yield. Based on our early lichen harvesting, we found that a lichen area required is 15-50 hectares was needed to supply 400 bags of lichen annually. This works out to a yield of 8-26 lichen bags per hectare at various densities. To be on the cautious side the low-density range at 8 bags per hectare was implemented into the 5-year harvest plan, however the results of high density were also predicted in the results. Caution was applied in choosing the lower density to estimate yield, due to the climate change impacts seen in 7-8 patches that may have lessened the density of lichens. We can adaptively manage lichen harvest if lichen densities at sites are found to differ than the predictions. 23 Figure 4. Map of lichen abundance categories equally represented across the landscape in different colours. The data collection objective was to visit an equal amount of lichen densities across the Quintette caribou range. (© 2023 Adam Ford, by permission) Step 4. A terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TFLA) confusion matrix A TFLA confusion matrix is a table layout that compares in this case observed and predicted results with an error percentage between the two. Data collected from field visits were used to refine the TFLA model. Specifically, we changed the conditional probabilities for the terms of the BBN in NeticaTM for the following variables: leading tree species, forest floor characteristics, pine (%) dependence on aspect and poor soil nutrient weights. Through our manual iterations, we wanted to improve the error in the confusion matrix using expert opinion but did not want to perform an automated dredging exercise. Adjusting other manageable features did not decrease the error rates. After several iterations, the error rate did not drop below 15% (Table 2, see results section for details). We deemed this error rate to be sufficient for this 24 project as it means that we will visit more sites that are predicted to have lichen then not. This type of error is tolerable, given the project resources available. Table 2. The confusion matrix which compares the model predictions to the observed field data in an abundance output comparison. Predicted Categories Observed Lichen Abundance Abundant Moderate Scarce 2 0 8 Abundant 3 0 2 Moderate 9 0 121 Scarce Step 5. Mapping an updated terrestrial lichen forage abundance model of lichen Updating the TLFA model was needed to allow SFN to find lichen for harvesting with less effort in the future and to plan to supply the caribou in the pen over the next 5 years. A comparison between the predicted model and observed model (in the form of a confusion matrix) directed where the model could improve. Where significant differences between predicted and observed lichen values were found, the selected layers were screened for discrepancies. The new BBN model was then reprojected by Dr. McNay and staff using NeticaTM software. One example was to refine missing GIS data. We found that the missing values occurred because the 100-m pixel was coded in vegetation resource inventory (VRI) as non-productive brush, however it was an observed forested area. As errors were found, the feature was corrected to include observed data or weighted less in the model. 25 2.2. Marking Lichen patch extents search for additional harvest sites In this section, I describe a method where we searched for new extents of known patches to better estimate the amount of lichen on the landscape. For lichen harvest conducted before 2021, we did not know how large patches were because we only picked parts of the entire area. In 2021, the guardians set out to delineate or ‘mark’ new extents of patches by collecting data in each square in Figure 7. The network of lines served as an instruction for guardians of where to collect data pertaining to lichen presence. The area of research was based on extending the boundaries of known patches to aid in the 5-year harvest plan. The pins “lichen spots” and “370 bags” indicates 2 of the 6 known lichen patches in the area. The red was the perimeter/area of the 2021 study. Figure 5. Network of lines to guide field operations to marking new extents of lichen patches in the Quintette range, primarily in Moose Lake area. The research was based on previous lichen patch locations with a goal of searching the known perimeters for new extents. 26 In 2022 and 2023 we reviewed the data containing high lichen density and tracked the perimeter of additional lichen patches. We used Google Earth images to identify access points to the patch. Once in the field, mature pine forests signal potential lichen habitat. When lichen patches were encountered, guardians delineated the size with a GPS to create a polygon by walking the perimeter of 80% or higher lichen cover with ARC GIS Pro Survey 123 software via iPad. The perimeter of the area was tracked, however the area within the polygon was not, therefore density of lichen coverage may vary. Data was collected at each site (See Appendix 2). We calculated coverage by noting lichen presence in 1m2 surveys within the patch. Once the points are uploaded onto ArcGIS Pro, we calculated the remaining yield using the following equation on the measure tool of ArcGIS Pro. 𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑= (𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝐿𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠 )− (𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑈𝑛𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝐿𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠) We will use this calculation to verify the percentage picked in this area via GPS polygons and estimate the remaining unpicked areas ready for harvest. 2.3. Monitoring Within the lichen harvest areas, we tried to understand regeneration to help support long-term yield planning for pen operations. We estimated lichen regeneration at two scales: the coarse scale transect method and a fine scale quadrat method. At a coarse scale, we used 150 pace transects to search for lichen ‘grabs’ in sites that were harvested 1-8 years prior. At a finer scale, we used 1 m2 quadrats to measure regrowth of an individual lichen grab. Here, a ‘grab’ refers to the spot where a handful of lichen was harvested from the ground by community members to provide lichen for the maternity pen. 27 Monitoring methods to determine re-harvest on a patch scale We delineated 7 previously harvested lichen patches. These patches were harvested between 1-8 years ago. Each patch year included an average 10 transects at 150 paces. This pace length was based on trials at a site scale in which we found an average of 50 lichen grabs over 150 paces, with no transect overlap. We took GPS locations at the start and end of each transect for spatial analyses. For each transect, guardians reported: 1) the number of lichen grabs 2) location and ;3) pace length. Each randomized transect is 150 paces in length and 2 meters wide. Results were recorded on ArcGIS Pro Survey 123. Based on the observations in the field of over 8 years, we predicted that grabs would be less noticeable with time (Figure 9). We used general linear models to estimate the effects of time since harvest on the number of grabs detected (standardized per meter). Figure 6. 1–8-year-old human harvested lichen patches in Moose Lake area. Various colour squares represent different years. Note there is some overlap depicted with the transparent shades. 28 Figure 7. The predicted relationship of observable collection grabs decreasing as time increases, based on initial field observations. Results of the monitoring study will be shown in the results. 2.4. Measuring Measuring post-harvest growth rates and lichen regrowth at a fine scale We used the quadrat method to measure growth in some individual hand grabs and determine what factors influence growth rates at an individual grab. To do this, we set up square plots in the field containing picks or extractions of lichen and measuring growth on an annual basis. In 2021, we set 6 (1m2) plots and in 2022 we set an additional 25 plots. In each plot two handfuls of lichen were removed. The size of the extraction was measured annually indicating the growth rate. Each plot was tagged with a unique ID/photo and marked on ARC GIS Pro Survey 123 (Figure 10. Test Plot). The grab pattern is typical of field operations, as collectors will ‘pick’ a handful or two of lichen, and take a few steps, and repeat. At each quadrat, we measured factors that may affect lichen growth rates such as available canopy cover (light), elevation, leading tree species, tree age, plants and animal sign in the plot, fragment present in grab, soil composition and aspect. In future years, this data will be used to more rigorously to measure lichen growth rates following human harvest. 35302520151050510152025303540451 2 3 4 5 6 7Number of harvest picks over transect (units) Time since lichen harvest (years)Detectable harvest picks over time29 Figure 8. Lichen regrowth plot, demonstrating a measure method in a 1m2 plot with two hand picked areas circled in red in the Moose Lake area. 30 3.0 Results 3.1. Overview of the section The methods to develop a sustainable lichen harvest plan include; model, mark, measure, and monitor. Modelling found new patches. Marking found new perimeters of existing patches. Measuring regrowth rates on a fine scale will determined harvest impacts and Monitoring harvest grabs determined patch re-harvest on a larger scale. We started with the confusion matrix and how the model can learn from the field data. Finally we summarized the methods to form the 5-year harvest plan, that predicted lichen supply for the Klinse-Za herd maternal pen. 3.2. Modelling The Bayesian approach to produce an output node of terrestrial lichen forage abundance The Bayesian model guided field operations by combining empirical evidence, expert judgement, and spatial data to form a predicted TLFA outcome which was refined somewhat by field observations. Spatialization of terrestrial lichen forage abundance The output map helped direct equalization of density categories of lichen abundance in the randomized points. This was done by going to sites of equal; Abundant, Moderately scarce, and Scarce lichen densities. The output also was compared to existing lichen patches. Not all the sites were accessible, Figure 11 compares visited vs unvisited sites. 31 Figure 9. The results of the visited and unvisited sites on the terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TLFA) in the Quintette herd range. The turquoise represents the visited sites where the green circle represents the unvisited sites. Note not all points were assessable due to terrain, weather (fires) and road access limitations. (© 2023 Wildlife Infometrics by permission) Field Data collection methods including randomized points and manageable features. Over 100 sites were visited in 2022, collecting the manageable features in the results section (Appendix 1). This data was utilized to compare the model predictions to field observations found at these 100 sites. Model vs Field- terrestrial lichen abundance confusion matrix When we compared the observed and predicted models, we found that there were many false positive and negatives which created error rates. These errors were places where predictions did not equal an observation. For example, when lichen is predicted but not observed we get a false positive. Upon each test, we filtered the data in the test runs to minimize the errors. In test 1, there was an error rate or misalignment of 24%. We then focused on the subsequent tests to refine the data to reduce the error in Tests 2-4, described in the table below. Table 3 32 demonstrates how the error rate was decreased over time to improve and update the model and output map. Table 3. Confusion matrix test result summary including each abundance category, error rates and notes. TTest # Agreed Abundance Agreed Scarce False positive False negative EError % Notes 1 109 13 14 24.1 Original with no changed to model or data 2 1 121 1 14 15.8 31 records were amended with finer resolution /observations from the field 3 2 114 8 13 20.0 Black spruce equal weight to habitat as Pine, Forest Floor characters node changed, Organic matter (OM) disturbed as same as OM removed. % Pine no consequence if Site Index, Aspect and ECOP-Ecological unit are all good. 4 2 121 9 8 5.1 8 field data record changes due to lichen patch size less than 1 hectare The data from the field was first cleaned into the NeticaTM model codes (Appendix 1) resulting in looking at the trend difference of the false positives and negatives. Based on the data we found percent differences on enduring and manageable features (presented in the confusion matrix in Table 4. from Tests 1 and 2;Appendix 1). Table 4 looks at the difference between the map predictions and field verifications input individually per test to demonstrate how each adjustment resulted in a flux of errors per layer. Comparing the data this way helped indicate which layers were mainly contributing to the error and directed where we could modify the BBN model weights. 33 Table 4. Predicted vs Observed TFLA output percent difference variance of input nodes. Test # Slope Soil condition Leading tree species Pine % Forest age Stand removal method Test 1 15% 50% 45% 65% 40% 15% Test 2 0% 38% 0% 38% 77% 40% The variance indicated features that may have errors or require adjustments. For example, we found the model’s stand removal method (SRM) was outdated as there were a lot of differences in predicted lichen patches that are now cut blocks. We will now explore a few paragraphs on details in the model misalignments. Predicted Terrestrial Lichen Forage Abundance (TLFA) Figure 10. Results of Observed (small dots) vs Predicted (white to black shades) outcomes. The red coloured dot where there was a difference in terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TLFA) determination and yellow indicates the same result. (© 2023 Wildlife Infometrics by permission) 34 In Figure 12, the area of difference between the predicted and observed (red dots) was centralized in the Burnt Pine and Moose Lake area. We found the Burnt Pine (western cluster) observations included lichen patches that were not large enough (100m2) to be considered a patch so we changed our field lichen density category from high to low. This adjustment decreased the field abundant prediction and reduced the overall error. Figure 13 shows a portion of the NeticaTM software’s illustration of TLFA. Although the test is small the illustration demonstrates the complexity and relationship of the layers. Figure 11.Example of NeticaTM software matrix ability to adjust the model feature weighting. The green representing the Terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TFLA) output in green. Manageable features listed above (TLFA) illustrates the pathways of weighting adjustments. (© 2023 Wildlife Infometrics, by permission) We made four adjustments to the McNay et al. 2006 TLFA model: • Black spruce was weighted equal to pine for lichen capability. Previously it was 100% weighted on pine as the leading tree species. • Forest floor characteristics (FFC) was changed so organic matter removed was weighted the same as undisturbed. Previously it was weighted as 55% on organic matter removed and 10% organic matter disturbed. 35 • Stand pine percentage depends on aspect between >450 and < 3150 and poor low nutrient levels, therefore there was more weight on those and less on stand age layer. Previously the model had no dependence on aspect and poor soil, it was primarily “stand age” layer with the assumption that this feature included an aspect between >450 and < 3150 and poor or low nutrient levels. • Considerations were made to the pixel resolution as the field data was taken at a finer scale than the model of 1 ha resolution, while this didn’t change the model the team was now aware of the model’s limitations to the finer scale. Raw GIS output of lichen capability Figure 12. Raw Terrestrial lichen forage abundance (TLFA) output map prior to field data collection in March 2022. Categories of Scarce, Moderately Abundant and Abundant are displayed over the Quintette herd range. (© 2023 Wildlife Infometrics, by permission) 36 Figure 13. Raw Terrestrial Lichen forage abundance (TFLA) output post field work including refinements from field work conducted up to May 2023. The white box shows some of the areas that differ between the map in Figure 14. (© 2023 Wildlife Infometrics by permission) We noted changes in all lichen coverage categories after we refined the model with the field data, in categories of Scarce (<30%), Moderately scarce (30-50%) and Abundant (>50%). The outcome produced new raw class determinations, changing locations of lichen distribution The change in the lichen coverage categories can be seen by comparing the white squares in Figure 14 and 15. Research leads to new lichen patches The field data used to update the Bayesian model led to the discovery of new lichen patches. In Figure 16 the circles represent the lichen patches found by modeling predictions confirmed in the field, polygons represent marking new extents of lichen patches and squares represent previous patches ready for re-harvest. As a result of delineating new lichen patches, 37 125 hectares of new lichen patches were found, which would yield 1088-3250 bags on various density for the maternal penning operations. Figure 14. 5-year harvest map including all lichen research methods. Note the patches in blue discovered through the research in the Moose Lake area and the two polygons in black represent the re-harvest of existing patches. 3.3. Marking Extending the parameters of known lichen patches The new extents that were found around known lichen collections areas resulted in 61 additional hectares of lichen distributions. These additional lichen collection areas could yield 530-1586 bags of lichen available to harvest. 38 3.4. Monitoring Transect determining age of lichen patch re-harvest. We visited 5 lichen patches to measure regrowth using transects. We walked a total of 67 transects that equaled 85 hectares (Appendix 3). We counted the grabs per meter in each patch and examined the results by patch age. Figure 15. Relationship of year since lichen patch harvest and lichen grab detection per meter, displaying the decreasing average lichen grab detection over time. (© 2023 Adam Ford, by permission) In Figure 17, the clusters of dots represent the number of grabs detected in each lichen patch organized by age. The blue line depicts how grab detection decreases over time. We found the average lichen grabs were overgrown (sometimes by vascular plants) past 7.5 years, after which no grabs were detected. The number of grabs detected per meter decreased by 0.01, or 1 grab per 100 meters for each year since harvest (Figure 17). Through our transects, we determine that the 2019 (37 hectares) and 2018 (48 hectares) patches are ready for re-harvest, which will produce between 680-2210 lichen bags depending on density. 39 3.5. Measuring Quadrat method; Measure post-harvest growth rates to determine re-harvest In 2022, we measured five plots that were identified and harvested in 2021. We measured less than 10 mm growth in lichen at these plots. In May 2023, we also noted that linear growth was not measurable, however many fragments of lichen were detected in the grab. In the plots, we detected that lichen coverage in a previous grab consisted of lichen optimizing the open space and changing the direction of growth to horizontal (more context is provided in the discussion). Figure 16. A map of Moose Lake lichen regeneration plots from 2022 and 2023. Note the regeneration plots are limited to existing patches. We also mapped regeneration plots in areas where lichen density was 80% or higher. When the plots were measured, we noted the average lichen growth in each grab within the plot. 28 plots were assessed for growth that varied from 0-4.5 cm in a grab. The average overall growth in previous grabs was 1.1 cm for all plots (Table 5). 40 Table 5: Lichen regeneration plot results measurements including; canopy density, light, and annual lichen growth. Plot ID Av.Densio Av. Light Grab size cm Growth cm SFN2021-06 19.4 22.88 10x10 0.00 SFN2022-22 12.4 21.84 10x10 0.00 SFN2022-16 17.05 26 10x10 0.00 SFN2022-19 17.75 80.5 10x10 0.00 SFN2022-17 19.35 24.5 10x10 2.00 SFN2022-20 9.15 29.98 10x10 0.00 SFN2022-21 19.05 23.4 10x10 4.00 SFN2022-26 27.5 24.5 10x10 0.50 SFN2022-29 11.9 32 10x10 0.00 SFN2022-31 10 23 10x10 0.00 SFN2022-09 11.2 23.96 14x14 1.00 SFN2022-24 15.95 30.54 10x10 3.00 SFN2022-25 12.6 26.5 10x10 and 13 x13 2.50 SFN2022-27 16.5 31.54 10x10 0.50 SFN2022-28 22 28.5 10x10 4.00 SFN2022-23 21.5 50.2 10x10 0.50 SFN2021-02 7.9 29.04 10x10 1.00 SFN2022-03 12.3 25 10x12 0.00 SFN2021-04 23.5 20 10 x15 0.00 SFN2021-05 16 11.26 17x17 0.00 SFN2022-30 19.15 30.58 10x10x 2 1.25 SFN2022-03 31.5 17.8 10 x10 0.00 SFN2022-01 7.1 46.32 10x10 1.5 SFN2022-02 20.8 37.5 10 x15 1.25 SFN2022-05 17.75 32.42 10x10 1.25 SFN2022-04 18.95 18.12 10x10 2.00 SFN2022-06 12.1 13.32 10x10 2.5 SFN2022-07 7.15 28.02 10x10 2.5 SFN 2022-08 8.65 23.96 10x10 1.00 SFN 2022-15 36.5 33 15x15 0.00 SFN 2022-14 17.65 45.82 10x10 1.00 SFN2022-13 7.95 9.36 10x10 2.25 Average 1.10 *Please note SFN2022-03, SFN2022-20 and SFN2022-27 were damaged, and one was dug up by an animal. 41 A comparison of a plot between years is provided in Figure 19. We didn’t find that thalli accelerated extension of length. Instead, our measurements indicated that the thalli switched direction of growth as the lichen position changed from vertical to horizontal (Figure 20). Figure 17. Comparison of 1m2 lichen regeneration plots from 2022 (left) and 2023 (right) in the Moose lake area. The grab is circiled in red and shows that some growth is apparent on the edges of the 2023 plot. 42 Figure 18. Example of horizontal lichen growth in a grab, note the growth in the open space of the grab extending into the open space by leaning in. The yellow arrow is where the lichen thalli have changed growth direction. The plots were spread throughout the Moose Lake area. 43 4.0 Discussion In this thesis, we used field data to 1) refine a lichen distribution model to find new lichen patches; 2) mark new lichen patch parameters, 3) monitor lichen patch age for re-harvest; and 4) measure lichen regrowth rates post-harvest at fine spatial scales. Our multifaceted applied research project, that blended field data collections and model verification, allowed us to identify new lichen patches that could produce a range between 1088-3250 of harvestable lichen over the next 5 years. 4.1 Model Validation The analysis of predicted versus observed lichen abundance allowed us to develop better models and understand some of the factors affecting lichen distribution. Our research project improved our understanding of lichen ecology in the following ways: 1) pine stand percentage is more dependent on aspect and soil type rather than stand age; 2) lichen capability in spruce forests was of equal importance to pine; and 3) organic matter conditions of removed or disturbed were of equal importance in the forest floor characteristics to lichen distribution. Overall, the lichen distribution model indicated lichen was found in both spruce and pine forests and that organic matter didn’t always determine soil conditions. This updated our understanding of lichen in the region because originally the model predicted that lichen was only found in pine forests with low soil nutrients. Additional layers to the model in the future could include fire impacts, temperatures and wind conditions. There is always the efficiency question if more data will improve the function of the model or it less efficient. Modeling lichen - Within the Quintette caribou range, lichen was only found in abundant density in the Moose Lake region which represented a small portion of the total sampled area. 44 Because the model had a lot of “scarce” results and thus a limited distribution of lichen density bins, it was hard to test the efficiency of the model. However, the lichen distribution predictions did align with Indigenous Knowledge in the community. Knowledge holders also told us that lichen was only abundant in the Moose Lake area. Previous field verification of the model was done on a coarse scale. Our project examined a finer scale, which resulted in differences in predicted versus observed values. We made two specific refinements to the model that involved scale detection and enduring features to produce an updated confusion matrix. Firstly, if a smaller than 1-hectare (ha) patch was found in the field, the model would not detect it. To match the field and model resolution, we adjusted the field results from high to low density to match the resolution of the model and decrease the errors. Specifically, small lichen areas that were less than 1 ha in size, were categorized in the field as abundant. However the small patch size didn’t align with the model’s resolution of 1 ha, which resulted in a discrepancy between the predicted and observed results. Second, a significant error in the model was that the lichen abundance prediction for the Moose Lake area was scarce lichen abundance. In actuality, lichen is abundant there. By examining the data, we determined that the forest age might have been the cause of the prediction. Additionally, after we refined the model’s outcome, we found aspect and soil conditions were more important than forest age in determining pine stand percentage. We used the updated model to predict lichen distribution outside of the Quintette herd area (including Moose Lake) to find new lichen sources. The new analysis and 2022 field verification resulted in a prediction that suggests there is enough lichen to harvest (680-2210 bags) over the next two years. 45 Marking lichen extents- The 2021 field work helped us to better understand how much lichen occurred in areas we had harvested over the past 5 years. Previously, we had only marked the harvested portion of a lichen patch. During this project we re-marked the perimeter of the lichen patches, which allowed us to expand our lichen collection areas, and which will relieve pressure on current patches, and allow for regrowth. Monitoring lichen resulted in finding lichen supply for the harvest plan and monitoring conditions post harvest. During the research, we ran into some issues while determining the re-harvest age of a lichen patch such as; 1) Field transect lengths were limited when we encountered a steep slope or short corridors. 2) We found some areas had overlapping harvest years, which made transect year determination impossible. 3) Vascular plant growth and a change in lichen density made it hard for us to detect lichen grabs. 4) Finally, decreased overstory shade (from the loss of needles in stands of pine that were killed by beetles) decreased lichen growth and encouraged vascular plant growth (much like the understory succession in clear cuts) (Bainbridge and L Strong 2005). A limitation of the statistical analysis was that it only included 5 sites. Considering the above examples, we know re-harvest viability is dependant on limiting factors. As we assess more sites, our ability to detect grabs may decrease to 0 like year 8. The data produced by our project predicts that most patches can be re-harvested after 7-8 years. As a result, we can now include re-harvest into the overall 5-year lichen harvest plan. Measuring lichen regrowth ̶ In 2022, we observed that lichen growth rates seemed to differ from rates provided in the literature [C. rangiferina/C. stygia (mean = 5.1 mm/yr), and C. stellaris (mean = 4.8 mm/yr)](McMullin and Rapai 2020). However, because we had observed lichen completely re-growing over the grabs we made during our first year of harvest, this would mean that over a 7-year time span, lichen was actually covering >80 mm grab sizes which would 46 suggest a growth rate of ~11.4mm/yr, which is at least twice as fast as the rates provided by McMullin and Rapai 2020. Based on our observations, we expected that other lichen patches also followed a similar growth trend of ~10-20mm/yr. Through our monitoring project, lichen regrowth first appeared to be nil in the first year’s observations. However, in the second year, when we included more plots, we found a growth rate of 11.0 mm/yr. This result was primarily a shift in position of thalli from vertical to horizontal, and not a linear extension of the thalli. We also noted fragments growing in the grabs, which we marked as fragments or horizontal growth in each grab. Our results indicate that picking lichens generates fragments that disperse into the grabs for reproduction. In another recent study, spreading lichen thalli were found to be the most effective method for transplanting terrestrial lichen (Rapai et al. 2023). The 5-Year Harvest Plan helps to monitor lichen regrowth, identify new lichen sites, and allow us to continue the sustainable harvest of lichen to support the Klinse-Za caribou pen. The average lichen patch size is 15-50 (+/-10) hectares and supplies 400 (21 x 32 inch) bags of lichen annually. The study estimates the density equal to 8-9 bags picked per hectare at minimal densities. To summarize the finding by year of operational needs, we can convert the area into years of lichen supply. The 5-Year Harvest Plan includes a 1 year supply of lichen produced through increasing the extents of lichen patches, a 2 year supply of lichen based on the predictions from the model, and a 2 year supply of lichen through the re-harvest of two lichen patches. Lichen patches that are over 500 m from the road also exist in the area, however, they are not included in the harvest plan because they are not efficient to and have a higher safety risk. All the lichen harvest areas are mapped in the harvest plan to help the community understand the spatial outline of lichen density and guide harvesting activities. The harvest plan indicates that harvest should occur in the Moose Lake area for the next five years to ensure 47 harvest is performed most sustainably. This research project aided our ability to harvest lichen locally and reduce costs and time associated with collecting lichen. Continual reassessment of the 5-year harvest plan is recommended to update the goals and guidelines, especially if additional caribou maternity pens are developed or if the existing Klinse-Za Recovery Project is extended. Factors such as habitat availability will also determine if the landscape is able to sustain the growing caribou population. 4.2 What does this project mean for caribou recovery? The goal of the 5-Year Lichen Harvest Plan is to achieve two main objectives: 1) provide supplemental lichen for the Klinse-Za caribou maternity pen operations, and 2) sustainably continue lichen harvesting in local areas through coordinated crew efforts and careful consideration of the time of harvest. The Plan includes considerations for potential increasing caribou herd size. As the herd grows and more caribou are placed in the pen, there will be a need for more food. Lichens will always be needed to transition the mother caribou to more nutrient rich foods and to support their gut biomes. As lichens face risks associated with climate change impacts (Ellis 2019), the need to protect and ration the lichen that is available will increase with time. Additional or substitute forage may come from alternative wild sources of vegetation or the exploration of feeding caribou alternative ratios of pellets and lichen. The caribou diet varies dramatically throughout the year, and the Klinse-Za pen’s goal is to ensure that the range of food available to caribou is as natural as possible. Lichen plays an important seasonal role in caribou diets, primarily in winter when caribou are penned. Other potential supplemental plant foods include an additional 28 species that comprise 78% of caribou diets. These include deciduous shrubs, forbs, graminoids, mushrooms, and arboreal lichens (Dentryer et al. 2017). 48 Our research identified available lichen for the short-term supplementation of Klinse-Za caribou within the maternity pen. This initiative supports the overarching Indigenous-led Klinse-Za caribou recovery project. Local knowledge of the land, community members, and staff have played a pivotal role in ensuring operational success in caribou recovery efforts. Recent scientific advancements, such as modeling, have equipped us with tools to align recovery objectives with Indigenous Rights. Additionally, science plays a crucial role in addressing modern cumulative impacts, not originally addressed in our Indigenous Science toolset, thereby contributing to solutions for herd recovery. The project is guided by our community values and a sustained effort aimed at achieving long-term outcomes for future generations. The success of our project is guided by the central goal of healing the relationship between our community and the land. In the past our people lived in the mountains and depended on the caribou. The commitment to reciprocity remains a driving force in our pursuit of the recovery of this herd. Elders have played a pivotal role, urging us to take leadership and implement action measures for the caribou, acknowledging the significant contributions these animals have made to our people. Our project built connections between Elders and community members, helped develop capacity through training Indigenous Guardians and field technicians, and developed ethical and cultural methods for harvesting lichen that align with community values. Today, we can reciprocate by ensuring food security for the caribou during the challenges they currently face. Beyond scientific considerations and lichen density, our efforts are fueled by a deep sense of commitment and respect for the atihk that once cared for us not so long ago. 49 5.0 References Bainbridge, E. L., and W. L Strong. 2005. Pinus contorta understory vegetation dynamics following clearcutting in west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 213:133–150. Barashkova, E. 1968. Some data on the rate of transportation of l* C-containing substances in the thailorne of Cladonia rangiferina (L.) Web. Bot. Zurn.(Moscow) 53:378. Castleden, H., V. S. Morgan, and C. Lamb. 2012. “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community‐based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien 56:160–179. Collier, K. J. 2017. Measuring river restoration success: Are we missing the boat? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 27:572–577. Coupal, B., and P. Bentham. 2014. If You Build It, Will They Come? Caribou Habitat Restoration for Pipeline Projects. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. Coxson, D. S., and J. Marsh. 2001. Lichen chronosequences (postfire and postharvest) in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests of northern interior British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany 79:1449–1464. DeMars, C. A., and S. Boutin. 2018. Nowhere to hide: effects of linear features on predator–prey dynamics in a large mammal system. Journal of Animal Ecology 87:274–284. Denryter, K. A., R. C. Cook, J. G. Cook, and K. L. Parker. 2017. Straight from the caribou’s (Rangifer tarandus) mouth: detailed observations of tame caribou reveal new insights into summer–autumn diets. Canadian Journal of Zoology 95:81–94. 50 Denryter, K., R. C. Cook, J. G. Cook, K. L. Parker, and M. P. Gillingham. 2020. State-dependent foraging by caribou with different nutritional requirements. Journal of mammalogy 101:544–557. Ellis, C. J. 2019. Climate Change, Bioclimatic Models and the Risk to Lichen Diversity. Diversity 11:54. Environment Canada. 2005. Species at Risk Act:... - Google Scholar. (n.d.). . https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=++Environment+Canada.+2005.+Species+at+Risk+Act%3A+report+to+parliament%2C+June+2003+to+December+2004.+Environment+Canada%2C+++Ottawa%2C+Ontario++.+Available+from++++++http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sararegistry.gc.ca%2Fvirtual_sara%2Ffiles%2Freports%2Far%255FSARA%255FAnnualReport%255F0304%255Fe%252Ep&btnG=. Ford, A. T. 2021. Operationalizing process‐based restoration for terrestrial communities. Restoration Ecology 29:e13457. Gaio-Oliveira, G., J. Moen, Ö. Danell, and K. Palmqvist. 2006. Effect of simulated reindeer grazing on the re-growth capacity of mat-forming lichens. Basic and Applied Ecology 7:109–121. Garnett, S. T., N. D. Burgess, J. E. Fa, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Z. Molnár, C. J. Robinson, J. E. M. Watson, K. K. Zander, B. Austin, E. S. Brondizio, N. F. Collier, T. Duncan, E. Ellis, H. Geyle, M. V. Jackson, H. Jonas, P. Malmer, B. McGowan, A. Sivongxay, and I. Leiper. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability 1:369–374. 51 Growth of reindeer lichens and effects of reindeer grazing on ground cover vegetation in a Scots pine forest and a subarctic heathland in Finnish Lapland. (n.d.). . https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03211.x. Guillet, C., and R. Bergström. 2006. Compensatory growth of fast-growing willow (Salix) coppice in response to simulated large herbivore browsing. Oikos 113:33–42. Heard, D. C., and K. L. Zimmerman. 2021. Fall supplemental feeding increases population growth rate of an endangered caribou herd. PeerJ 9:e10708. Hoban, S., M. Bruford, J. D. Jackson, M. Lopes-Fernandes, M. Heuertz, P. A. Hohenlohe, I. Paz-Vinas, P. Sjögren-Gulve, G. Segelbacher, and C. Vernesi. 2020. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biological Conservation 248:108654. Imminent Threat Assessment for Southern Mountain Caribou. (n.d.). . Johansson, P., and P. B. Reich. 2005. Population size and fire intensity determine post‐fire abundance in grassland lichens. Applied vegetation science 8:193–198. Johnson, C. J., K. L. Parker, and D. C. Heard. 2001. Foraging across a variable landscape: behavioral decisions made by woodland caribou at multiple spatial scales. Oecologia 127:590–602. Kimmerer, R. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed editions. Lamb, C. T., R. Willson, C. Richter, N. Owens‐Beek, J. Napoleon, B. Muir, R. S. McNay, E. Lavis, M. Hebblewhite, and L. Giguere. 2022. Indigenous‐led conservation: Pathways to recovery for the nearly extirpated Klinse‐Za mountain caribou. Ecological Applications:e2581. 52 Lance, A. N., and W. G. Eastland. 2000. A guide to evaluating forest stands as terrestrial lichen forage habitat for caribou. Prince George, BC. Marcot, B. G., J. D. Steventon, G. D. Sutherland, and R. K. McCann. 2006. Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:3063–3074. McCleary, B. V. 1988. Lichenase from Bacillus subtilis. Pages 572–575 Methods in Enzymology. Elsevier. McMullin, R. T., and S. Rapai. 2020. A review of reindeer lichen (Cladonia subgenus Cladina) linear growth rates. Rangifer 40:15–26. McMullin, R. T., I. D. Thompson, B. W. Lacey, and S. G. Newmaster. 2011. Estimating the biomass of woodland caribou forage lichens. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41:1961–1969. McNay, R., D. Cichowski, and B. Muir. 2013. Action plan for the Klinse-Za Herd of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada [draft]. Species at Risk Act. McNay, R. S., C. T. Lamb, L. Giguere, S. H. Williams, H. Martin, G. D. Sutherland, and M. Hebblewhite. 2022. Demographic responses of nearly extirpated endangered mountain caribou to recovery actions in central British Columbia. Ecological Applications:e2580. McNay, R. S., B. G. Marcot, V. Brumovsky, and R. Ellis. 2006. A Bayesian approach to evaluating habitat for woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:3117–3133. Moola, F., and R. Roth. 2019. Moving beyond colonial conservation models: Indigenous protected and conserved areas offer hope for biodiversity and advancing reconciliation in the Canadian boreal forest1. Environmental Reviews 27:200–201. 53 [PDF] Does grazing influence growth of the reindeer lichen Cladina mitis | Semantic Scholar. (n.d.). . https://www.semanticscholar.org/reader/56ddd0ceb88ad4d8f249a036dde30baf85774a6b. Plants of northern British Columbia. 1992. . Edmonton : Lone Pine Publishing. Priadka, P., B. Moses, C. Kozmik, S. Kell, and J. Popp. 2022. Impacts of harvested species declines on Indigenous Peoples’ food sovereignty, well-being and ways of life: a case study of Anishinaabe perspectives and moose. Ecology and Society 27. Rapai, S. B., D. McColl, B. Collis, T. Henry, and D. Coxson. 2023. Terrestrial lichen caribou forage transplant success: year 5 and 6 results. Restoration Ecology 31:e13867. Ray, J. C., D. B. Cichowski, M.-H. St-Laurent, C. J. Johnson, S. D. Petersen, and I. D. Thompson. 2015. Conservation status of caribou in the western mountains of Canada: Protections under the species at risk act, 2002-2014. Rangifer:49–80. Rieman, B. E., C. L. Smith, R. J. Naiman, G. T. Ruggerone, C. C. Wood, N. Huntly, E. N. Merrill, J. R. Alldredge, P. A. Bisson, and J. Congleton. 2015. A comprehensive approach for habitat restoration in the Columbia Basin. Fisheries 40:124–135. Schneider, R. R., G. Hauer, and S. Boutin. 2010. Triage for conserving populations of threatened species: the case of woodland caribou in Alberta. Biological Conservation 143:1603–1611. Schuster, R., R. R. Germain, J. R. Bennett, N. J. Reo, and P. Arcese. 2019. Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environmental Science & Policy 101:1–6. Serrouya, R., M. Dickie, C. Lamb, H. van Oort, A. P. Kelly, C. DeMars, P. D. McLoughlin, N. C. Larter, D. Hervieux, and A. T. Ford. 2021. Trophic consequences of terrestrial 54 eutrophication for a threatened ungulate. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 288:20202811. Serrouya, R., D. R. Seip, D. Hervieux, B. N. McLellan, R. S. McNay, R. Steenweg, D. C. Heard, M. Hebblewhite, M. Gillingham, and S. Boutin. 2019. Saving endangered species using adaptive management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116:6181–6186. Sulyma, R. 2001. Towards an understanding of the management of pine-lichen woodlands in the Omineca Region of British Columbia. Sulyma, R., and D. S. Coxson. 2001. Microsite displacement of terrestrial lichens by feather moss mats in late seral pine-lichen woodlands of north-central British Columbia. The Bryologist 104:505–516. Supplemental Feeding: Examining Its Place in the Wildlife Conservation Toolbox | BioScience | Oxford Academic. (n.d.). . https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/73/2/77/7070517. United-Nations-Declaration-on-the-Rights-of-Indigenous-Peoples.pdf. (n.d.). . Wittmer, H. U., A. R. Sinclair, and B. N. McLellan. 2005. The role of predation in the decline and extirpation of woodland caribou. Oecologia 144:257–267. WMFN (West Moberly First Nations). 2009. “I Want to Eat Caribou Before I Die.” Unpublished report, West Moberly First Nations Land Use Department, Moberly Lake, BC. WMFN. 2014. Population and Distribution Objectives and Identification of Critical Habitat for Seven Herds of Woodland Caribou in the South Peace Area of British Columbia. Wildlife Infometrics. Mackenzie B.C. Woods, A.D. & McNay, R.S. (2019) Klinse-Za/Scott East Caribou Habitat Restoration 2018- 2019 Annual Report. Nîkanêse Wah tzee Stewardship Society.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Biology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Ford, Adam
Mapping winter food security for the Klinse-Za caribou herd
Text