ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Practices for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Western Sciences for Research and Monitoring of Biodiversity in Canada.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Practices for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Western Sciences for Research and Monitoring of Biodiversity in Canada.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been a widespread effort to braid multiple knowledge systems in biodiversity research and monitoring, yet there is further need to consider how to do so. We interviewed Indigenous Peoples and representatives of 12 Indigenous communities, completed a systematic review of biodiversity studies that utilized Indigenous knowledges (IK) and Western sciences (WS) in Canada, and then braided the outcomes of the conversations and literature review to address if, when, and how IK and WS can be brought together for biodiversity research and monitoring in Canada. Overall, there was a great deal of support for, and desire to, braid IK and WS among interview participants. A suite of nine pillars and priorities was identified for doing so from participants' responses. These priorities included: (1) build and foster relationships; (2) IK should guide projects; (3) Indigenous communities should lead projects; (4) IK must be respected equally with WS; (5) embrace reciprocity (focus on people) and (6) embrace responsibility (focus on land) to the land and one another; (7) ensure equal gender and age representation; (8) intergenerational knowledge transfer is important; and (9) language revitalization is critical. The extent to which the pillars and priorities for braiding were reflected in the current literature varied, and we identified indicators that may help project leads choose what to prioritize in design to fulfill the pillars. These indicators included engagement, relevance, governance, and accessibility. The stages of projects at which IK and WS were brought together (i.e., design, data collection, analysis, reporting, and decision-making), the roles for each IK and WS at various project stages, and the methods for IK collation and WS data collection varied extensively across the literature. This work deepens our understanding of the practices of knowledge braiding in biodiversity research and monitoring in Canada and offers a toolkit for doing so.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.