Traditional nature management as a way to prevent the loss of wildlife species in a changing environment

. Wildlife species of tundra and sub-arctic boreal regions are facing an immediate threat to its existence owning to environmental changes. This paper highlights how traditional nature management in northwestern Russia and northeastern Canada is able to reduce threats to the environment, focusing on vulnerability of biodiversity to changing climatic conditions. The goal of this study is to identify key areas of wildlife species loss during a changing climate by exploring the ability of traditional nature management to support environmentally sustainable habitats for the existence of the most typical biomes of tundra and sub-arctic boreal landscapes. The differentiating biodiversity method was used to determinate presence of rare species as a criterion of non-disturbed areas. This research is based on statistical data on biodiversity dynamics, meteorological data, reports on environmental conditions, cartographic materials, satellite images collected from open sources, and fieldworks. The author indicates non-disturbed sites in terms of biological resources protection in the studied regions. Obtained results confirm that on territories where traditional nature management is carried out, the reduction of biodiversity is much lower than on areas located in equal environmental conditions.


Introduction
Ecosystems of northwestern Russia and northeastern Canada are the natural biosphere reserves supporting ecological functions and links between native peoples and the environment from global to local levels [1].In these areas, including Nunavut and Nenets Autonomous Okrug (NAO), tundra and sub-arctic boreal landscapes are mostly preserved in their original form.They are a source of unique animals and plants providing harvesting, fishery, and hunting for Indigenous.The local inhabitants' traditional knowledge allows native peoples to survive in severe climatic conditions supporting ecosystems in sustainable state and preventing the loss of wildlife species even while hunting [2].
Majority of scientists claim, the loss of wildlife species is a result of climate change affecting natural ecosystems [3][4][5][6][7][8][9].Over the last 50 years, climate warming has caused transformation of tundra and sub-arctic boreal landscapes, biodiversity dynamics, and wildlife habitats fragmentation [4,5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].It also reduces the abilities of Arctic mammals to survive.The most significant threat to wildlife species' survival is habitat loss.According to estimations, the number of Arctic organisms has declined by 20% since 1900 [6].The Arctic hare, the Atlantic walrus, polar bear, the Arctic fox, the snow-white ivory gull, sea duck, the Atlantic cod, beluga whale, narwhal, and ice-living seal are at risk of extinction.The population of polar bears in the Russian Arctic is not exceed 5 thousand individuals and tends to decline [4].As it does, shifts in animal population are happening due to changing climatic values affecting land cover and the sea ice [2,5,8].
As it was mentioned above, unpredictable climate changes produce harmful effects on the natural environment.In the context of biodiversity loss, the scientists are looking for ways to prevent it.In this article, the author proposes a mean of biodiversity protection through traditional nature management (TNM) basing on analysis of local inhabitants' traditional knowledge (LITK) on resource use.The distinct characteristics of TNM have been studied on the example of Igloolik and Arctic Bay settlements (Canada) and local settlements: Varnek, Bugrino, Indiga, Nelmin Nos, Red village, and Nes village (NAO, Russia) basing on information on biodiversity dynamics and reports on current climatic and ecosystem risks to wildlife [2,[16][17][18].In 2023, the number of Nenets carried out traditional way of life reached 8,200 people [16]; in Nunavut the total population of Inuit is 40,673; in the coastal community Igloolik -over 1,540, in North Bay -about 840 people [19].Environment for these peoples is a source of their life and culture origin [1][2].
The goal of the research is to identify key areas of wildlife species loss during a changing climate in Varnek, Bugrino, Indiga, Nelmin Nos, Red village, and Nes village in NAO (Russia) and in Igloolik and Arctic Bay settlements (Canada), as well as to explore the ability of TNM to support sustainable condition of the environment for the existence of the most typical biomes of tundra and sub-arctic boreal landscapes.The major scientific and practical problem of the research is how to prevent ongoing loss of biodiversity in severe climatic conditions of the Arctic.Results of this study can contribute to the creation of a sustainable basis for biodiversity loss prevention in a rapidly changing environment.

Materials and methods of the study
Methodology of the research is grounded on a comprehensive analysis of major environmental risks to wildlife species [1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11-15] by revealing caused-and-effect relationships occurring between the dynamics of wildlife species population and the changes of the climatic values by taking into account the ability of TNM to support sustainable condition of the environment.These relationships and ways for detecting them are shown in the flowchart below (Figure 1).
The interactions between climate change, TNM, and biodiversity are complex and flexible due to unpredictability of climatic conditions, biodiversity response to such changes, and a local specific of traditional nature management.A special place is given to biodiversity as a crucial component of native people's survival in the severe environment.Sustainability of the environment means sustainable biodiversity at the level of wildlife species.Presence of rare species population can be considered as a main criterion for indication of areas where biodiversity is sustainable and is not under threat [20].According to this, variety of rare species can exist in landscapes meeting the conditions of nondisturbed natural areas or the most virgin sites.Systematization of biodiversity condition can be shown as a matrix including destabilizing factors of the environment leading to habitats fragmentation, shifts of seasonal migration ways, and extending the paths for new wildlife species invasion.Data from NOAA, National Science Foundation, GLAD, Google Earth, USGS, ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World, and from scientific papers were used to analyze the distribution of rare species, the biological status of productive animal communities on these areas, as well as land cover fragmentation and ice cover changes [2, 4, 5-7, 9, 11-15].The meteorological data were collected at the Institute of geography RAS [21, 22], Federal service Roshydromet, Ministry of Nature of Russian Federation, and were derived from IPPC report [16,17].All data were correlated to the bases of meteorological data for the Polar Regions [18].

Results of the study
During the analysis of caused-and-effect relationships occurring between the dynamics of wildlife species population and the climatic values сhanging in Nunavut and NAO the author defined the most non-disturbed natural areas and virgin landscapes.These territories occupy representative habitats for the existence of the most typical biomes of tundra and sub-arctic boreal lands.Also, the presence of rare species on such lands is viewed that testifies to stability of biodiversity (Figure 2).
Ecological diversity of rare species is higher on non-disturbed and virgin lands, Protected Areas (PA) and National Parks (NP), and on the lands of TNM, as the LITK system is applied there.Territories with a low level of biodiversity correspond with agricultural lands.Condition of biotic communities is non-sustainable here.Increasing of anthropogenic pressure leads to biodiversity loss up 40-60%.Sites with a moderate level are located on forest lands and places of limited economic activity (biodiversity loss is less than 20%, changes of biodiversity are reversible).
It is important to consider that global warming results in biotopes redistribution, fragmentation of the previously continuous areas of wildlife species habitats, and predators' occupation (for example, polar wolf and the Artic fox) threating the existence of rare species.Relocation of brown bear (Ursus arctos) shifts by 200-300 km.Migration paths of the Arctic fox and polar bear (Ursus maritimus) are also shifting [4].
In turn, loss of LITK results in the expansion of territories where natural resources are used uncontrollably and nature management is carried out by non-environmentally friendly methods.These areas are under technogenic pressure [8,10].For example, after the railways construction, the number of caribou population decreased by 20-45% in studied regions and the animals don't come closer than 4 km from the roads [8].Over the past decades, zonal landscapes have changed due to a rapid climate warming [23].According to ice and snow databases, as well as IPCC data the climate over the explored areas is likely to warm up faster than the global average (from 1980 to 2015 the global temperature rose by 0.85°C, in the Northern Hemisphere growth reached 1.5°C) [17,18,24,25].Climatic changes affect biota through a change of the ecosystem's productivity and habitat transformation [26].Due to annual average temperature rising, growth of primary products of ecosystem increased from 0.13% to 1.02% per year during 1982-2014 in NAO [27].Fields of productive communities such as cereals, sedge, and willow trees are expanding [4].The productivity of ecosystems affects the dynamics of tundra and subarctic boreal biomes.It is noted that since the 1990s, regular surges of lemming dynamics have not been viewed.However, areal of lemming habitat is extending and areal of the Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) is also shifting right after this and towards extending of areas with high productivity of ecosystems.
In the Barents Sea (Russia) and Fox Basin (Canada) changes of the sea surface temperature are correlated with distribution and concentration of the sea ice [17].In 2015 the area of the sea ice over these aquatic spaces decreased compared with values of the 1980s and reached 4.5 million km 2 .In 2000-2019 reduction of the sea ice reached 17% [21].As a result, the population of ivory gulls (Pagophila eburnea) declined from 2,400 in 1987 to 700 in 2003 [6].The sea ice had moved to the north and walruses (O.r. rosmarus) left their habitats [28].The population of ringed seals (Pusa hispida) declined in the 1990s and rose in the 2000s (juveniles comprised 27% and 41% of the harvests in the 1990s and 2000s, respectively) [12].The density of ringed seals ranged from 1.22 seals per km 2 in 1995 to 0.20 per km 2 in 2013 over the studied areas [13].Along the eastside of Baffin Island, the population of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) decreased by 30% and did not exceed 10 thousand in 2004 [14].In order to achieve places of traditional marine resources and to avoid making noise disturbing wildlife species, Indigenous use traditional wooden boats and kayaks, but it's becoming a huge problem in a changing climate due to unpredictability of wind direction and drifting ice.
Since 2000s a melting period of break-up rivers ice has started earlier.In 2016 the spring high water on the Pechora River (Barents region) came in the first decade of May.It was faster for 6 days than it usually occurs.In autumn 2015 ice was formed for 6-13 days later than in 2014.The same features were observed on the Thelon River [2,17].Owning to these phenomena fish population moves to much farther north than usual as a response to warming waters.Indigenous practice fishery depending on the seasons and abundance of species.Native peoples have skills on fishery in a changing climate.They adapt the practice on fishery to new conditions, including a new time of break rivers ice.Also, they control catches.
In the winter period fragility of snow leads to fragmentation of caribou and reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) habitats and decreasing of habitats for Muskox (Ovibos moschatus) [15].Declining of caribou population reached 98% in the Canadian Arctic (from 6,048 to 100 during 1980-1995) [11,15].The number of wolverines (Gulo gulo) has reduced from 2 to 1.9 thousand [4].Statistical data for 1984-2015 on NAO and Nunavut show reduction of snow cover thickness by 0.3 cm per year [17,18].Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that land cover is disturbed.Indigenous move by sleigh saving land cover.However, on places where snowmobiles are used, 40% of lands are disturbed and the thawing rate is 2% higher than on non-disturbed sites [10].
Analysis of meteorological data for the period 1973-2022 in NAO and Nunavut has shown an increase in the duration of thaw (from 12 to 22 days) and rainfall amount (from 60 to 120 mm) [17,18].Growth of seasonally thawed layers (1-4 cm per 10 years and 24-26 cm for the period 1999-2015) and prolonged thaws restrict distribution of sphagnum bogs -ecological sites where wild berries grow.Soil acidity is also changed (pH falls under 3.5-4.5)limiting distribution of areas for cloudberry, blueberry, and cranberry growing.In thawing areas, the condition of reindeer pastures is low [15].The cover of lichens decreased by 40% from 2010-2022.In this situation, Indigenous practice on rational use of pastures could prevent further degradation through reducing of reindeer-moving routes, optimum pastures allocation, and creation of passageways for reindeer migration.

Conclusions
The current environmental situation in these two Arctic examples is a demonstration of what can happen in other regions in the future due to climate change.The changing environment is a driving force making shifts in the location of wildlife species existening in typical biomes of tundra and sub-arctic boreal landscapes.The most significant threats are related to: global temperature growth and annual average temperature growth, decreasing of the sea ice area, reduction of ice thickness, changes of rivers regime, growth of seasonally thawed layers, increasing of rainfall amount, and instability of permafrost.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the conducted research:  Indigenous are adapted to live in a severe climate.TNM allows them to save ecological balance and biodiversity.These involve: movement by sleigh in order to minimize pressure on land cover; use of traditional noiseless kayaks and wooden boats that don't disturb wildlife; construction of wooden paths in order to reduce the vegetation fragmentation and save seasonal migrations ways of wildlife animals; careful care for reindeer breeding; hunting, fishery, and harvesting depending on the season, locations, and availability of species. As a rule, ecological diversity of wildlife species is higher on lands of TNM, nondisturbed and virgin lands, PA, and NP.The essential biome changes are observed in ecologically unsustainable landscapes where vulnerability to rare species is high: on agricultural lands, areas of the sea ice reduction, places with fragile snow, and areas where thaws occur.Fragmentation of habitats on such sites can lead to wildlife species extinction. The expansion of rare species habitats is following by the increasing of areas of annual biome productivity.However, the expansion of highly productive communities leads to the movement of predators to these lands, which threatens the existence of many species. In order to avoid loss of tundra and sub-arctic boreal biota it is necessary to expand the network of PA and NP by 20-30% in each studied region, as well as to involve Indigenous in land management processes.
It should be emphasized that cooperations between TNM, policymakers and all stakeholders contribute to the prevention of biodiversity loss and to the creation of an agreed roadmap on wildlife species conservation in a changing climate.In turn, conservation of biodiversity depends directly on the environment and quality of life of local people.TNM will foster biodiversity conservation through Indigenous land-based skills that have to be integrated into national programs on wildlife protection.A comprehensive analysis of key risks to biomes of tundra and sub-arctic boreal landscapes caused by a changing environment shows the necessity of further researches.Further study is required to fully understand the nature of ongoing changes in the context of biodiversity variability in the Arctic.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.Flowchart of a comprehensive assessment of the major environmental risks to wildlife species in a changing environment by exploring the ability of local inhabitants' traditional knowledge on resource use to support sustainable condition of the environment.Created by the author.

Fig. 2 .
Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of the most non-disturbed natural areas and virgin landscapes in NAO and the central part of Nunavut.Crated by the author.Land cover data were derived from GLAD (https://glad.umd.edu/dataset).