Diversification within reduced fisheries portfolios

signals opportunities for adaptation among a coastal

Indigenous community

by

Sachiko Ouchi

B.Sc., University of British Columbia, 2016

Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Resource Management

in the

School of Resource and Environmental Management

Faculty of Environment

Report No: 734

© Sachiko Ouchi 2019

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Summer 2019

Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation.

ii

Approval

Name: Sachiko Ouchi

Degree: Master of Resource Management

Report No: 734

Title: Diversification within reduced fisheries portfolios signals opportunities for adaptation among a coastal Indigenous community

Examining Committee: Chair: Heather Earle Master of Resource Management Candidate

Anne Salomon Senior Supervisor Associate Professor

Colette Wabnitz Supervisor Research Associate Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries University of British Columbia

Christopher Golden Supervisor Assistant Professor Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health

Date Defended/Approved: August 19, 2019

iii

Ethics Statement

iv

Abstract

Understanding social-ecological mechanisms that promote or erode resilience to

potential disturbances can inform future adaptation strategies. Such mechanisms can be

illuminated among seafood dependent communities by documenting change in fisheries

portfolios, the assemblage of seafoods caught and/or consumed by a population of

fishers. Here, we collected expert knowledge to assess changes in an Indigenous

community’s fisheries portfolios and key drivers of change using semi-directed

interviews, a quantitative survey, and network analysis. We focused on fisheries caught

and consumed for food, social and ceremonial purposes. We found that while fisheries

portfolios decreased in their diversity of seafood types, they also became increasingly

connected, revealing that harvesters are diversifying their catch and the community is

eating a greater number of seafood types within increasingly depauperate portfolios.

These changes were driven by four key social-ecological mechanisms; 1) industrial

commercial activities under a centralized governance regime, 2) intergenerational

knowledge loss, 3) adaptive learning to new ecological and economic opportunities, and

4) trade in seafood with other Indigenous communities. Our results reveal that resilience

principles of diversity and connectivity can operate simultaneously in opposing

directions. Documenting changes in fisheries portfolios and local perceptions of key

social-ecological drivers can inform locally relevant adaptation strategies to bolster future

resilience.

Keywords: resilience; social-ecological systems; diversification; connectivity;

Indigenous food fisheries; expert knowledge

v

Acknowledgements

I would like to express gratitude for living, learning, and playing on the unceded

traditional territories of the sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), sel̓íl̓witulh (Tsleil Waututh), Stó:lō

(Sto:lo), and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) Nations as an uninvited guest during my

graduate studies at Simon Fraser University. I would also like to acknowledge that I grew

up on the unceded territory of the Syilx (Okanagan) Peoples, to which I still call home.

My work is in collaboration with the ɬaʔəmɛn (Tla’amin) Nation and based within ɬaʔəmɛn

knowledge, to whom I would like to express my deepest gratitude for generously

teaching and sharing with me. As a settler I am privileged to access these bodies of

knowledge and I am humbled to work in these landscapes and seascapes.

Like a 1000-piece puzzle, this project was a labor of love. It would not have been

possible without the creative ideas, persistent hard work, and unwavering support of

many people fitting their piece into the larger picture.

First, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my ɬaʔəmɛn collaborators

and co-creators of this project, Lori Wilson and Roy Francis. Your time, guidance and

ideas were integral components to our team that ultimately allowed us to produce this

project together. Thank you to all ɬaʔəmɛn knowledge holders who sat down to share

your stories with me and for trusting me with your knowledge. No amount of thank-you’s

could express the deep gratitude I have towards the broader ɬaʔəmɛn community,

especially Lee, Leonard, Scott, Alex and Jolene, Gerry, Drew, Luaifoas and the Howies.

Feeling welcomed, curious, and inspired are some of the many gifts you have given me

during my time spent in your home. Emote!

I would like to thank my supervisors and collaborators for guiding and supporting

me through thick and thin. Anne, your honest and insightful feedback, coupled with your

contagious warmth, encouraged and challenged me to think in a transformative manner.

I am deeply thankful for your mentorship and for the privileged learning experience.

Colette, your guidance, support, and wisdom gave me the motivation to step outside my

comfort zone for which I am forever grateful. Chris, thank you for sharing your “brain

child” and pushing me to think about links between the ocean and health. Anne

Beaudreau, I am grateful for the conversation that spurred a new avenue of methods

design and for your continued support.

vi

The project’s design and methods benefitted from the insights of so many:

Patricia Angkiriwang, Tiff-Annie Kenny, William Cheung, Laurie Chan, Evelyn Pinkerton,

Luke Rogers, Jenn Burt, Hannah Kobluk, Erin Slade, Skye Augustine, and all current,

incoming and outgoing members in the CMEC lab. I am also indebted to the REM staff

who have facilitated the behind-the-scenes workings to help us succeed in our

endeavours.

I am grateful for financial support from the School of Resource and

Environmental Management, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, SFU Community

Engagement, Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Natural Sciences and

Engineering Research Council.

Finally, I would like to send a thousand thank you’s to the amazing network of

family and friends that shaped and provided joy in my life. The love and support I feel to

chase down my passions are true blessings.

vii

Table of Contents

Approval ............................................................................................................................... ii Ethics Statement ................................................................................................................. iii Abstract ............................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vii List of Figures.................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... viii

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Methods ............................................................................................................................. 5 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 5 Semi-Directed Interviews .................................................................................................... 5 Statistical Analyses ............................................................................................................. 7 Methodological advances, limitations and assumptions .................................................... 9

Results ............................................................................................................................. 11 Portfolios ........................................................................................................................... 11 Drivers of change .............................................................................................................. 12 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................ 13

Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 14 Portfolio shifts.................................................................................................................... 14 Recommendations for adaptation opportunities in a Tla’amin Nation context ................ 21 Advancing Resilience Theory ........................................................................................... 22

Figures ............................................................................................................................. 23

Tables ............................................................................................................................... 30

References ....................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix........................................................................................................................... 42

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. ɬaʔəmɛn harvest portfolios for pre and post 1980. Entire harvest portfolios (A,B) and core harvest portfolios (C,D) are shown. Cores were determined by being nodes with greater than or equal to the mean number of links in the network. Pre 1980 is comprised of 31 seafood types and represents 14 harvesters, whereas post 1980 is comprised of 28 seafood types and represents 17 harvesters. Node size represents the mean relative abundance, links between nodes represent at least one respondent reported harvesting both seafood types, and the layout of the network is represented with the Fruchterman-Reingold Algorithm* ........ 25

Figure 2. ɬaʔəmɛn consumption portfolios for pre and post 1980. Entire consumption portfolios (A,B) and core consumption portfolios (C,D) are shown. Cores were determined by being nodes with greater than or equal to the mean number of links in the network. Pre 1980 is comprised of 35 seafood types and represents 14 respondents, whereas post 1980 is comprised of 32 seafood types and represents 21 respondents. Node size represents the mean relative abundance, links between nodes represent at least one respondent reported consuming both seafood types, and the layout of the network is represented with the Fruchterman-Reingold Algorithm* .................................................................................. 27

Figure 3. Changes in portfolio composition (i.e. standardized degree centrality) and diversity (i.e. species richness) of harvest and consumption portfolios over time. Degree standardized degree centrality has significantly increased over time (A) while species richness decreases although the results are not significant (B). ****p<0.0001, *p<0.05 .............................. 28

Figure 4. Mean ranked perceived importance of each pre-identified factor for driving changes in food fish harvest and consumption over the last several decades. There is no significant difference in perceived importance of factors driving changes between harvest and consumption.................................................................................................................... 29

List of Tables

Table 1. Respondents' qualitative reasons for changes in the harvest and consumption of traditional seafoods, derived from an inductive analysis of themes. ..................................................................................................... 30

1

Introduction

Fisheries are quintessential social-ecological systems (SES) providing food and

nutritional security, livelihoods and cultural well-being for 3 billion people globally (FAO,

2016). However, projections of climate-induced fisheries declines (Barange et al., 2014;

Cheung, Watson, & Pauly, 2013; Lotze et al., 2019) suggest that eleven percent of the

earth’s population will become vulnerable to poor nutrition due to their reduced ability to

access marine foods (Golden et al., 2016). Repercussions of these declines are

predicted to intensify in coastal areas, where fish compose upwards of 70% of protein

consumed (FAO, 2016). Furthermore, multiple drivers of change, acting across a

diversity of spatial and temporal scales, are contributing to declining seafood catches to

which communities and ecosystems must adapt. These include, but are not limited to,

overexploitation (Costello et al., 2016), pollution (Fleming, Maycock, White, & Depledge,

2019), governance barriers (Plagányi et al., 2013), intergenerational knowledge loss

(Turner, Gregory, Brooks, Failing, & Satterfield, 2008), and cultural shifts (Tam, Chan,

Satter, Singh, & Gelcich, 2018). Adaptation in the face of multiple disturbances is a key

mechanism driving social-ecological resilience (Folke, Carpenter, Walker, Scheffer, &

Chapin, 2010), an emergent system property supported by attributes such as diversity,

knowledge integration, understanding of long-term change and polycentric governance

(Biggs et al., 2012). Here, by weaving traditional and western knowledge, we

investigated changes in the diversity and composition of a coastal Indigenous

community’s food fisheries over time and factors driving changes to inform future

adaptations that support SES resilience in light of current challenges and future

opportunities.

Emerging theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that ecological and/or

social diversity is a key property that confers system resilience by providing options by

which a system can respond to disturbances (Biggs et al., 2012). In aquatic systems,

diverse portfolios of populations (Schindler et al., 2010), species (Cline, Schindler, &

Hilborn, 2017), fisheries (Fuller, Samhouri, Stoll, Levin, & Watson, 2017) or livelihoods

(Cinner & Bodin, 2010) have been shown to be more resilient to multiple disturbances,

such as environmental, regulatory and economic pressures (Beaudreau et al., 2019),

than less diverse systems. Specifically, fisheries portfolios, are compositions of unique

2

species that are harvested by an individual or group using various fishing gears

(Beaudreau, Chan, & Loring, 2018). Adaptive responses can vary for different drivers of

change thus causing a disconnect between harvest portfolios and what is eaten by an

individual or group, or consumption portfolios. For example, increased market demand

for Pacific halibut might motivate fishers to sell their harvest and use that profit to buy

groceries from a store, which omits halibut from consumption.

Resilience can also be enhanced through the integration of knowledge systems

and learning (Biggs et al., 2012; Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer, & Spierenburg,

2014). Weaving multiple knowledge sources can contribute new evidence, provide

opportunities to learn from one another, and improve the capacity to interpret the

dynamics of SES (Tengö et al., 2014) and inform how communities might adapt. For

example, perspectives from multiple regions and sectors (Chan, Beaudreau, & Loring,

2018), and from local communities (Bennett, 2016) can provide a more complete picture

of environmental, social and cultural changes being experienced by people. Thus,

successful changes in conservation science rely on knowledge from impacted

communities (Bennett, 2016; Gelcich et al., 2014). Experimental, iterative, and reflective

learning are important for understanding uncertainties and complexities of SES, which is

essential for enabling an adaptation response of communities to changing conditions

(Biggs et al., 2012; Faulkner, Brown, & Quinn, 2018).

Understanding and managing long-term, slow-variables and feedbacks

underlying SES dynamics is a resilience principle linked closely to learning and

knowledge integration. Interpreting long-term drivers of change requires data or

knowledge sources that have an expansive time horizon. More often than not, western

science is limited in its temporal depth. However, knowledge from local people (e.g.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge or TEK) can enrich the picture by providing information

and knowledge passed down across generations (Huntington, 2000; Tengö et al., 2014).

These multiple sources of knowledge can be used to make sense of and respond to

feedbacks from the environment thus facilitating adaptive governance, which is rooted in

collaborative decision-making processes to adaptively negotiate and coordinate

management of SESs (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2000; Schultz, Folke, Österblom, &

Olsson, 2015).

3

On the Pacific coast of Canada, current fisheries governance regimes are limiting

Indigenous people’s access to fish (Harris, 2009; Jones, Rigg, & Pinkerton, 2017;

Pinkerton & Davis, 2015; von der Porten, Lepofsky, McGregor, & Silver, 2016), thereby

exacerbating predicted climate-induced shortages in traditional seafoods’ catch potential

(Cheung, Brodeur, Okey, & Pauly, 2015; Weatherdon, Ota, Jones, Close, & Cheung,

2016). Given these interlinked, cross-scale, social-ecological drivers of change, a perfect

storm is brewing where communities most dependent on the marine environment for

food are also the most vulnerable to climate change and inequitable governance

regimes (Allison & Bassett, 2017; Golden et al., 2016). Therefore, there is a pressing

need to understand current and future barriers and opportunities to improve access to

traditional marine foods and design management strategies that are socially-just,

ecologically-sustainable and reflect community priorities and local knowledge (Salomon

et al., 2018).

Coastal Indigenous people in British Columbia (BC), Canada, self-referred to as

First Nations (FN), depend on marine resources for food, social and ceremonial (FSC),

as well as economic purposes (Jones, Shpert, & Sterritt, 2004). However, FN peoples in

BC are facing high rates of food insecurity, where up to 41% of households on reserve

have limited access to food/or cannot meet their nutritional needs (Chan et al., 2011).

Moreover, potential catches of both commercial and FSC marine seafoods along the

coast are projected to decrease by 4.5 to 10.7% with increased magnitude of change

expected at lower latitudes (Weatherdon et al., 2016). Thus, future food insecurity is

predicted to be exacerbated. In addition, new generations of coastal FN are transitioning

away from traditional foods due to limited access of traditional marine resources (Chan

et al., 2011) and generational changes in food preference (Kuhnlein & Receveur, 1996).

Developing strategies to adapt to climate change and to contest inequitable governance

regimes is crucial for coastal FN to continue to have sustainable fisheries and healthy

human communities in the future.

Here, in collaboration with the ɬaʔəmɛn (Tla’amin) Nation, we collected

knowledge from traditional food fisheries knowledge experts to document change in the

composition, diversity and relative abundance of fisheries harvested and consumed over

the last eighty years, and identify key drivers of these changes. We hypothesized

multiple non mutually exclusive mechanisms may be contributing to two portfolio

outcomes over time. First, traditional food fisheries portfolios could diversify over time

4

and become more connected due to 1) serial depletion of culturally preferred species

(Salomon, Tanape, & Huntington, 2007) resulting in a shift to multiple new target species

(Roughgarden, 1972; Schoener, 1971), 2) a change in target species preferences

(Beaudreau, Chan, & Loring, 2018), and/or 3) advances in fishing technology increasing

access to new target species. Alternatively, portfolios could have become less diverse

due to 1) license restrictions (Ojea, Pearlman, Gaines, & Lester, 2017), 2) reduced

fisheries abundance due to environmental factors such as climate change (Weatherdon

et al., 2016), and/or 3) increasingly prohibitive economic costs of fishing (Pinkerton &

Edwards, 2009). Lastly, we hypothesized that these multiple mechanisms may be

operating concurrently influencing the diversity and connectivity of harvest and

consumption portfolios in opposing directions.

5

Methods

Study Area

We conducted this research in collaboration with the Tla’amin Nation (formerly

Sliammon First Nation) on the southwest coast of British Columbia (BC), Canada (Figure

A1). ɬaʔəmɛn (Tla’amin) people have occupied their traditional territory on the northern

Salish Sea for at least the last millennium (Lepofsky et al., 2015; Springer & Lepofsky,

2019). Archaeological evidence suggests ɬaʔəmɛn people relied on and actively

managed a diversity of marine resources throughout this time period (Caldwell et al.,

2012). Since colonization in the late 1700’s, profound socio-economic, ecological and

cultural drivers of change have transformed ɬaʔəmɛn way of life (Paul, Raibmon, &

Johnson, 2014). These include mandatory beach closures due to contamination (Fediuk

& Thom, 2003), marine resource shifts in the Salish Sea due to industrialized fishing

(Pauly, Pitcher, & Preikshot, 1998), and the imposition of residential school (L. Barnes,

2008; Paul et al., 2014). In 2016, the Tla’amin Nation ratified a treaty with the

Government of Canada and BC specifying Tla’amin Nation’s rights and benefits

respecting land, marine and terrestrial resources, and self government (Tla’amin Final

Agreement, 2016). This is a unique governance context among FNs in BC in that most

of BC crown land is unceded, meaning that Aboriginal Title has neither been

surrendered nor acquired by the Government of Canada. Although ɬaʔəmɛn people have

experienced centuries of rapid changes, harvesting and eating marine foods continues

to be a central component of cultural and day-to-day practices for most members of the

community (Chan et al., 2011; Paul et al., 2014).

Semi-Directed Interviews

Respondent Selection. To assess changes in ɬaʔəmɛn food fisheries portfolios

through time, we conducted semi-directed interviews (Huntington, 1998) with ɬaʔəmɛn

traditional food fisheries knowledge experts (n=24) during June to August of 2018. Our

objective was to target expert knowledge holders rather than taking a representative

sample of community members. Consequently, community experts were identified and

selected based on their expertise of traditional food fisheries (Davis & Wagner, 2003;

Fazey, Fazey, Salisbury, Lindenmayer, & Dovers, 2006; Salomon et al., 2007) and deep

6

knowledge of the system, making them highly suited to detect changes in harvesting and

consuming traditional seafoods (Ban et al., 2017), and the factors driving this change

(Andrachuk & Armitage, 2015). Initial ɬaʔəmɛn traditional food fisheries experts were

identified by our Tla’amin Nation research partners with additional experts identified from

conversations with initially interviewed experts (Beaudreau et al., 2018; Olsson, Folke, &

Hughes, 2008). Depending on factors, such as ‘age’, ‘occupation’ and ‘preference not to

answer’, not all respondents were represented in each portfolio (Table A1). We

interviewed five female experts and 19 male experts. The age range of experts spanned

28-87 years old. In addition to variation in sample size of respondents, there is variation

in the number of seafood types reported in each portfolio (Table A1).

Traditional Food Fisheries Portfolio Survey Design. Portfolios are

composition of harvested (or consumed) seafoods by groups or species. Traditional food

fisheries were defined by the community, through Traditional Use Study documents

and/or our interviews, which included finfish and shellfish used for food, social and

ceremonial (FSC) purposes. We asked experts to rank the relative abundance of

traditional food fisheries, harvested and consumed, on an ordinal scale from 1 (low) to 7

(high), for the current decade (“current”, 2010-2018) and the earliest decade for which

the expert had memories of harvesting or consuming (“past”). Relative abundances were

ranked for different food fisheries groups (n=35), hereafter termed seafood types (Table

A2). Not all seafood types were ranked by all experts.

Drivers of Change Survey Design. We also asked experts to identify and rank

factors according to the perceived importance of driving change, from their “past” to

“current” decade, in traditional food fisheries harvest and consumption, separately. First,

qualitative responses were documented, as to minimize bias and elicit personal,

unfiltered responses (Gelcich et al., 2014). Second, experts ranked ten pre-identified

factors, on an ordinal scale from 1 (low) to 7 (high), that were identified by our Tla’amin

Nation partners and included factors driving changes in other areas of coastal BC

according to the literature (Table A3). During the interviews, we took detailed notes of

stories, anecdotes, observations and knowledge to triangulate and inform our inference

of the quantitative data generated by the survey and to provide a more complete

understanding of potential changes in traditional food fisheries (Jick, 1979). Prior to

these interviews, three pilot interviews with our Tla’amin Nation partners were conducted

7

to test and refine our questions to improve interpretation and consistency among

respondents.

Statistical Analyses

Portfolio Analysis

To assess how the composition, diversity and relative abundance of ɬaʔəmɛn

traditional food fisheries have changed through time we conducted a network analysis of

ɬaʔəmɛn food fisheries portfolio. First, respondents’ harvest and consumption portfolios

were aggregated into responses pre and post 1980 due to two punctuated events that

drove profound changes in regional fisheries: the North Pacific oceanic regime shift in

1977 (Anderson & Piatt, 1999; Hare & Mantua, 2000), and the collapse of Pacific herring

from t̓išosəm (Sliammon Village) in the early 1980’s (pers. comm. of many ɬaʔəmɛn

harvesters; Paul et al., 2014). Harvest and consumption portfolios were aggregated and

analyzed separately.

Second, we used network analysis, specifically the igraph package in R (Csárdi

& Nepusz, 2019) to calculate and depict how the composition of harvest and

consumption portfolios changed between pre and post 1980. Specifically, we calculated

degree centrality (see below for definition) as a metric of composition, species richness

as a metric of diversity, and ranked relative abundance of all seafood types (Beaudreau

et al., 2018). Portfolio nodes (spheres) in the network represent traditional seafood types

(e.g. clams, herring, sockeye, etc.). The next steps are outlined for harvest, but the same

procedures were followed to represent consumption portfolios. We relativized the ordinal

score for each seafood type provided by each respondent, by dividing this score by the

total relative abundance score for all seafood types by the respondent. Here, the size of

each portfolio node is proportional to the mean relativized score across all respondents.

Portfolio links (lines) connecting spheres represent at least one respondent having

reported harvesting both of the seafood types for a given time period. The thickness of

the lines represents the proportion of respondents that reported harvesting both seafood

types in the associated time period. Position of the nodes in space represents how

commonly a seafood type is reported among respondents. Seafood types aggregated in

the center of the portfolio are more commonly reported, whereas seafood types located

at the edges are less commonly reported. Finally, portfolios were visualized in two ways.

8

First, as the entire network including all seafood types reported by experts and second,

focusing on seafood types with greater than the mean number of links.

To quantify degree centrality we used standardized degree centrality, which is

the relativized number of links associated with one seafood type (Freeman, 1979).

Seafood types with higher standardized degree centrality are of more importance in the

portfolio because of their high connectivity to other seafood groups; thus they are more

commonly harvested or consumed. To test for an effect of time period on standardized

degree centrality of the entire portfolio (i.e. an aggregate number for each seafood type

among respondents) we applied a beta linear regression model, namely the betareg

(Cribari-Neto & Zeileis, 2010; Zeileis et al., 2019) package in R, which allowed us to use

proportions. Specifically, we used a beta distribution with a Maximum Likelihood

estimation and logit link. To accommodate the upper bounds of the beta distribution, we

transformed the standardized degree: y’ = [y (N – 1) + 0.5]/N, where N is the sample size

(Smithson & Verkuilen, 2006).

To test for an effect of time period on seafood type diversity between pre and

post 1980, we ran a linear mixed effects model with respondent as a random effect given

that each diversity value was associated with individual respondents. We used a

Poisson likelihood, log link function and the lme4 package in R (Bates et al., 2019).

Given this model fit, we used a Wald Chi2 test statistic with the car package in R (Fox et

al., 2019) to test for the effect of time period on diversity.

Finally, to test for an effect of time period on the mean relative abundance for each

seafood type we used a beta linear regression model (as described above) to account

for the fact that the relativized relative abundance scores are proportions of each

respondents’ total relative abundance score.

Drivers of Change Analysis

To test for a difference in the perceived relative importance of drivers of change

(i.e. different factors driving change) for traditional seafood harvest and consumption, we

constructed an ordinal logistic mixed-effects model with a cumulative link function that

accounted for the ranked nature of our data (Hedeker, 2008). Rankings between distinct

numbers on the ordinal scale were rounded up to the nearest distinct level (e.g. 5.5 to 6)

to minimize the number of distinct groups in our model. We treated respondent as a

9

random effect and used the ordinal package in R (Christensen, 2019). We identified the

minimum adequate model based on Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) using the

AICcmodavg package in R (Mazerolle, 2019). We used a likelihood ratio test to test for

significant differences in ranked importance of drivers of change using the car package

(Fox et al., 2019).

Second, to test for differences in the importance among drivers of change

between harvest and consumption, we constructed a second ordinal logistic mixed-

effects model in the same format as above. We used likelihood ratio tests for main

effects and interactions to evaluate the effect of harvesting versus consumption on

perceived importance of factors driving change using the car package (Fox et al., 2019).

A spider diagram was used to visualize these results. Finally, we analyzed experts'

qualitative reasons for shifts in harvest and consumption portfolios, previous to pre-

identified factors above, using inductive coding of themes (Creswell & Poth, 2017).

Sensitivity Analyses. To test the adequacy of the sample size of experts, we

calculated a species accumulation curve (Gotelli & Colwell, 2001) for harvest and

consumption portfolios. Since network analysis is sensitive to missing data (Smith,

Moody, & Morgan, 2017), sensitivity analyses were also conducted on the harvest and

consumption portfolio’s links (lines connecting nodes) and nodes (seafood types)

themselves. Nodes were bootstrapped in increased proportion (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9,

1.0) of total number of seafood types for 100 iterations without replacement. Links were

bootstrapped with 80% of the total for 100 iterations without replacement.

Methodological advances, limitations and assumptions

Our methodology advances a mixed-methods approach spanning disciplinary

boundaries. First, the contribution of Indigenous Knowledge to the analyses, lends

legitimacy to this research within the Nation (Pinkerton & John, 2008) and bridges

anthropological and ecological disciplines (Tengö et al., 2014). Second, by comparing

past and present decades, it allowed us to increase the time horizon of interest since

experts are of different ages. Thus, we are able to explore long term trends and drivers

of change to capture the socio-economic, ecological and cultural changes that the

community has undergone in the time frame of the study and differentiate how much that

is reflected in both harvesting and consumption patterns. Although this doesn’t reduce

10

variation around respondents, it accurately portrays the human experience and life lived

as a ɬaʔəmɛn person (Paul et al., 2014). Furthermore, as respondents shared

information on different time periods there is uncertainty in the resulting variability of the

data. For example, younger respondents might not be able to identify slower, long-term

drivers of change (e.g. intergenerational knowledge loss) compared to that of an older

individual (Tam et al., 2018). However, we found that respondents were better able to

recall distinct differences over coarse grain time periods compared to finer grain, decade

by decade differences.

Given the nature and design of our study, our methodology is not without

limitations and assumptions that accompany human sources of information. We report

expert observations and knowledge which, like all forms of data, are subject to variation,

uncertainty, and bias (Hilborn & Mangel, 1997). Experts were asked to recall information

from a time in their childhood that is vulnerable to shifting baseline syndrome (Papworth,

Rist, Coad, & Milner-Gulland, 2009; Pauly, 1995) and recall bias (Golden, Wrangham, &

Brashares, 2013; O’Donnell, Pajaro, & Vincent, 2010). Furthermore, humans are

influenced by their cultural context and observations will reflect these experiences

(Berkes et al., 2000). Nonetheless, if temporal references are established, recalled

observations after 50 years can be relatively accurate (Berney & Blane, 1997). Here, we

used early childhood memories and spent time at the beginning of the interview

establishing reference points by recalling stories and life events that coincide with that

time period. In addition, other socio-economic factors, such as switch behavior of

fisheries due to economic incentives or availability of other species (Daw, 2010), can

influence our inferences. However, we accounted for these differences by asking experts

about what factors are driving changes. Finally, our objective was to elicit knowledge

from experts of traditional seafood harvest and consumption, thus our sample size is

limited due to the limited number of experts in the resource system.

11

Results

Portfolios

Composition. We detected a significant difference in traditional fisheries harvest

and consumption portfolios composition pre and post 1980 (Figure 1, 2). Specifically,

standardized degree centrality was significantly higher post versus pre 1980 for both

harvest (Z = 2.21, p = 0.03) and consumption (Z = 4.51, p = 6.43e-6) portfolios (Figure

3A).

Diversity. We found no significant effect of time period on the diversity of

seafood types within harvest (2 = 0.82, df = 1, P = 0.37) or consumption (2 = 0.57, df =

1, P = 0.45) portfolios (Figure 3B), although the number of seafood types caught and

consumed tended to be lower post 1980. We found differences in the types of seafoods

caught versus consumed. Specifically, northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana),

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) and Longnose

Skate (Raja rhina) were consumed, but not harvested by ɬaʔəmɛn community members.

Relative Abundance

I. Harvest Portfolios

We found a significant effect of time period on the relative abundance of some,

but not all, seafood types harvested pre and post 1980 (Table A4). Significant decreases

(p < 0.05) include Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasii pallasii, -37.6%) and Pacific Herring

roe (-31.1%), Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) eggs (-14.4%), red sea urchin

(Mesocentrotus franciscanus, -11.1%), green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus

droebachiensis, -8.9%), Perch (Embiotocidae, -7.9%), Flounder (Paralichthyidae,

Pleuronectidae, -7.9%), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina, -7.9%), Black Cod (Anoplopoma

fimbria, -7.4%), red sea cucumber (Parastichopus californicus, -7.4%), pacific geoduck

(Panopea abrupta, -7.1%), Spiny Dogfish (Squalus suckleyi, -6.2%), scallops (Chlamys

hastata, Crassadoma gigantean, -6.2%), and northern giant pacific octopus

(Enteroctopus dofleini, -5.9%). We detected no significant change in the relative

abundance of the remaining species, including but not limited to any salmon species

(Oncorhynchus spp.), clams (Saxidomus giganteus, Protothaca staminea, Venerupis

12

philippinarum, Clinocardium nuttallii), Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and spot

prawns (Pandalus platyceros) between pre and post 1980 in harvest portfolios.

Furthermore, although some seafood types were reportedly higher post 1980, we

detected no significant increases in harvested seafood types pre versus post 1980.

II. Consumption Portfolios

Similar to harvest portfolios, we found a significant effect of time period on the

relative abundance of some, but not all, seafood types consumed pre and post 1980

(Table A5). However, unlike ɬaʔəmɛn harvest portfolios, we detected significant

increases (p < 0.05) within ɬaʔəmɛn consumption portfolios post 1980 for Pacific Halibut

and spot prawns - 16.3% and 21.8%, respectively. Time period had a significant

negative effect (p < 0.05) on the relative abundance of other seafood types, including:

Pacific Herring (-35.3%) and Pacific Herring roe (-18.6%), Lingcod eggs (-25.0%), red

sea urchin (-16.1%), Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, -16.0%), green sea urchin

(-15.7%), harbour seal (-15.4%), Pacific Tomcod (Microgadus Proximus, -14.6%), Coho

Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch, -14.5%), Perch (-14.4%), Black Cod (-14.2%),

Longnose Skate (-14.1%), Spiny Dogfish (-13.6%), clams (-13.2%), red sea cucumber (-

13.1%), Flounder (-13.0%), pacific geoduck (-12.8%), purple sea urchin

(Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, -12.0%), Eulachon (-11.4%), Kelp Greenling

(Hexagrammos decagrammus, -10.6%), northern abalone (-10.1%), and northern giant

pacific octopus (-10.1%). We detected no significant difference between pre and post

1980 for the remaining seafood types. Overall changes in relative abundance of seafood

types can be visualized in both harvest and consumption portfolios (Figure 1, 2).

Drivers of change

Quantitative Responses. We found a significant difference in the perceived

relative importance of factors driving changes in harvest (Likelihood Ratio Chi2 = 75.33,

df = 9, p = 1.34e-12) and consumption (Likelihood Ratio Chi2 = 76.86, df = 9, p = 6.77e-13)

portfolios. Permit Barrier had the lowest mean ranked importance, while Ocean Pollution

and Commercial Overharvesting had the highest for factors driving changes in both

harvest and consumption portfolios. We found no evidence to support the addition of

respondent co-variates (e.g. age or gender) to explain the variation in the ranked

importance of divers of change (Table A6). Furthermore, we found no significant

13

difference in the interaction between drivers of change and portfolio type (Likelihood

Ratio Chi2 = 1.86, df = 9, p = 0.99; Figure 4).

Qualitative Responses. Respondents identified drivers of change for shifts in

harvest and consumption portfolios previous to ranking the above mentioned pre-

identified factors. These factors fell into 12 themes (Table 1), with Modernization,

Environmental change, and Change in diet among the most frequently reported - 50%,

42% and 38%, respectively. Although most factors aligned with our pre-identified factors,

such as Environmental change, Overharvesting, Access, Governance barriers, Change

in diet, Pollution, and Knowledge loss, there were factors identified by our experts that

we had not considered. These included Self-government, Modernization, Employment,

Change in traditional values, Predation, Technology, and Community dependence.

Sensitivity analysis

Our species accumulation curves showed saturation for post 1980 but did not

saturate for pre 1980 (Figure A2). Therefore, we obtained complete portfolios post 1980

whereas we may not have for pre 1980 due to limited experts (n = 14; Table A1) with

knowledge from earlier time periods (i.e. knowledge holders who have passed on).

However, results from our sensitivity analysis (see below) increases confidence in our

inferences. We found that node sensitivity analysis (i.e. changing proportions of seafood

types considered) and link sensitivity analysis (i.e. a subset of relational links between

seafood types) showed no difference in results for an effect of time on standardized

degree centrality for both harvest (Node: all proportions p < 0.05, Link: Z = 19.89, p < 2e-

16; Figure A3, A4) and consumption portfolios (Node: all proportions p < 0.05, Link: Z =

40.76, p < 2e-16; Figure A3, A4).

14

Discussion

A growing body of evidence suggests that enhanced connectivity and diversity

within social-ecological systems (SES) confers resilience to a broad array of

disturbances (Biggs et al., 2012; Cinner & Bodin, 2010; Folke, Biggs, Norström, Reyers,

& Rockström, 2016; Janssen et al., 2006), which is also found to be true among fishing-

based communities worldwide (Beaudreau et al., 2019; Cinner & Bodin, 2010; Fuller et

al., 2017; Stoll, Fuller, & Crona, 2017). Paradoxically, we found that while ɬaʔəmɛn

fisheries portfolios decreased in the diversity of different seafoods harvested and

consumed after 1980, they became significantly more connected (Figure 3). Although a

fewer number of total seafood types are being harvested and consumed nowadays,

more harvesters are diversifying their catch and consuming a greater number of seafood

types within these depauperate portfolios. Social-ecological mechanisms reported by

experts as responsible for driving these trends include industrial commercial resource

use, centralized governance, intergenerational knowledge loss, adaptation to new

markets and ecological opportunities, as well as increased connectivity among

communities via the trade in seafood. In addition to these mechanisms, experts

perceived commercial overharvesting and pollution as the most important disturbances

driving shifts in fisheries portfolios, while issues surrounding access rights, now granted

by Tla’amin Nation government, was perceived as less important. Our results advance

resilience theory and practice by illuminating novel mechanisms driving this emergent

system property and informing locally relevant adaptation strategies to bolster future

resilience in this system.

Portfolio shifts

More connected and less diverse portfolios

We found that ɬaʔəmɛn harvest and consumption portfolios are more connected,

yet less diverse now compared to past decades. Specifically, we found that mean

centrality scores of both harvest and consumption portfolios were higher post 1980 while

the number of different seafoods was smaller. Decreases in portfolio diversity among

respondents were driven, in large part, due to the declines in traditional seafoods such

as Pacific Herring, sea urchin, sea cucumber, Lingcod eggs and seal harvested and

15

consumed by community members on average (Figure 3B). This is also evident in

shifting portfolio configurations. Specifically, these seafood types shift from the core of

portfolios to the periphery (Figure 1, 2). Concurrently, popular seafoods, such as salmon,

rockfish, and crab, are being caught and consumed by more people leading to increases

in portfolio centrality scores, reflecting enhanced connectivity among seafood types. The

emergence of new fisheries for deep water benthic species, such as spot prawns and

Pacific Halibut, are becoming increasingly accessible by more harvesters also resulting

in increased connectivity in portfolios. These seafood types are now central, core

species in ɬaʔəmɛn portfolios whereas they previously were located on the periphery

(Figure 1, 2). Furthermore, less common seafood types such as seal, Perch, and

Longnose skate have been lost entirely from portfolios leading to a decrease in diversity

and an overall more connected core over time.

We also detected differences in the relative abundance of various seafood types

among ɬaʔəmɛn harvest and consumption portfolios. For example, spot prawns and

Pacific Halibut consumption has increased by 16.3% and 21.8% post 1980 while harvest

of key traditional seafood, such as Pacific herring, Lingcod eggs, and sea urchins, have

significantly decreased by 37.6%, 14.4% and 8.9 – 11.1 % respectively (Figure 1, 2;

Table A4, A5). While there were dramatic changes in the amount of some seafood types

harvested or consumed, others remained relatively constant and core species in

portfolios (e.g. salmon, crab, and rockfish). These patterns in connectivity, diversity and

relative abundance are driven by several key social-ecological mechanisms illuminated

by experts in the community.

Social-ecological mechanisms driving shifts in portfolios

Our quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed four key social and ecological

mechanisms responsible for the changes detected among harvest and consumption

portfolios. Specifically, industrial commercial activities under the authority of a

centralized governance regime, intergenerational knowledge loss, learning and adapting

to new ecological and economic opportunities, and the trade in seafood among coastal

FN communities were all attributed to the major changes we documented, revealing both

the erosion and rebuilding of resilience attributes among the ɬaʔəmɛn community over

the past eight decades.

16

I. Industrial commercial activities under centralized governance

Access to traditionally important seafoods have been significantly reduced by

industrial commercial activities, such as fishing and logging, currently under the authority

of a centralized governance regime. In ɬaʔəmɛn territory, this is exemplified by Pacific

Herring where the harvest and consumption of this forage fish and its eggs has

significantly decreased in relative abundance (Table A4, A5). While herring remain

relatively central seafood types in portfolios (Figure 1, 2) revealing their cultural

importance, this food fishery is no longer as available. Experts reported that herring were

“fished out” of ɬaʔəmɛn waters in 1983 and that commercial fisheries targeting adult

females for their roe was the main driver of this change (pers. comm. of many ɬaʔəmɛn

harvesters; Paul, Raibmon, & Johnson, 2014). Such reports are consistent with other

academic literature addressing Pacific Herring collapse (Cleary, Cox, & Schweigert,

2010; Essington et al., 2015).

“The herring spawn. And this whole area would be just white. It’s t̓išosəm – the water is “milky.” That’s why people started calling this place “t̓išosəm.” Because of that… Now we don’t get herring anymore. It is all cleaned out. Several years ago, they opened seine fishing in this area. This whole area was lit up front of the village from Sliammon to Scuttle Bay towards Powell River, over to Harwood. There were all kinds of seine boats out there. And they scooped up all the herring. We never did get herring after that” Paul et al., 2014, pp. 115–116.

This has large economic and cultural consequences for Tla’amin Nation and ɬaʔəmɛn

people. For this reason, commercial overharvesting was perceived by experts as one of

the most important drivers of change in harvest and consumption portfolios (Figure 4).

Past decisions to open herring fisheries were solely in the hands of Canada's federal

fisheries agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Ultimately, the fisheries

Minister still retains the discretion to open the fishery regardless of the science and other

knowledge sources provided (Klain, Beveridge, & Bennett, 2014). Moreover, Indigenous

livelihood and lifestyle objectives have not yet been incorporated in herring management

(von der Porten et al., 2016). For example, even though Strait of Georgia herring stocks

are reported as “spawning biomass is at a historic high” (DFO, 2019), ɬaʔəmɛn people

have knowledge of how their waters were white with herring spawn in the past, thus wish

to conserve stocks such that they might return to tʼɩšosəm (pers. comm. Hegus Clint

Williams). As of 2016, Tla’amin Nation is party to a joint fisheries committee with

neighbouring FNs and DFO to facilitate learning and shared decision making (Tla’amin

17

Final Agreement, 2016). As a treaty Nation with rights recognized by the Government of

Canada and BC, it explains why access granted by the Nation was not perceived as an

important barrier by experts in the community (Figure 4).

Additionally, logging related activities, such as the local pulp mill and associated

contamination levels, under the authority of a centralized governance regime have

decreased harvest and consumption of clams (pers. comm. Eugene Louie). Although

clams are still centrally important traditional seafoods for ɬaʔəmɛn harvest and

consumption portfolios (Figure 1,2), their relative abundance have decreased due to

beach closures associated with pulp mill contamination and high fecal coliform levels.

“We don’t get clams in front of our community anymore because it is all contaminated”

(Paul et al., 2014, p. 117). Pollution was also perceived as the most important driver of

change amongst experts. Furthermore, although some beaches might be safe to

harvest, ultimately the decision to continue beach closures resides with federal

governing authorities that often operate with limited resources and available data.

Finally, predation by marine mammals, such as seals and sea lions, and a lack of

participation in the decisions surrounding these predator populations was identified

qualitatively as an important driver of change among portfolios (Table 1). Traditionally,

seals were hunted and managed by ɬaʔəmɛn people (Paul et al., 2014) but are no longer

represented in harvest or consumption portfolios post 1980 (Figure 1, 2). As predators of

a diversity of benthic and pelagic fish, such as salmon and Pacific Herring, seals and

sea lions compete with humans and other culturally important species (e.g. killer whales

- Chasco et al., 2017) for food. Currently, Canada’s federal fisheries agency, DFO, has

the authority to manage these marine mammals, which further centralizes governance

and limits opportunities for the revitalization of traditional management systems.

Current centralization of decision-making power can reduce resilience by limiting

learning across multiple scales and eroding trust in management (Biggs et al., 2012).

However, resurgence of Indigenous governance can confer resilience and promote

transformation by elevating rights of local communities, enabling knowledge co-creation

and knowledge sharing (Abson et al., 2017; Faulkner et al., 2018; Folke, Hahn, Olsson,

& Norberg, 2005; Galafassi et al., 2018), and facilitating food sovereignty (Walsh-Dilley,

Wolford, & McCarthy, 2016). For truly transformational change, shared decision making

between governments can equalize power distribution (Salomon et al., 2018), integrate

18

diverse sources of knowledge (Tengö et al., 2014), cooperatively manage natural

resources (Jones et al., 2017), and lead to more resilient SESs (Biggs et al., 2012).

II. Intergenerational knowledge loss

Reduced diversity among ɬaʔəmɛn fisheries portfolios was also driven in part by

the loss of knowledge of specific harvesting practices among generations. For example,

the loss of seal from harvest and consumption portfolios and substantial decrease in

abundance of traditionally important seafoods, such as Chum salmon, Lingcod eggs,

and red and green sea urchins, were attributed to a lack of knowledge among younger

generations on how to collect and process these traditionally important seafoods (Figure

1, 2). Although there is still an abundance of these seafood types in the ocean, the

active practice of harvesting and consuming these traditional foods has decreased: there

are “still many sea urchins out there [in the marine environment], but no one wants them.

I will only go get them if an elder is wishing for them” (pers. comm. Lee George). As

intergenerational knowledge loss increases, participation declines, which can erode SES

resilience by hindering learning opportunities and impedes collective action required to

respond to disturbance and changes (Biggs et al., 2012). Fewer youth involved in

traditional practices perpetuates a reduction in knowledge transfer and reduces the

likelihood of cultural preservation with changing futures (Turner et al., 2008).

III. Adapting to new ecological and economic opportunities

Learning and adapting to new ecological and economic opportunities has been a

key mechanism driving changes in ɬaʔəmɛn harvest and consumption portfolios. For

instance, spot prawn has become a more central component of both harvest and

consumption portfolios over time, reportedly due to increased market demand for these

same species in regional commercial fisheries (British Columbia Seafood Industry: Year

in Review 2016, 2016) and modern fishing gear that facilitates access to deep water

fisheries. Spot prawns were not a traditionally important food fishery, however ɬaʔəmɛn

harvesters have learned to adapt to this new opportunity and harvest them for food in

association with the commercial fishery. In addition, Pacific Halibut have been “moving

into the area” (pers. comm. Lee George), which has increased their harvest and

consumption as people adapt to the increased availability and accessibility of this

species. Furthermore, halibut is now offered as a part of the Tla’amin Nation’s

19

community food fish program in place of previously abundant seafood types like Fraser

River Sockeye Salmon when Sockeye are unavailable. Both learning and adapting to

new opportunities are key characteristics of resilience (Biggs et al., 2012). However,

human health could be negatively impacted if these trends continue since salmon

species are nutritionally different from halibut, especially in terms of fatty acids, which is

a required nutrient that salmon provide 70% of in FN diets (Marushka et al., 2019).

Moreover, continuously shifting to new fishing opportunities could lead to the serial

depletion of species as previously abundant seafood types become less abundant

(Armstrong, Armstrong, & Hilborn, 1998; Karpov, Haaker, Taniguchi, & Rogers-Bennett,

2000; Salomon et al., 2007).

IV. Increased connectivity among communities via trade of seafood

While consumption and harvest portfolios both decreased in diversity, they also

had clear differences in their content, in part due to the trade of seafood among coastal

communities. For example, while Pacific Herring are no longer as abundant in ɬaʔəmɛn

waters now relative to the decades prior to 1980 (pers. comm. of many ɬaʔəmɛn

harvesters; Paul, Raibmon, & Johnson, 2014), many people obtain herring eggs to

consume from other Indigenous communities along the coast, primarily the Heiltsuk

Nation who have an active herring spawn-on-kelp food fishery (pers. comm. Paul

August). Eulachon is another seafood type that is traded for with other Nations since it is

consumed but not harvested by ɬaʔəmɛn people in their traditional territory. Here, trade

of seafoods with other Nations supports coast-wide connectivity which and facilitates

continued familial and economic relationships thereby enhancing resilience to local

disturbance (Biggs et al., 2012). However, the use of herring eggs and Eulachon has

decreased over time due to changes in traditional diet and in people’s taste, suggesting

that decreased participation in these fisheries could reduce SES resilience. This also

has implications for Indigenous health in that these forage fish provide essential

nutrients, such as vitamin A and fatty acids, in traditional diets (Marushka et al., 2019).

Implications for Resilience Theory

Diversification and connectivity within fisheries portfolios can play an essential

role in fishers’ adaptive capacity (Beaudreau et al., 2019; Cinner et al., 2015; Stoll et al.,

2017) and thus contribute to overall resilience of SESs (Biggs et al., 2012). For example,

20

increased connectivity (i.e. centrality) between different seafood types provides

communities with capacity to adapt to changes by decreasing vulnerability to

perturbations due to a reduced dependence on only a few seafood types. Therefore,

adaptive capacity and decreasing sensitivity to disturbances is conferred by shifting

among fisheries (Fuller et al., 2017). Moreover, decreased centralization of the entire

network (i.e. increased connectivity between seafood types) increases the robustness of

the removal of nodes in network analysis (Janssen et al., 2006) by facilitating the option

to fish other species when necessary. Increased portfolio connectivity also suggests

increased participation in harvesting (or consuming) more seafood types among more

people. This potentially indicates increased equity (Bodin, Crona, & Ernstson, 2006;

Janssen et al., 2006) in the system by increasing the ability of fishers to access different

seafood types previously inaccessible. Similarly, learning over time to harvest new

species that emerge in the SES can bolster resilience in SESs (Biggs et al., 2012).

Concurrently, increased diversity of seafood types provides increased harvest flexibility

to adapt to changing conditions (Beaudreau et al., 2018; Stoll et al., 2017).

However, the relationships between these system characteristics and resilience

are not necessarily linear or unidirectional. For example, increased connectivity could

decrease the resiliency of SESs due to lack of local control and decentralization

(Janssen et al., 2006). Specifically, rapid propagation of disturbances can occur in highly

connected systems (Biggs et al., 2012). In fishing dependent communities this may

mean that harvesting many species creates a relationship between seafood types where

there was no ecological relationship between them before (Fuller et al., 2017). Thus,

management decisions made for one seafood type could inadvertently impact many

seafood types in highly connected portfolios due to serial depletion (Armstrong et al.,

1998; Karpov et al., 2000). In addition, decentralization could decrease resiliency and

adaptive capacity in times of change when effective coordination of actors and resources

may be needed but there is no coordination of effort (Bodin et al., 2006).

Resilience and diversity also do not associate in a linear relationship. Higher

levels of diversity are costly in terms of system complexity and inefficiencies (Biggs et

al., 2012), which can further stagnate a system with no centralized effort. Although

diversity is important for SES resilience, functional redundancy is another important

system characteristic (Biggs et al., 2012), especially in a fisheries context where

functional roles of seafood types might have profound impacts on ecosystem function

21

(Bellwood, Hoey, & Choat, 2003). Therefore, there are trade-offs and uncertainties

associated with connectivity and diversity which makes it challenging to infer which

mechanism is dominant and how overall SES resilience is impacted.

Shifts in ɬaʔəmɛn harvest and consumption portfolios provide insight into the

influence of diversity and connectivity on resilience and offer opportunities to adapt to

the benefit of ecosystem health and community well-being. However, this is a complex

system with multiple mechanisms enhancing and detracting from resilience, many of

which are perceived as important in shifting in harvest and consumption portfolios

(Figure 4). Thus, understanding the underlying dynamics driving the system is helpful for

decision-making to ensure a resilient community in a Tla’amin Nation context.

Recommendations for adaptation opportunities in a Tla’amin Nation context

“in the summer time I would always go out on the canoe with my mother to get salmon and even then my mother told me that it won’t always be

like this” - Doreen Point

Resilient fishing communities are better able to adapt to future disturbances,

maintain their food and nutritional security and their cultural well-being. As such, our

results help inform future alternative adaptation strategies that have both local and

global relevance. Because we found no evidence that perceived importance of drivers

differed among respondents, regardless of their age, sex, occupation or boat ownership,

a community versus an individual approach to adaptation is likely more appropriate for

Tla’amin Nation future adaptations, and perhaps can be broadly considered among other

coastal Indigenous communities.

“we always fished and there has always been fish, we traditionally

managed our own [fisheries]” – Scott Galligos

Adaptation strategies should be tailored to specific SES and reflect local

characteristics, such as cultural norms and values (Andrachuk & Armitage, 2015;

Rotarangi & Stephenson, 2014), social networks (M. Barnes et al., 2017; Bodin, 2017),

politics (Gelcich et al., 2010) and place-specific environmental characteristics (Olsson et

al., 2006). Given knowledge from community experts and drawing on resilience theory,

our results suggest that adaptation strategies fostering knowledge transfer to younger

generations, and decentralizing natural resource management authority to local scales

22

would support resilience in this system. While climate change was perceived an

important driver of change, it was not ranked as most important, in contrast to the

majority of academic literature (Barange et al., 2014; Rudd, 2014; Savo, Morton, &

Lepofsky, 2017; Weatherdon et al., 2016). This is likely due to the magnitude of other

local stressors that impact ɬaʔəmɛn people’s daily lives, such as no longer being able to

dig clams in front of the village due to contamination closures. Furthermore, it is difficult

to observe long term, incremental climate trends, especially if experts are not old enough

to benefit from a longer time horizon. As such, future adaptation should embrace local

knowledge of perceived important problems, in tandem with evidence-based decision

making, if proposed management solutions are to be successfully implemented at the

local level (Bennett, 2016; Salomon et al., 2018).

Finally, our results embedded within ɬaʔəmɛn knowledge can inform how to best

serve community health in an Indigenous context. By linking drivers of change that

impact both harvest and consumption of individuals and the broader ɬaʔəmɛn

community, our results provide a more comprehensive understanding of disturbances

impacting multiple levels of community health. This can inform and assist Indigenous

peoples in control of their own health evaluations (Donatuto, Campbell, & Gregory,

2016). When planning for the future, Indigenous perspectives of all important drivers of

change are essential to consider for successful adaptation strategies for healthy

communities (Cisneros-Montemayor, Pauly, Weatherdon, & Ota, 2016; Donatuto et al.,

2016).

Advancing Resilience Theory

Our seemingly paradoxical results provide an opportunity to examine novel

mechanisms of resilience, where diversity and connectivity can function simultaneously

in opposing directions. Furthermore, we gathered expert knowledge to illuminate

dominant drivers of change and social-ecological mechanisms impacting the system to

relate them to overall resilience. A strong understanding of changes in SESs and local

perceptions of key disturbances causing these changes, and how they impact system

characteristics that confer or erode SES resilience, can form the basis of local strategies

to maintain food security and cultural well-being while adapting to various futures in

ecologically sustainable and socially just ways.

23

Figures

24

25

Figure 1. ɬaʔəmɛn harvest portfolios for pre and post 1980. Entire harvest portfolios (A,B) and core harvest portfolios (C,D) are shown. Cores were determined by being nodes with greater than or equal to the mean number of links in the network. Pre 1980 is comprised of 31 seafood types and represents 14 harvesters, whereas post 1980 is comprised of 28 seafood types and represents 17 harvesters. Node size represents the mean relative abundance, links between nodes represent at least one respondent reported harvesting both seafood types, and the layout of the network is represented with the Fruchterman-Reingold Algorithm*

*The Fruchterman-Reingold Algorithm is a force-directed layout algorithm. The idea of a force directed layout algorithm is to consider a force between any two nodes. In this algorithm, the nodes are represented by steel rings and the edges are springs between them. The attractive force is analogous to the spring force and the repulsive force is analogous to the electrical force. The basic idea is to minimize the energy of the system by moving the nodes and changing the forces between them (Csárdi & Nepusz, 2019).

26

27

Figure 2. ɬaʔəmɛn consumption portfolios for pre and post 1980. Entire consumption portfolios (A,B) and core consumption portfolios (C,D) are shown. Cores were determined by being nodes with greater than or equal to the mean number of links in the network. Pre 1980 is comprised of 35 seafood types and represents 14 respondents, whereas post 1980 is comprised of 32 seafood types and represents 21 respondents. Node size represents the mean relative abundance, links between nodes represent at least one respondent reported consuming both seafood types, and the layout of the network is represented with the Fruchterman-Reingold Algorithm*

* The Fruchterman-Reingold Algorithm is a force-directed layout algorithm. The idea of a force directed layout algorithm is to consider a force between any two nodes. In this algorithm, the nodes are represented by steel rings and the edges are springs between them. The attractive force is analogous to the spring force and the repulsive force is analogous to the electrical force. The basic idea is to minimize the energy of the system by moving the nodes and changing the forces between them (Csárdi & Nepusz, 2019).

28

Figure 3. Changes in portfolio composition (i.e. standardized degree centrality) and diversity (i.e. species richness) of harvest and consumption portfolios over time. Degree standardized degree centrality has significantly increased over time (A) while species richness decreases although the results are not significant (B). ****p<0.0001, *p<0.05

Po

rtfo

lio C

om

positio

n(D

eg

ree

Ce

ntr

alit

y)

Po

rtfo

lio D

ivers

ity

(Sp

ecie

s R

ich

ne

ss)

Harvest Consumption Harvest Consumption

29

Figure 4. Mean ranked perceived importance of each pre-identified factor for driving changes in food fish harvest and consumption over the last several decades. There is no significant difference in perceived importance of factors driving changes between harvest and consumption.

30

Tables

Table 1. Respondents' qualitative reasons for changes in the harvest and

consumption of traditional seafoods, derived from an inductive analysis of themes.

Factor driving change

Reported percent

Description Observation (representative quote)

Environmental change

42% Changes in the marine environment including climate change, warming waters, red tide, etc.

“Red tide is more abundant these days compared to way back when. It seems like you can’t go and pick oysters or harvest clams like you used to back in the day, even in a warm spell. Red tide is always here.” – Bud Louie

Over harvesting 33% Over exploitation of marine resources (commercial, sport, FSC)

“Only harvest what you need, hurts me to see people fish too much and then waste it” – R05

Access 25% Factors allowing or limiting access which includes private property, boats, permit cards

“My dad had a boat and was always out getting something. I don’t have a boat. Boat motor and trailer is a big thing for a lot of people.” – Denise Smith

Governance barriers

25% Barriers to decision making power with other governing bodies (e.g. DFO) and within own self-governing institution

“I was on council and they opened up the herring and that decimated the whole run. We fought with DFO ... We have the traditional knowledge to prove that they always spawn here. It was always about protecting their own behind.” – R04

Costs 21% Economic cost of practicing traditional seafoods (e.g. boat expenses, cheaper grocery store food, etc.)

“Back in the day is wasn’t expensive b/c people went by dugout and would walk up the river. Didn’t cost anything just time and effort.” – Scott Galligos

Change in diet 38% Increased western food consumption

“You don’t have to go fishing anymore to provide for your family… food comes from the grocery store… that just wasn’t in the cards when I was a child.”- Roy Francis

Modernization 50% Modernization of community resulting in a change of traditional values

“Times are just changing. In the past people were dependent on the ocean and the food that came from it.” - Elsie Paul

Pollution 25% Pollution from local sources (i.e. sewage and mill)

“fecal coliform was the biggest issue in the past, we [Tla’amin Nation] had tests done and it wasn’t their sewage that was the sustained source.”- Eugene Louie

31

Factor driving change

Reported percent

Description Observation (representative quote)

Predation 21% Competition for fish with other predators, mainly pinnipeds

“I think there is less and less stuff that you can actually go out and harvest anymore. Actual abundance out there [has decreased]. There are a lot of reasons, pollutions, predation … they put the moratorium on them [seals] years ago and their numbers are huge. The sea lions don’t leave anymore, they just stay … they are taking fish right off the line.” – R04

Technology 4% Advancement of fishing technologies (e.g. fish finders)

“technology has changed… the technology is incredible… I have fish finders and you can tell how many fish are on the reef right below you… I am there with a dozen other boats with the same technology I have so the fish stand less of a chance.” – Roy Francis

Knowledge 13% Knowledge is not being transferred to younger generations

“my brother and I would go and catch herring and drop it off door to door but some people just didn’t know what to do with the herring, there is a loss of knowledge” – Roy Francis “the elders that are passing on… those values are not instilled to the youth and that art gets lost” – Lee George

Community dependence

8% Dependence on the Nation to provide food fish allocation

“I think we have done things with the goal of being helpful, like we will go out and get communal harvest…. We will bring salmon door to door with the meaning of being a good thing…. We have unintentionally created a bad thing. There is a dependence on coming fish coming to the door… I don’t think that is necessarily a good thing. I think a better idea would be to encourage people to go out there and do their own harvest” – Roy Francis

32

References

Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., … Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Allison, E. H., & Bassett, H. R. (2017). Climate change in the oceans: Human impacts and responses. Science, 350, 778–782.

Anderson, P. J., & Piatt, J. F. (1999). Community reorganization in the Gulf of Alaska following ocean climate regime shift. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 189, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps189117

Andrachuk, M., & Armitage, D. (2015). Understanding social-ecological change and transformation through community perceptions of system identity. Ecology and Society, 20(4), 26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07759-200426

Armstrong, J., Armstrong, D., & Hilborn, R. (1998). Crustacean resources are vulnerable to serial depletion - the multifaceted decline of crab and shrimp fisheries in the Greater Gulf of Alaska. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8, 117–176. https://doi.org/10.7755/fb.114.1.5

Ban, N. C., Eckert, L., Mcgreer, M., Frid, A., Ban, N. C., Eckert, L., … Frid, A. (2017). Indigenous knowledge as data for modern fishery management: a case study of Dungeness crab in Pacific Canada. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 3(8). https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2017.1379887

Ban, N. C., & Frid, A. (2018). Indigenous peoples’ rights and marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 87, 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.020

Barange, M., Merino, G., Blanchard, J. L., Scholtens, J., Harle, J., Allison, E. H., … Jennings, S. (2014). Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem production in societies dependent on fisheries. Nature Climate Change, 4, 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2119

Barnes, L. (2008). Remembering Who You Are and Where You Are From: A Sliammon Story. Simon Fraser University.

Barnes, M., Bodin, O., Guerrero, A., McAllister, R., Alexander, S., & Robins, G. (2017). The social structural foundations of adaption and transformation in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4), 16.

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Bojesen Christensen, R., Singmann, H., Dai, B., … Grothendieck, G. (2019). Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf

33

Beaudreau, A. H., Chan, M. N., & Loring, P. A. (2018). Harvest portfolio diversification and emergent conservation challenges in an Alaskan recreational fishery. Biological Conservation, 222, 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.010

Beaudreau, A. H., Ward, E. J., Brenner, R. E., Shelton, A. O., Watson, J. T., Womack, J. C., … Williams, B. C. (2019). Thirty years of change and the future of Alaskan fisheries: Shifts in fishing participation and diversification in response to environmental, regulatory and economic pressures. Fish and Fisheries, (February). https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12364

Bellwood, D. R., Hoey, A. S., & Choat, J. H. (2003). Limited functional redundancy in high diversity systems: resilience and ecosystem function on coral reefs. Ecology Letters, 6, 281–285. Retrieved from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00432.x

Bennett, N. J. (2016). Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 582–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2

Berney, L. R., & Blane, D. B. (1997). Collecting retrospective data: Accuracy of recall after 50 years judged against historical records. Social Science and Medicine, 45(10), 1519–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00088-9

Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S. B., Cundill, G., … West, P. (2012). Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836

Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(659). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114

Bodin, Ö., Crona, B., & Ernstson, H. (2006). Social networks in natural resource management: What is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01808-1102r02

British Columbia Seafood Industry: Year in Review 2016. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/reports/index.html

Caldwell, M. E., Lepofsky, D., Combes, G., Washington, M., Welch, J. R., & Harper, J. R. (2012). A Bird’s Eye View of Northern Coast Salish Intertidal Resource Management Features, Southern British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 7(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2011.586089

34

Chan, L., Receveur, O., Sharp, D., Schwartz, H., Ing, A., & Tikhonov, C. (2011). First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study (FNFNES): Results from British Columbia (2008/2009). Prince George: University of Northern British Columbia. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Chan, M. N., Beaudreau, A. H., & Loring, P. A. (2018). Exploring diversity in expert knowledge: variation in local ecological knowledge of Alaskan recreational and subsistence fishers. ICES Journal of Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy193

Chasco, B. E., Kaplan, I. C., Thomas, A. C., Acevedo-Gutiérrez, A., Noren, D. P., Ford, M. J., … Ward, E. J. (2017). Competing tradeoffs between increasing marine mammal predation and fisheries harvest of Chinook salmon. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14984-8

Cheung, W. W. L., Brodeur, R. D., Okey, T. A., & Pauly, D. (2015). Projecting future changes in distributions of pelagic fish species of Northeast Pacific shelf seas. Progress in Oceanography, 130, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2014.09.003

Cheung, W. W. L., Watson, R., & Pauly, D. (2013). Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries catch. Nature, 497, 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12156

Christensen, R. H. B. (2019). Cumulative Link Models for Ordinal Regression with the R Package ordinal. Technical University of Denmark. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clm_article.pdf

Cinner, J. E., & Bodin, Ö. (2010). Livelihood diversification in tropical coastal communities: A network-based approach to analyzing “livelihood landscapes.” PLoS ONE, 5(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011999

Cinner, J. E., Huchery, C., Hicks, C. C., Daw, T. M., Marshall, N., Wamukota, A., & Allison, E. H. (2015). Changes in adaptive capacity of Kenyan fishing communities. Nature Climate Change, 5(9), 872–876. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2690

Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Pauly, D., Weatherdon, L. V., & Ota, Y. (2016). A global estimate of seafood consumption by coastal indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE, 11(12), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166681

Cleary, J. S., Cox, S. P., & Schweigert, J. F. (2010). Performance evaluation of harvest control rules for Pacific herring management in British Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67(9), 2005–2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsq129

Cline, T. J., Schindler, D. E., & Hilborn, R. (2017). Fisheries portfolio diversification and turnover buffer Alaskan fishing communities from abrupt resource and market changes. Nature Communications, 8, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14042

35

Costello, C., Ovando, D., Clavelle, T., Strauss, C. K., Hilborn, R., Melnychuk, M. C., … Leland, A. (2016). Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(18), 5125–5129. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520420113

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE Publications.

Cribari-Neto, F., & Zeileis, A. (2010). Beta Regression in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v034.i02

Csárdi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2019). Network Analysis and Visualization. Retrieved from http://igraph.org

Davis, A., & Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying “Experts” When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology, 31(3), 463–489.

Daw, T. M. (2010). Shifting baselines and memory illusions: what should we worry about when inferring trends from resource user interviews? Animal Conservation, 13, 534–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00418.x

DFO. (2019). Status of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) in 2018 and forecast for 2019. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (Vol. Science Re).

Donatuto, J., Campbell, L., & Gregory, R. (2016). Developing responsive indicators of indigenous community health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13090899

Essington, T. E., Moriarty, P. E., Froehlich, H. E., Hodgson, E. E., Koehn, L. E., Oken, K. L., … Stawitz, C. C. (2015). Fishing amplifies forage fish population collapses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(21), 6648–6652. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422020112

FAO. (2016). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016: Contributing to Food Security for all. https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.50-5350

Faulkner, L., Brown, K., & Quinn, T. (2018). Analyzing community resilience as an emergent property of dynamic social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09784-230124

Fazey, I., Fazey, J. A., Salisbury, J. G., Lindenmayer, D. B., & Dovers, S. (2006). The nature and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environmental Conservation, 33(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689290600275X

36

Fediuk, K., & Thom, B. (2003). Contemporary & Desired Use of Traditional Resources in a Coast Salish Community: Implications for Food Security and Aboriginal Rights in British Columbia Paper Presented at the 26. In Paper Presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for Ethnobiology (pp. 1–21). Seattle.

Fleming, L. E., Maycock, B., White, M. P., & Depledge, M. H. (2019). Fostering human health through ocean sustainability in the 21st century. People and Nature, 00, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10038

Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3), 41.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., & Chapin, T. (2010). Resilience Thinking : Integrating Resilience , Adaptability and. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Fox, J., Weisberg, S., Price, B., Adler, D., Bates, D., Baud-bovy, G., … Zeileis, A. (2019). Package ‘car.’ Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=car

Frawley, T. H., Finkbeiner, E. M., & Crowder, L. B. (2019). Environmental and institutional degradation in the globalized economy: lessons from small-scale fisheries in the Gulf of California. Ecology and Society, 24(1), 7.

Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 179(1968/79), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7#doilink

Fuller, E. C., Samhouri, J. F., Stoll, J. S., Levin, S. A., & Watson, J. R. (2017). Characterizing fisheries connectivity in marine social-ecological systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74(8), 2087–2096. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx128

Galafassi, D., Daw, T. M., Thyresson, M., Rosendo, S., Chaigneau, T., Bandeira, S., … Brown, K. (2018). Stories in social-ecological knowledge cocreation. Ecology and Society, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09932-230123

Gelcich, S., Buckley, P., Pinnegar, J. K., Chilvers, J., Lorenzoni, I., Terry, G., … Duarte, C. M. (2014). Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(42), 15042–15047. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417344111

37

Gelcich, S., Hughes, T. P., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Defeo, O., Fernández, M., & Foale, S. (2010). Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(39), 16794–16799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012021107

Golden, C. D., Allison, E. H., Cheung, W. W. L., Dey, M. M., Halpern, B. S., McCauley, D. J., … Myers, S. S. (2016). Nutrition: Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature, 534(7607), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/534317a

Golden, C. D., Wrangham, R. W., & Brashares, J. S. (2013). Assessing the accuracy of interviewed recall for rare, highly seasonal events: The case of wildlife consumption in Madagascar. Animal Conservation, 16(6), 597–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12047

Gotelli, N. J., & Colwell, R. K. (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters, 4, 379–391. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x

Hare, S. R., & Mantua, N. J. (2000). Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Progress in Oceanography, 47(2–4), 103–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6611(00)00033-1

Harper, S., Salomon, A. K., Newell, D., Waterfall, P. H., Brown, K., Harris, L. M., … Justice, S. (2018). Indigenous women respond to fisheries conflict and catalyze change in governance on Canada’s Pacific Coast. Maritime Studies, 17, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0101-0

Harris, D. (2009). Landing native fisheries: Indian reserves and fishing rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925. (W. W. Pue, Ed.). UBC Press.

Hedeker, D. (2008). Multilevel Models for Ordinal and Nominal Variables. In J. de Leeuw & E. Meijer (Eds.), Handbook of Multilevel Analysis (pp. 239–276). Springer, New York, NY.

Hilborn, R., & Mangel, M. (1997). The ecological detective: Confronting Models with Data. Princeton University Press.

Huntington, H. P. (1998). Observations on the Utility of the Semi-Directive Interview for Documenting Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Arctic Institute of North America, 51(3), 237–242.

Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270–1274. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2

Janssen, M. A., Bodin, Ö., Anderies, J. M., Elmqvist, T., Ernstson, H., McAllister, R. R., … Ryan, P. (2006). Toward a Network Perspective of the Study of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 15. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art15/

38

Jick, T. D. . (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392366

Jones, R., Rigg, C., & Pinkerton, E. (2017). Strategies for assertion of conservation and local management rights : A Haida Gwaii herring story. Marine Policy, 80, 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.031

Jones, R., Shpert, M., & Sterritt, N. J. (2004). Our place at the table: First Nations in the B.C. fishery. Report by the First Nation Panel on Fisheries. Vancouver. Retrieved from http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/FNFishPanelReport0604.pdf

Joyce, A., & Canessa, R. (2009). Spatial and temporal changes in access rights to shellfish resources in british columbia. Coastal Management, 37(6), 585–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750903097517

Kaplan-hallam, M., Bennett, N. J., & Satter, T. (2017). Catching sea cucumber fever in coastal communities: Conceptualizing the impacts of shocks versus trends on social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change, 45, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.05.003

Karpov, K. a, Haaker, P. L., Taniguchi, I. K., & Rogers-Bennett, L. (2000). Serial depletion and the collapse of the California abalone (Haliotis spp .) fishery. NRC Research Press, 11–24.

Klain, S. C., Beveridge, R., & Bennett, N. J. (2014). Ecologically sustainable but unjust? Negotiating equity and authority in common-pool marine resource management. Ecology and Society, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07123-190452

Kuhnlein, H. V, & Receveur, O. (1996). Dietary Change and Traditional Food Systems of Indigenous. Annual Review of Nutrition, 16(4), 417–442.

Lepofsky, D., Smith, N. F., Cardinal, N., Harper, J., Morris, M., (Elroy White), G., … Rowell, K. (2015). Ancient Shellfish Mariculture on the Northwest Coast of North America. American Antiquity, 80(2), 236–259. https://doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.80.2.236

Lewitus, A. J., Horner, R. A., Caron, D. A., Garcia-Mendoza, E., Hickey, B. M., Hunter, M., … Tweddle, J. F. (2012). Harmful algal blooms along the North American west coast region: History, trends, causes, and impacts. Harmful Algae, 19, 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2012.06.009

Lotze, H. K., Tittensor, D. P., Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Eddy, T. D., Cheung, W. W. L., Galbraith, E. D., … Worm, B. (2019). Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(26), 12907–12912. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900194116

39

Marushka, L., Kenny, T.-A., Batal, M., Cheung, W. W. L., Fediuk, K., Golden, C. D., … Chan, H. M. (2019). Impacts of climate-related decline of seafood harvest on nutritional status of coastal First Nations in British Columbia, Canada. PLOS One, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211473

Mazerolle, M. J. (2019). Package ‘ AICcmodavg .’ Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=AICcmodavg%0A

O’Donnell, K. P., Pajaro, M. G., & Vincent, A. C. J. (2010). How does the accuracy of fisher knowledge affect seahorse conservation status? Animal Conservation, 13(6), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00377.x

Ojea, E., Pearlman, I., Gaines, S. D., & Lester, S. E. (2017). Fisheries regulatory regimes and resilience to climate change. Ambio, 46(4), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0850-1

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9489–9494. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706905105

Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transition to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 18. https://doi.org/18

Papworth, S. K., Rist, J., Coad, L., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2009). Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters, 2, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00049.x

Paul, E., Raibmon, P., & Johnson, H. (2014). Written as I Remember It. UBC Press.

Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10(10), 430. Retrieved from papers3://publication/uuid/FDE13D8A-6A0C-4E13-B0C7-C1BBAD57C97E

Pauly, D., Pitcher, T. J., & Preikshot, D. (1998). Estimating Historical Lingcod Biomass in the Strait of Georgia. Fisheries Center Research Reports, 6(5), 1–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.007

Pinkerton, E., & Davis, R. (2015). Neoliberalism and the politics of enclosure in North American small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 61, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.025

Pinkerton, E., & Edwards, D. N. (2009). The elephant in the room: The hidden costs of leasing individual transferable fishing quotas. Marine Policy, 33(4), 707–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.02.004

40

Pinkerton, E., & John, L. (2008). Creating local management legitimacy. Marine Policy, 32(4), 680–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.12.005

Plagányi, É. E., van Putten, I., Hutton, T., Deng, R. A., Dennis, D., Pascoe, S., … Campbell, R. A. (2013). Integrating indigenous livelihood and lifestyle objectives in managing a natural resource. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(9), 3639–3644. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217822110

Rotarangi, S. J., & Stephenson, J. (2014). Resilience pivots: Stability and identity in a social-ecological-cultural system. Ecology and Society, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06262-190128

Roughgarden, J. (1972). Evolution of Niche Width. The American Naturalist, 106(952), 683–718. https://doi.org/10.1086/282892

Rudd, M. A. (2014). Scientists ’ perspectives on global ocean research priorities. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1(36), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2014.00036

Salomon, A. K., Lertzman, K., Brown, K., Wilson, Ḵii’iljuus Barbara, Secord, D., & McKechnie, I. (2018). Democratizing conservation science and practice. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09980-230144

Salomon, A. K., Tanape, N. M., & Huntington, H. P. (2007). Serial depletion of marine invertebrates leads to the decline of a strongly interacting grazer. Ecological Applications, 17(6), 1752–1770. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1369.1

Savo, V., Morton, C., & Lepofsky, D. (2017). Impacts of climate change for coastal fishers and implications for fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 18, 8777–8889. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12212

Schindler, D. E., Hilborn, R., Chasco, B., Boatright, C. P., Quinn, T. P., Rogers, L. A., & Webster, M. S. (2010). Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature, 465(7298), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09060

Schoener, T. W. (1971). Theory of Feeding Strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 2, 369–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.02.110171.002101

Schultz, L., Folke, C., Österblom, H., & Olsson, P. (2015). Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7369–7374. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406493112

Smith, J. A., Moody, J., & Morgan, J. H. (2017). Network sampling coverage II: The effect of non-random missing data on network measurement. Social Networks, 48, 78–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.04.005

41

Smithson, M., & Verkuilen, J. (2006). A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychological Methods, 11(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.54

Springer, C., & Lepofsky, D. (2019). Conflict and Territoriality: An Archaeological Study of Ancestral Northern Coast Salish-Tla’amin Defensiveness in the Salish Sea Region of Southwestern British Columbia. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2018.1562499

Stafford, R., & Jones, P. J. S. (2019). Viewpoint – Ocean plastic pollution: A convenient but distracting truth? Marine Policy, 103, 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.003

Stoll, J. S., Fuller, E., & Crona, B. I. (2017). Uneven adaptive capacity among fishers in a sea of change. PLoS ONE, 12(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178266

Tam, J., Chan, K. M. A., Satter, T., Singh, G. G., & Gelcich, S. (2018). Gone fishing? Intergenerational cultural shifts can undermine common property co-managed fisheries. Marine Policy, 90, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.025

Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

Tla’amin Final Agreement. (2016).

Turner, N. J., Gregory, R., Brooks, C., Failing, L., & Satterfield, T. (2008). From invisibility to transparency: Identifying the implications. Ecology and Society, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02405-130207

von der Porten, S., Lepofsky, D., McGregor, D., & Silver, J. (2016). Recommendations for marine herring policy change in Canada: Aligning with Indigenous legal and inherent rights. Marine Policy, 74, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.007

Walsh-Dilley, M., Wolford, W., & McCarthy, J. (2016). Rights for resilience: food sovereignty, power, and resilience in development practice. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 11.

Weatherdon, L. V., Ota, Y., Jones, M. C., Close, D. A., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2016). Projected scenarios for coastal first nations’ fisheries catch potential under climate change: Management challenges and opportunities. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145285

Zeileis, A., Cribari-Neto, F., Gruen, B., Kosmidis, I., Simas, A. B., & Rocha, A. V. (2019). Package ‘ betareg .’ Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/betareg/betareg.pdf

42

Appendix Supplementary Figures and Tables

Figure A1. Study Area - Research was conducted in collaboration with the Tla’amin Nation which is located on the west cost of British Columbia, Canada.

Table A1. Sample size of respondents and number of seafood types in each harvest and consumption portfolios for pre and post 1980 time periods.

Time period

Decades included Portfolio type

Number of respondents

Number of seafood type

Pre 1980 1940-1950, 1950-1960, 1960-1970, 1970-1980

Harvest 14 31

Pre 1980 1940-1950, 1950-1960, 1960-1970, 1970-1980

Eat 14 35

Post 1980 1980-1990, 1990-2000, 2000-2010, 2010-2018

Harvest 17 28

Post 1980 1980-1990, 1990-2000, 2000-2010, 2010-2018

Eat 21 32

43

Table A2. Seafood types’ common name(s) with associated Latin scientific name(s) and ɬaʔəmɛn name(s). Some seafood types have grouped similar species together (e.g. clams) since they can be harvested together easily. Others are separate (e.g. salmon species) due to the cultural importance of each individual species. ɬaʔəmɛn words were provided by ɬaʔəmɛn elders who have given their knowledge so that the language is not forgotten*.

Common name(s) Scientific name(s) ɬaʔəmɛn name(s)

Northern abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana -

Black cod Anoplopoma fimbria -

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha θat̓ᶿəm

Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta ƛoχʷay

Clams - Butter, little neck, manila, cockle

Saxidomus giganteus, Protothaca staminea, Venerupis philippinarum, Clinocardium nuttallii

χəʔa, ɬoɬmom, ƛiyʔam

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch χɛyt̓ᶿɛqʷ

Crab - Red rock, Dungeness crab

Cancer productus, Metacarcinus magister χɛχyɛq̓

Spiny dogfish Squalus suckleyi kʷač̓

Eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus t̓ᶿəmtəq

Flounder and sole Paralichthyidae, Pleuronectidae papgay

Pacific geoduck Panopea abrupta -

Green sea urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis ʔəptən

Pacific halibut Hippoglossus stenolepis p̓agi

Pacific herring Clupea pallasii pallasii ɬagət

Pacific herring roe Clupea pallasii pallasii χawχɛk̓ʷum

Kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus -

Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus t̓ᶿoχo

Lingcod eggs Ophiodon elongatus k̓ʷuʔəmk̓ʷum

Pacific blue mussels Mytilus trossulus saʔma

Northern giant pacific octopus Enteroctopus dofleini taqʷə

Pacific cupped oyster Crassostrea gigas ƛoχƛoχ

Pacific tomcod Microgadus proximus -

Perch Embiotocidae -

Pink Salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha kʷətɛčɩn

Spot prawn Pandalus platyceros kikɛʔəqəɬ

Purple sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus -

Red sea urchin Mesocentrotus franciscanus maseqʷ

Rockfish - Tiger, Yellowmouth, China, Yelloweye, Copper, Yellowtail, etc. rockfish

Sebastes spp. -

Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax -

Scallops - Spiny, Rock scallop Chlamys hastata, Crassadoma gigantea -

44

Common name(s) Scientific name(s) ɬaʔəmɛn name(s)

Red sea cucumber Parastichopus californicus ʔələs

Harbour seal Phoca vitulina ʔasxʷ

Seaweed and kelp Seaweed and kelp species in area ƛəqstən, kʷumt

Longnose skate Raja rhina -

Sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka θəqay

*Retrieved from: https://www.firstvoices.com/explore/FV/sections/Data/Salish/Northern%20Salishan/Sliammon

45

Table A3. Factors driving changes in food fish harvesting and consumption in ɬaʔəmɛn traditional territory. Each factor is accompanied by a description and rationale citations for our inclusion in asking experts questions regarding perceived importance of the factors in driving changes in the area.

Factor Description Rationale citation

Change in economic market

Change in the supply and demand of seafood, expenses and costs of fishing (price of fish and for going out and getting fish – e.g. boat gas and boat insurance)

Frawley, Finkbeiner, & Crowder, 2019; Kaplan-hallam, Bennett, & Satter, 2017; Turner et al., 2008

Commercial overharvesting

Over fishing from the commercial sector which includes members of the Tla’amin Nation that participate commercially – e.g. clam diggers

pers. comm. Hegus Clint Williams; Paul et al., 2014

Climate change Change in the marine environment – e.g. changing water temperatures, change in ocean acidification, red tides, etc.

Cheung et al., 2015; Weatherdon et al., 2016

Your ability to get a permit card

The ability to get a permit card at the Governance House acting as a barrier

Pers. comm. Denise Smith, Lori Wilson

Your ability to get access to a harvest area

The ability for one to get access to a harvest area acting as a barrier – e.g. require a boat or need to go through private property

Pers. comm. Scott Galligos; Fediuk & Thom, 2003; Joyce & Canessa, 2009

Change in traditional diet

Change in the traditionally consumed diet in the territory – e.g. increased western food availability

Fediuk & Thom, 2003; Kuhnlein & Receveur, 1996; Turner et al., 2008

Ocean pollution Pollution (specifically water contamination and mill contamination) of marine waters and intertidal zones – e.g. clam beaches closed. We are not asking about plastic pollution which is known as a convenient but distracting truth (Stafford & Jones, 2019)

Fediuk & Thom, 2003; Lewitus et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2008

Barriers to decision making power

Barriers to having authority to make decisions of resources in Tla’amin traditional territory – e.g. having a seat at the table with DFO

Ban & Frid, 2018; Fediuk & Thom, 2003; Jones et al., 2017; Joyce & Canessa, 2009; Klain, Beveridge, & Bennett, 2014; Turner et al., 2008; von der Porten et al., 2016

Intergenerational knowledge loss

Traditional knowledge not being transferred to youth and younger generations

Barnes, 2008; Fediuk & Thom, 2003; Harper et al., 2018; Turner et al., 2008

Change in people’s taste

Change in people’s food preferences Beaudreau et al., 2018; Paul et al., 2014

46

Table A4. Beta regression output of the effect of time on the relative abundance of each harvested seafood type ordered by percent change.

Seafood Type Estimate Std. Error Z value P value % change

Pacific herring -0.81 0.15 -5.35 0.00000 -37.55

Pacific herring roe -0.66 0.17 -3.94 0.00008 -31.08

Chum salmon -0.26 0.18 -1.44 0.15045 -14.46

Lingcod eggs -0.40 0.13 -3.01 0.00264 -14.40

Red sea urchin -0.32 0.13 -2.53 0.01147 -11.11

Green sea urchin -0.27 0.11 -2.38 0.01739 -8.93

Pink Salmon -0.17 0.22 -0.76 0.44658 -8.30

Perch -0.26 0.06 -4.23 0.00002 -7.94

Flounder -0.24 0.12 -2.03 0.04260 -7.86

Harbour seal -0.25 0.06 -4.44 0.00001 -7.85

Black cod -0.24 0.09 -2.73 0.00633 -7.43

Red sea cucumber -0.24 0.04 -5.81 0.00000 -7.41

Pacific geoduck -0.23 0.07 -3.35 0.00081 -7.06

Spiny dogfish -0.20 0.02 -8.42 0.00000 -6.24

Scallops - Spiny, Rock scallop -0.20 0.08 -2.52 0.01169 -6.18

Northern giant pacific octopus -0.19 0.08 -2.42 0.01560 -5.89

Pacific tomcod -0.17 0.16 -1.10 0.27010 -5.73

Coho salmon -0.12 0.17 -0.72 0.47320 -5.42

Chinook salmon -0.12 0.18 -0.65 0.51414 -5.22

Purple sea urchin -0.15 0.11 -1.30 0.19485 -4.65

Kelp greenling -0.14 0.08 -1.70 0.08834 -4.44

Pacific blue mussels -0.10 0.12 -0.82 0.41177 -3.29

Clams - Butter, little neck, manila, cockle

-0.05 0.21 -0.26 0.79113 -2.85

Seaweed and kelp -0.08 0.11 -0.78 0.43819 -2.66

Crab - Red rock, Dungeness crab -0.05 0.17 -0.28 0.78293 -1.89

Pacific halibut -0.04 0.14 -0.28 0.78120 -1.26

Rockfish - Tiger, Yellowmouth, China, Yelloweye, Copper, Yellowtail, etc. rockfish

0.01 0.16 0.08 0.93852 0.54

Sockeye salmon 0.07 0.19 0.36 0.72218 2.97

Lingcod 0.10 0.19 0.54 0.58621 4.72

Pacific cupped oyster 0.21 0.21 1.00 0.31823 10.10

Spot prawn 0.33 0.20 1.66 0.09751 11.63

47

Table A5. Beta regression output of the effect of time on the relative abundance of each consumed seafood type ordered by percent change.

Seafood Type Estimate Std. Error Z value P value % change

Pacific herring -0.80 0.13 -6.25 0.00000 -35.31

Lingcod eggs -0.69 0.12 -5.70 0.00000 -24.97

Pacific herring roe -0.41 0.11 -3.70 0.00021 -18.55

Red sea urchin -0.45 0.15 -2.96 0.00311 -16.14

Pink Salmon -0.34 0.14 -2.48 0.01314 -15.97

Green sea urchin -0.47 0.13 -3.66 0.00025 -15.70

Harbour seal -0.49 0.06 -8.72 0.00000 -15.37

Pacific tomcod -0.41 0.17 -2.43 0.01518 -14.64

Coho salmon -0.31 0.11 -2.72 0.00654 -14.46

Perch -0.47 0.05 -9.21 0.00000 -14.40

Black cod -0.45 0.08 -5.53 0.00000 -14.24

Longnose skate -0.46 0.04 -11.72 0.00000 -14.05

Spiny dogfish -0.44 0.04 -10.24 0.00000 -13.61

Clams - Butter, little neck, manila, cockle

-0.27 0.09 -2.84 0.00449 -13.16

Red sea cucumber -0.43 0.05 -8.40 0.00000 -13.14

Flounder -0.40 0.10 -4.08 0.00004 -12.99

Pacific geoduck -0.41 0.06 -6.94 0.00000 -12.79

Purple sea urchin -0.38 0.10 -3.69 0.00023 -11.96

Eulachon -0.35 0.11 -3.15 0.00164 -11.42

Kelp greenling -0.34 0.08 -4.29 0.00002 -10.55

Northern abalone -0.33 0.08 -4.21 0.00003 -10.14

Northern giant pacific octopus -0.32 0.10 -3.07 0.00212 -10.07

Chum salmon -0.18 0.11 -1.69 0.09118 -9.43

Rockfish - Tiger, Yellowmouth, China, Yelloweye, Copper, Yellowtail, etc. rockfish

-0.19 0.11 -1.64 0.10147 -8.59

Chinook salmon -0.20 0.15 -1.31 0.18996 -8.46

Pacific sardine -0.23 0.13 -1.84 0.06531 -7.53

Seaweed and kelp -0.23 0.13 -1.77 0.07707 -7.44

Lingcod -0.05 0.15 -0.33 0.74275 -2.07

Sockeye salmon -0.04 0.10 -0.37 0.71424 -1.59

Pacific blue mussels -0.02 0.14 -0.13 0.89395 -0.64

Crab - Red rock, Dungeness crab 0.03 0.11 0.28 0.78068 1.19

Scallops - Spiny, Rock scallop 0.07 0.12 0.60 0.54859 2.35

Pacific cupped oyster 0.07 0.13 0.53 0.59778 2.83

Pacific halibut 0.48 0.10 4.97 0.00000 16.25

Spot prawn 0.61 0.12 5.12 0.00000 21.78

48

Table A6. Strength of evidence for alternative models explaining the perceived importance in drivers of change for traditional seafood harvest and consumption among 23 and 22 experts, respectively.

Model N K AICc AICc LL

Harvest Ranked Importance Driver 23 12 733.41 0 -353.98

Driver*Gender 23 22 737.16 3.75 -344.12 Driver*Age 23 22 746.62 13.22 -348.85 Driver*Boat 23 22 748.15 14.75 -349.62 Driver*Employment 23 22 750.42 17.01 -350.75

Consumption Ranked Importance Driver 22 12 697.80 0 -336.14

Driver*Gender 22 22 706.88 9.08 -328.86 Driver*Age 22 22 713.29 15.49 -332.06 Driver*Boat 22 22 713.46 15.66 -332.15 Driver*Employment 22 22 714.81 17.01 -332.82

Notes: Likelihoods are specified for each model. K, the number of estimable parameters in the model; AICc, Akaike information criterion corrected for sample size; ΔAICc, change in AICc; LL, log- likelihood

Figure A2. Shown above are species accumulation curves for each portfolio. (A) Pre 1980 harvesting, (B) Post 1980 harvesting, (C) Pre 1980 consumption, (D) Post 1980 consumption. Shaded area shows the 95% confidence intervals. The curves were made with the vegan package in R, specifically the specaccum() function (Gotelli & Colwell, 2001).

49

Figure A3. Bootstrapped standardized degree centrality for harvest (A) and consumption (B) portfolios with varying proportions of nodes (i.e. seafood types). All bootstrapped comparisons of degree centrality show a significant effect of time and an increasing trend. Nodes were bootstrapped in increased proportion (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0) of total number of seafood types for 100 iterations without replacement.

50

Figure A4. Our data (A) compared to portfolio link sensitivity analysis (B) both show a significant effect of time and increasing degree centrality trend on harvest and consumption portfolios. Bootstrapped degree centrality data where 80% of the links is sampled without replacement for 100 iterations.