Talk:Cultural keystone species

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maral.m. Peer reviewers: Nick Hajaly.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft peer review

Hey Maral! I really like the direction you’re taking this article. I especially like the fact that you are not limiting a keystone species to be some form of animal or insect (like on the other wiki page) and are instead extending the definition towards a cultural context and incorporating plant species as well. I’ve actually found a few sources that may be of interest to you so I’ve listed them below:

Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Fisheries Management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the Catalytic Role of Turtles and Dugong as Cultural Keystone Species. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05165-170434 (Remains more on the wildlife side of things, but incorporates TEK as well)

(The three articles below can be found on Web of Science from the Concordia library database)

The Precarious State of a Cultural Keystone Species: Tribal and Biological Assessments of the Role and Future of Black Ash (Could be a nice addition as another plant species in conjunction with western red cedar)

Preserving Ecosystem Services on Indigenous Territory through Restoration and Management of a Cultural Keystone Species

Moving from model to application: Cultural keystone species and reclamation in Fort McKay, Alberta

Cheers Nick Hajaly (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick! Thank you for the positive feedback. Glad you brought up these articles! A few of them were on my list to gather more info on, and I think Black Ash will be one of my examples (along with White Pine). Sorry I didn't have more for you to review. Maral.m (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-review by Maida

I think your notes are a good start to writing this article - have you thought about adding CKS as a sub-heading to the wikipedia page on Keystone Species (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species)? Seeing as CKS links to KS?

Second, I would suggest citing a few more sources, especially on some of the content that comes from Garibaldi & Turner (2004) (looks like you have a good chunk of your notes from there).

Third, have a couple of examples, maybe more than just the cedar example?

Finally, maybe think about how you will divide your article - sub-topics under headings or sub-headings.

Cheers
Maida h4 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maida! Sorry I hadn't really prepared a real draft for you to review yet. After speaking with Prof. Turner, I think it's best to avoid the Keystone page and simply link to it in the first sentence or two of my lead section. The reason being that KS is a pretty science-heavy concept (bio/ecology) and CKS is a lot more of a social science take on things, so I don't want to step on anyone's toes.

I have gathered several more sources and will definitely work to give the different perspectives/content enough space.

Re: examples, I will actually not go into detail with cedar because it has enough attention, but will draw from other research on the white pine and black ash.

I am still mulling over the structure of the paper but think I'll go with subheadings after the lead, to cover the academic perspectives of CKS, its importance (for conservation, TEK), and examples.

Thanks for your input, given the lack of content to work with (sorry).

Maral.m (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]