Mapping research on Indigenous peoples, traditional knowledge, and biodiversity conservation in the Amazon: gaps and Indigenous knowledge co-production

This bibliometric analysis of Amazonian biodiversity research reveals that while Indigenous peoples are widely recognized as knowledge holders and conservation actors, they remain significantly underrepresented as authors and partners due to persistent geographic, epistemic, and collaborative asymmetries that call for a shift toward equitable co-production and Indigenous leadership.

The Gist

Imagine the Amazon rainforest as a massive, ancient library. For centuries, the Indigenous peoples of the Amazon have been the librarians, the storytellers, and the guardians of this library. They know exactly where every book is, how the stories connect, and how to keep the shelves from collapsing.

This paper is like a team of researchers walking into that library to see how the "outside world" (the scientific community) has been writing about them. They didn't just look at the books; they asked the librarians themselves what they thought of the stories being told.

Here is the breakdown of their findings, using simple analogies:

1. The "Guest Speakers" vs. The "Authors"

The researchers found that while everyone agrees Indigenous people are the experts on the Amazon, they are rarely the ones writing the reports.

• The Analogy: Imagine a cooking show where a famous chef (Indigenous knowledge) is doing all the chopping, seasoning, and tasting. But the person holding the camera, writing the recipe card, and getting the "Best Chef" award is someone who just walked in from a different country.
• The Reality: The study looked at 94 scientific articles. In only 6 out of 100 of them did an Indigenous person actually get listed as an author. Most of the time, Indigenous people were just the "subjects" of the study, not the partners.

2. The "Map" vs. The "Headquarters"

The study looked at where the research happened versus where the scientists were sitting at their desks.

• The Analogy: Think of it like a movie studio. The movie is filmed in the Amazon (Brazil, Peru, Ecuador), but the directors, producers, and the people who own the studio are mostly in the US, UK, and Spain.
• The Reality: Most of the studies were about Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador. However, the universities leading these studies were mostly in the "Global North" (wealthier, industrialized nations). This creates a gap where the people living in the forest aren't the ones controlling the research agenda.

3. What Are They Studying? (The "Menu")

The researchers checked what topics were on the menu.

• The Popular Dishes: Scientists love studying plants, mammals (like monkeys and jaguars), and birds. These are the "main courses."
• The Leftovers: They barely touched fish, insects, amphibians, and reptiles.
• The Missing Course: They also ignored the rivers and waterways almost entirely.
• The Problem: For Indigenous people, the river is just as important as the forest. By ignoring the water and the smaller creatures, the scientific picture is incomplete. It's like trying to understand a car by only looking at the wheels and ignoring the engine.

4. How Are Indigenous People Being Used?

The study categorized how Indigenous knowledge was being used in these papers:

• The "Watchdogs" (41%): Most studies used Indigenous people to help monitor the forest (counting animals, tracking changes). This is great, but it's often just "helping out."
• The "Storytellers" (38%): Many studies just recorded their stories and traditions (like which plants cure sickness).
• The "Missing Piece": Very few studies focused on restoring damaged land with Indigenous leadership. It's like asking someone to watch a house burn down and take notes, but not asking them to help put out the fire or rebuild the house.

5. The "Voice" of the Librarians

The most powerful part of this paper is that the authors didn't just crunch numbers; they asked the Indigenous researchers (who are co-authors of this very paper) for their thoughts.

• The Feeling: They described the current system as "Scientific Colonialism."
• The Metaphor: They feel like their knowledge is being "mined" like gold. Scientists come in, take the gold (knowledge), melt it down, and sell it as their own product, leaving the original owners with nothing but a thank-you note.
• The Demand: They want a partnership, not a transaction. They say, "Don't study us; study with us." They want to be in the driver's seat, deciding what questions to ask and ensuring the results actually help their communities.

The Bottom Line

The paper concludes that while we are finally starting to realize how important Indigenous people are to saving the Amazon, we are still doing it the wrong way. We are treating them like a resource to be studied rather than partners to be respected.

The Fix: To truly save the Amazon, science needs to change its recipe. It needs to stop being a "take-and-tell" operation and become a "co-create" operation. We need to hand the pen to the librarians, let them lead the research, and ensure that the knowledge they share stays with them and benefits their future.

Technical Summary

1. Problem Statement

Despite the critical role Indigenous peoples play in conserving Amazonian biodiversity through traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and sustainable land management, there is a persistent disconnect between institutional recognition of their importance and their actual inclusion in scientific research.

• Epistemic Inequality: Western science often treats Indigenous knowledge as a data source rather than a valid epistemology, leading to "extractive" research where Indigenous peoples are subjects of study rather than co-authors or leaders.
• Representation Gap: While Indigenous territories are central to conservation, Indigenous researchers are severely underrepresented in the authorship of scientific literature regarding these regions.
• Policy-Practice Mismatch: International frameworks (e.g., CBD, Nagoya Protocol) and national policies (e.g., Brazil's PNGATI) advocate for Indigenous participation, yet scientific production remains dominated by Global North institutions, perpetuating power asymmetries.

2. Methodology

The study employed a bibliometric analysis combined with a participatory qualitative approach to map the landscape of research on Indigenous peoples and biodiversity conservation in the Amazon.

• Data Source: 94 original research articles published between 1997 and 2025, indexed in Scopus and Web of Science.
• Search Strategy: The query string (Indigenous AND Biodiversity AND Conservation AND Amazon*) was applied to titles, abstracts, and keywords.
• Inclusion Criteria: Peer-reviewed original articles; exclusion of reviews, book chapters, and theses. No language restrictions were applied.
• Analytical Axes: Data was categorized into five dimensions:
  1. Indigenous participation in conservation actions.
  2. Types of contributions (e.g., monitoring, cultural practices).
  3. Study areas (Indigenous Lands vs. other protected areas).
  4. Indigenous co-authorship (presence and position).
  5. Taxa and ecosystems investigated.
• Participatory Integration: Preliminary results were shared with Indigenous researchers and community members from the Panará, Sateré-Mawé, Kumaruara, and Kuikuro territories. Their feedback was incorporated as direct narratives to interpret the bibliometric patterns, ensuring a co-produced analysis.
• Tools: Analysis was conducted using RStudio (Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny packages) and visualized using Canva.

3. Key Contributions

• Participatory Framework: The study moves beyond a standard bibliometric review by integrating Indigenous perspectives directly into the interpretation of data, treating Indigenous researchers as co-authors and knowledge holders rather than just subjects.
• Identification of Structural Asymmetries: It quantifies the "Global North" dominance in academic leadership versus the "Global South" reality of field research, highlighting a specific gap in Indigenous authorship.
• Taxonomic and Ecosystem Gaps: It reveals a significant bias toward terrestrial taxa (plants, mammals) and a neglect of aquatic ecosystems and invertebrates, despite their cultural and ecological centrality to Amazonian communities.
• Critique of "Extractive" Science: The paper provides a critical analysis of how scientific production often validates Indigenous knowledge only when filtered through Western academic lenses, reinforcing colonial dynamics.

4. Key Results

A. Temporal Trends

• Scientific production was sporadic until the early 2000s, increased modestly around 2007–2008, and saw a significant rise after 2018.
• A peak occurred in 2024, likely driven by COP16 and the Kuntari Katu Program.
• A temporary decline (2019–2021) correlated with the COVID-19 pandemic and the weakening of environmental policies in Brazil.

B. Geographic and Institutional Distribution

• Most Studied Countries: Brazil (n=26), Ecuador (n=25), and Peru (n=22).
• Research Leadership: Despite the focus on the Amazon, the majority of academic leadership and institutional affiliations are in the Global North (USA, UK, Spain).
• Key Institutions: INPA and UEA (Brazil) are the top local producers, followed by European and North American universities (e.g., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, University of East Anglia).

C. Indigenous Co-Authorship

• Critical Gap: Indigenous co-authorship was identified in only 6.4% of the 94 studies.
• This indicates a severe disconnect between the communities providing the data/knowledge and the authors publishing the findings.

D. Types of Contributions Attributed to Indigenous Peoples

• Community-based monitoring and management: 41.48% (Most common).
• Cultural practices and TEK: 38.19%.
• Management and sustainable resource use: 19.14%.
• Habitat conservation and restoration: Least documented category.

E. Taxa and Ecosystems

• Dominant Groups: Plants (42.5%), Mammals (29.9%), and Fish (10.3%).
• Underrepresented Groups: Insects (5.7%), Amphibians (3.4%), and Reptiles (1.1%).
• Ecosystem Bias: Strong predominance of terrestrial studies; aquatic environments (rivers, lakes) are significantly underexplored despite their vital role in Indigenous livelihoods.

5. Significance and Implications

• Epistemic Justice: The study argues that conservation science cannot be effective or equitable without addressing the "epistemic inequality" where Indigenous knowledge is extracted but Indigenous people are excluded from authorship and decision-making.
• Policy Recommendations:
  • Shift from "research on Indigenous peoples" to "research with Indigenous peoples."
  • Implement CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) for Indigenous Data Governance.
  • Invest in local capacity building and funding for Indigenous researchers in the Global South to reduce reliance on Global North institutions.
• Future Directions: Conservation strategies must integrate Indigenous leadership, prioritize aquatic ecosystem research, and ensure that research agendas emerge from the needs of Indigenous territories rather than external academic interests.

Conclusion: The paper concludes that while the scientific community increasingly recognizes the value of Indigenous knowledge, the structural mechanisms of science production remain colonial. True progress requires a paradigm shift toward equitable partnerships, shared authority, and the co-production of knowledge that respects Indigenous sovereignty over their territories and data.