Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Perspective

Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science ·

Volume 4 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/famrs.2026.1765241

From two worlds to one: a Navajo (Diné) woman’s path in herpetology

  • Catrina M. Alberts1,2*corresponding author
  • Seafha C. Ramos3,4
  1. 1Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, United States
  2. 2Navajo (Diné), United States
  3. 3School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff,AZ, United States
  4. 4Yurok/Karuk, United States
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Herpetology, like the species it seeks to understand, exists within relationships between land, water, and the people who have long cared for them. However, for generations, its roots in discovery, collection, and classification have silenced Indigenous voices and separated science from relationship. As a Diné (Navajo) herpetologist, I write from within these intersections, exploring how Indigenous Knowledge (IK) can transform the questions we ask and the ways we conduct research. First, I trace the colonial foundations of herpetology and how Indigenous cultural protocols, rooted in respect, have been misinterpreted as barriers to scientific engagement. Next, I examine how IK has guided wildlife science, from ethnoherpetology to conservation biology, offering frameworks of relational accountability, long-term ecological insight, and community care. I grounded these ideas in a case study of Northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens) research conducted with the Navajo Nation, where populations are threatened by interacting effects, including grazing and climate-driven hydrologic change. Guided by the 4 R’s of Indigenous research practice (i.e., Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, and Responsibility), integrating Diné teachings produced tangible methodological outcomes, including culturally guided site selection, reliance on non-invasive approaches such as environmental DNA and acoustic monitoring, careful interpretation of uncertainty, and Tribal authority over data governance. These outcomes reframed conservation from documenting decline to preparing for restoration grounded in long-term stewardship. While shaped by Diné teachings, this approach does not offer a universal template. Instead, it demonstrates how conservation science can remain rigorous while becoming more relational, accountable, and responsive to Indigenous sovereignty and responsibility.

Keywords

Positionality

My name is Catrina Marie Alberts, and I am Diné. Throughout this paper, I use Diné instead of “Navajo.” Diné more accurately reflects our language, worldview, and sovereignty. I am Tsi’naajinii (Black Streak Wood People Clan), born for Bilagáana (Caucasian), and my maternal grandfather’s clan is Kinyaa’aanii (The Towering House Clan). I was raised in the city, far from my family’s land and sacred places I now conserve through science. Early on, I was told that my interests in amphibians and reptiles did not fit others’ expectations of what it means to be Diné. In academic spaces, I feared that bringing my culture into science made my approach less objective or professional (Miriti et al., 2023; Todd, 2016).

I often describe this experience as “walking between two worlds,” reflecting how colonial and institutional structures force Indigenous scientists to navigate boundaries between cultural responsibility and scientific legitimacy (Castagno et al., 2022; Gervais et al., 2017; Williams and Shipley, 2018). While this framing risks reinforcing artificial binaries (TallBear, 2014; Todd, 2016), I employ it here to name the constraints placed on Indigenous participation in science rather than to suggest that these knowledge systems are inherently separate.

I did not grow up knowing I would be a scientist, but I was always drawn to wildlife. My grandparents’ stories taught me that animals are our non-human relatives, aligning with Indigenous philosophies of kinship (Deloria et al., 1999; Kimmerer, 2013). I was taught that the horned lizard, our cheii, or grandfather, was sacred, and these teachings shaped my sense of responsibility to land and life. Yet, amphibians and reptiles hold sacred and sometimes taboo roles in Diné culture (Bulow, 1991; Crump and Fenolio, 2015) and engaging with them in academic settings often required silence or compromise. Like many Indigenous students, I consented to practices that conflicted with my values, fearing refusal would be interpreted as unprofessional (Moreno et al., 2020; Page-Reeves et al., 2019).

These tensions deepened after losing my parents to COVID-19. In grief, I turned to my culture for grounding, to stories, songs, and teachings that connect us (Smith, 2012; Wilson, 2020). This return clarified why I do this work. I study herpetofauna not only for their ecology, but because they carry stories and belong to a land my ancestors knew intimately. Protecting them is also protecting my heritage, grief, and healing.

1 Introduction

The first time I was told, “You must not be Navajo,” for studying amphibians, I understood that herpetology is not only a science of animals, but a question of belonging. My experiences raise questions that guide this article: How can I, as an Indigenous scientist, carry both cultural and scientific responsibilities with care? Is there room in herpetology for Indigenous Knowledge, and what would it mean for our field if we made that space? How might integrating Indigenous perspectives challenge or deepen our understanding of herpetofauna and conservation?

These questions reflect a broader truth: herpetology, like other sciences, has often excluded or marginalized Indigenous Knowledge (IK) (Deloria et al., 1999; Miriti et al., 2023; Smith, 2012), creating barriers for Indigenous Peoples who might otherwise contribute (Ash et al., 2015; Nadasdy, 1999; Pierotti and Wildcat, 2000). This piece explores what it means to walk within Indigenous and Western scientific worlds as a Diné herpetologist. My objectives are threefold:

  • To trace the colonial roots of herpetology and how they shaped IK exclusion.
  • To show what IK brings to herpetology, while acknowledging cultural barriers that Indigenous Peoples may face in this field.
  • To use my own research on Northern leopard frogs as a case study in practicing culturally responsive methodologies.

2 Colonial roots of herpetology and IK exclusion

Herpetology, like much of Western natural history, emerged from epistemologies that prioritized cataloging and control over relational ways of knowing, often excluding or exploiting IK (Mazzocchi, 2006; Miriti et al., 2023; Pierotti and Wildcat, 2000). Early field studies framed species as objects of “discovery,” overlooking centuries of Indigenous stewardship and relationships between communities and wildlife, positioning scientists as authorities while dismissing IK as irrelevant or superstitious (Deloria et al., 1999; Nadasdy, 1999).

These colonial legacies persist in herpetology today. Indigenous students are often questioned for their place in the field when they cannot or choose not to follow standard protocols, such as touching or directly observing animals. Cultural practices, rooted in respect and avoidance, were interpreted as incompetence rather than recognized as ethical engagement (Carjuzaa and Ruff, 2010; Williams and Shipley, 2018). I experienced this tension firsthand, learning to hide discomfort from practices that conflicted with my values.

Herpetology continues to measure legitimacy by conformity to Western norms (Smith, 2012; Todd, 2016), and Indigenous participation is often invited only after agendas are established, limiting influence on research design and outcomes (Ford et al., 2020; Yanou et al., 2023). As a result, research can unintentionally replicate extractive dynamics without returning benefits or authority to Indigenous communities (Walter et al., 2020; Walter and Suina, 2018). Addressing this legacy demands rethinking research questions, methodologies, and relationships with communities and landscapes (Kovach, 2021; Louis, 2007; Wilson, 2020).

3 What does IK bring to herpetology?

As a child, I learned the horned lizard is our grandfather, my cheii, teaching me that herpetofauna are kin, not objects. Many Indigenous communities share similar understandings: amphibians and reptiles are sacred, powerful, and rooted in place. These teachings guide research toward ethical, relational approaches (Kimmerer, 2013; Todd, 2016).

Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) offer complementary ways of understanding the natural world. IK encompasses lived, place-based knowledge embedded in culture, language, and spirituality, while TEK often refers to the environmental dimensions of that knowledge, including long-term observations and ecosystem management (McGregor, 2004; Simpson, 2002). Both emphasize relationship, reciprocity, and respect. Approaches grounded in IK and TEK treat research as relationship-building with the land and its beings, generating knowledge through ongoing interaction—tracking migrations, seasonal patterns, and ecological shifts (Brooks et al., 2024). These frameworks deepen ecological understanding and translate into practical methods such as collaborative monitoring, adaptive management, and restoration aligned with community priorities. They have informed management of caribou, salmon, bison, and wolves, producing conservation outcomes that are culturally grounded and ecologically robust (Brooks et al., 2024; Ramos, 2022).

Herpetology, by contrast, has engaged with IK inconsistently, and in the United States especially, IK remains noticeably absent from mainstream herpetological research. Global ethnoherpetological work includes folklore about geckos in Portugal (Ceríaco et al., 2011), Nahua knowledge in Mexico (Linares-Rosas et al., 2021), teachings surrounding frogs and reptiles in South Africa (Phaka et al., 2023), and community use of herpetofauna in the Solomon Islands (Pollard et al., 2015). In North America, Williams and Shipley (2018) showed that Indigenous students’ avoidance practices around reptiles—rooted in teachings of power, protocol, or danger—were misinterpreted as ignorance rather than cultural ethics.

Ethnoherpetological knowledge extends beyond peer-reviewed science. Some accounts are Indigenous-led, while others, though documented by outside researchers, reflect long-standing cultural relationships with herpetofauna. Examples include Nabhan (2003), writings documenting Hopi snake ceremonies (James, 1900), and broader cultural compilations such as Crump & Fenolio’s Eye of Newt and Toe of Frog, Adder’s Fork and Lizard’s Leg: The Lore and Mythology of Amphibians and Reptiles. Regional programs—ranging from the Tucson Herpetological Society’s collaborations with tribal nations to community-based snakebite initiatives in Ecuador (Save the Snakes, 2024)—integrate cultural knowledge into conservation. In the U.S. Southwest, Diné leaders have guided institutional decisions, including the removal of snakes from the Navajo Zoo, to align public spaces with cultural values (Fonseca, 2015).

These examples reveal robust Indigenous herpetological knowledge and leadership, yet within peer-reviewed herpetological science—where recognition and citation power accumulate—such work remains underrepresented. This reflects not a lack of Indigenous expertise but structural and linguistic barriers that privilege Western scientific formats and dissemination pathways over Indigenous-led contributions (Smith, 2012).

The absence of Indigenous perspectives in herpetological research has consequences. Studies may overlook culturally significant sites, disregard relational protocols, or misinterpret species’ ecological and cultural roles. Integrating IK into herpetology brings at least three contributions: (1) place-based ecological insights that complement Western datasets and extend monitoring beyond formal field seasons (Ford et al., 2020); (2) relational ethics that inform non-invasive methodologies and respectful engagement with powerful beings (Carjuzaa and Ruff, 2010; TallBear, 2014); and (3) community governance that ensures research aligns with cultural priorities and supports long-term stewardship (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020; Walter and Suina, 2018).

Despite these strengths, Indigenous Peoples feel constrained from pursuing herpetology due to sacred associations, fear of judgment, and lack of role models (Ash et al., 2015; Williams and Shipley, 2018). This tension shaped my own journey, which is why I prioritize non-invasive approaches, such as environmental DNA (eDNA) and acoustic monitoring, alongside sustained Tribal consultation.

4 Case study: amphibian research with the Navajo Nation

4.1 Background: species, place, and significance

Across the Navajo Nation (Diné Bikéyah), Northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens) have declined markedly (Navajo Natural Heritage Program, 2020), particularly in montane wetlands, springs, and stream margins that historically supported breeding and larval development. Although the species has declined across much of the southwestern United States due to habitat loss, hydrologic alteration, disease, non-native species, and climate-driven aridification (Hayes et al., 2010; Stuart et al., 2004), within Diné Bikéyah, these pressures interact with local land-use practices that disproportionately affect amphibian habitat and culturally significant landscapes.

Livestock grazing and climate change jointly degrade amphibian habitat across riparian and wetland systems. Grazing reduces vegetative cover and increases erosion and sedimentation, leading to the loss of shallow margins essential for egg deposition and larval refuge, and reducing habitat complexity (Belsky et al., 1999). Climate change compounds these effects through warming, reduced snowpack, and prolonged drought, which shorten hydroperiods and convert perennial waters into seasonally intermittent systems (Dettinger et al., 2015; Seager et al., 2007). Earlier drying reduces reproductive success and increases vulnerability to disease and thermal stress (Carey and Alexander, 2003). Together, these pressures accelerate habitat loss, reduce connectivity among sites, and limit opportunities for recolonization (Campbell Grant et al., 2010).

For Diné communities, these waters and mountains are relatives, teachers, and storied places. Declines in amphibian populations signal broader disruptions to land and water systems that sustain both human and non-human life. Conservation of L. pipiens on Diné Bikéyah is not solely a biological concern but a relational responsibility tied to stewardship, balance, and long-term care.

4.2 Research governance and co-development with the Navajo Nation

This research is co-developed with the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW) (NNDFW Permit 17NNC:23NNC 16USC:18USC; Northern Arizona University Tribal Consultation Number 9217431), which guides research design, site access, and data governance. Fieldwork focuses on identifying current distributions of L. pipiens, monitoring habitat conditions, and supporting future restoration in culturally significant landscapes. Data sovereignty is retained by NNDFW, with decisions regarding data storage, interpretation, and dissemination governed by Tribal authority. The project is grounded in the principle that research should prioritize the land and the Nation over external interests (Louis, 2007; Smith, 2012).

4.3 Frameworks for ethical Indigenous research

Multiple frameworks honor Indigenous research grounded in sovereignty and relational accountability. The CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) emphasize Indigenous data sovereignty (Carroll et al., 2020), while Two-Eyed Seeing (Reid et al., 2021), trust-based models of transparency (Walter et al., 2020), and decolonizing methodologies (Smith, 2012) provide further guidance for ethical practice. Wilson (2020); TallBear (2014), and Todd (2016) emphasize relational accountability and critiques of Western epistemologies, while Mazzocchi (2006) highlights potential for mutual learning. These frameworks have been successfully implemented in fisheries, wildlife, and health research (Brooks et al., 2024; Ramos, 2022), though their use in herpetology remains limited.

While these approaches all provide valuable guidance, my case study centers on the 4 R’s of Indigenous Research Practice: Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, and Responsibility (Kirkness and Barnhardt, 1991). The number four carries deep meaning for the Diné worldview: we have our four clans, four sacred mountains, four cardinal directions, four seasons, and four worlds of emergence. Thus, the 4 R’s resonate with my cultural grounding and research practice.

4.4 Implementation of the 4 R’s of Indigenous research practice

Respect guided how I entered and worked within landscapes, emphasizing mindfulness, adherence to cultural protocols, and restraint. Wildlife was approached as non-human relatives rather than study objects, and disturbance and handling were minimized unless deemed necessary by NNDFW. Even in data reporting, respect shapes what is shared and what remains private (TallBear, 2014; Wilson, 2020).

Relevance was ensured through co-development of research questions and objectives with NNDFW, aligning scientific inquiry with community priorities, culturally important waters, and long-term restoration goals rather than academic curiosity alone (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020; Louis, 2007).

Reciprocity was embedded in both field practice and governance. Efforts to minimize harm and give back were paired with Tribal authority over data storage, interpretation, and dissemination, ensuring that knowledge exchange remained bidirectional and responsive to community guidance (Kimmerer, 2013; Kovach, 2021).

Responsibility encompassed accountability to both cultural and scientific obligations. Research was conducted under Tribal permitting and governance, with adherence to biosecurity protocols and relational accountability to land, water, and community beyond data collection alone (Wilson, 2020).

Additional examples of how the 4 R’s can be operationalized in research are summarized in Figure 1, which illustrates adaptable, non-extractive approaches for implementing Indigenous research principles in herpetological research conducted in partnership with Indigenous communities.

Examples of broad, adaptable approaches for applying the 4 R’s—Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, and Responsibility (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991)—in herpetological research. These practices illustrate relational, non-extractive approaches that can guide herpetologists in collaborating with Indigenous communities, honoring cultural protocols, and conducting ethical, place-based conservation work. Colors correspond to the Diné sacred mountains (white–east, blue–south, yellow–west, black–north), emphasizing the cultural roots of the framework. Figure created by C. M. Alberts with Canva Pro.
Figure 1. Examples of broad, adaptable approaches for applying the 4 R’s—Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, and Responsibility (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991)—in herpetological research. These practices illustrate relational, non-extractive approaches that can guide herpetologists in collaborating with Indigenous communities, honoring cultural protocols, and conducting ethical, place-based conservation work. Colors correspond to the Diné sacred mountains (white–east, blue–south, yellow–west, black–north), emphasizing the cultural roots of the framework. Figure created by C. M. Alberts with Canva Pro.

4.5 Methodological outcomes of integrating Diné teachings into western conservation science

Integrating Diné teachings into this research produced three interrelated methodological outcomes that reshaped how the project was designed, conducted, and interpreted. Rather than following a conventional conservation framework centered on efficiency, extraction, and definitive outcomes, these outcomes reflect teachings passed down from my parents, which I expand upon below: that research carries responsibility, that words and actions must be intentional, and that boundaries must be honored at every stage.

The first outcome was a strengthened commitment to reciprocity as a guiding principle. In many Western conservation studies, research is designed primarily to generate publishable data, whereas here, research was structured as a practice accountable to community priorities and future stewardship. Research questions, site selection, and long-term goals were developed with NNDFW to support restoration planning and decision-making, positioning scientific work as a form of giving back.

The second outcome was increased intentionality in communication and conduct. Where scientific practice often prioritizes speed, objectivity, and detachment, Diné teachings emphasize that words carry power, shaping how species, places, and results are described. This intentionality extended beyond writing to field presence and the pacing of work, reinforcing that research is defined not only by outcomes, but by how one moves through relationships with land, water, wildlife, and community.

The third outcome was the honoring of boundaries as a source of methodological clarity. Conventional field protocols often treat access, disturbance, and data sharing as logistical concerns, but here cultural and ethical boundaries shaped decisions about site access, seasonal timing, avoidance of sensitive areas, limits on disturbance, and data governance, including what information could be shared and under whose authority. These boundaries reshaped how scientific tools were interpreted. Environmental DNA provides a powerful, context-dependent tool for detecting rare species, with limits of detection and quantification that influence how results should be interpreted and compared across studies (Klymus et al., 2020). Rather than equating molecular detection or non-detection with species presence or site occupancy, results were interpreted cautiously and contextualized through long-term observation of water persistence, seasonal patterns, and landscape history. Together, molecular tools and IK supported restoration-oriented decision-making rather than absolute claims about species presence or site status.

5 Discussion: toward an Indigenous future for herpetology

This perspective demonstrates that integrating Diné teachings and responsibilities into conservation science produces concrete methodological and epistemological outcomes. Rather than diluting rigor, this integration reshaped how research was designed, interpreted, and governed. Practices such as non-invasive sampling, intentional language, and respect for boundaries were not symbolic additions but central to a research process grounded in responsibility to land, water, and community. In this way, methodology became inseparable from cultural practice, aligning with relational accountability frameworks that understand research as an ethical, place-based act (Kovach, 2021; Wilson, 2020).

These outcomes were made possible through collective governance with the NNDFW, which guided research priorities, permissions, and data stewardship. Tribal sovereignty was not an administrative layer added to the project, but the foundation that shaped how knowledge was produced and shared. This structure ensured that conservation science served long-term stewardship and restoration goals rather than extractive research outcomes.

Together, the methodological outcomes demonstrate that IK is not merely contextual or supplementary but actively shapes conservation practice. Rather than constraining inquiry, Diné teachings clarified ethical limits, reshaped how knowledge is communicated and interpreted, and oriented research toward revitalization and long-term care rather than documentation alone. The result is a form of conservation science that is relational, cautious, and future-oriented, one that challenges assumptions about neutrality and efficiency without rejecting scientific rigor. In this way, integrating Diné teachings reshaped how conservation science is practiced and governed, while allowing me to practice science without setting aside my parents’ teachings or my Diné responsibilities.

Currently, IK occupies a narrow place in herpetology, often treated as anecdotal rather than equal (Mazzocchi, 2006; Pierotti and Wildcat, 2000). Addressing this imbalance requires allowing Indigenous scientists and communities to participate without setting aside cultural responsibilities to be taken seriously (Ash et al., 2015; Miriti et al., 2023; Walter et al., 2020). Integrating Indigenous perspectives invites herpetology to critically examine its colonial foundations in extraction and control. Reframing herpetofauna as relatives rather than objects of discovery challenges assumptions about access, handling, and authority over knowledge (Todd, 2016). This approach does not offer a universal template; teachings and boundaries vary among Nations and must be approached with humility and responsiveness to local governance (Smith, 2012; Whyte, 2013).

For much of my life, I felt I was walking between two worlds: Indigenous and Western, spiritual and scientific. Over time, I have come to see they are one. Weaving Diné teachings into my research shows that science and culture can coexist without compromise. Embracing Indigenous perspectives can make herpetology more interdisciplinary, relational, and robust. It challenges the field to reconsider its foundations: What questions do we ask? Who decides the answers? Who benefits from the knowledge? Practiced with cultural care, herpetology can become a space of belonging, healing, and responsibility—one where future Indigenous scientists no longer walk a tightrope but stand firmly within a shared world.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Donnavan Johannes David Kruger, North-West University, South Africa

Reviewed by: Patricia Chow-Fraser, McMaster University, Canada

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research received funding from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP) (Fellow ID: 2024375253), Northern Arizona University Presidential Fellowship Program, Northern Arizona University Student Graduate Support, and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Helen and Frederick Gaige Fund Awards. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

CA: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Methodology. SR: Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.

Acknowledgements

I thank the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife, notably Brent Powers and Tony Ciocco, for their partnership, guidance, and continued stewardship of this project. I am grateful to Dave O’Connell (Bearizona Wildlife Park), Shaula Hedwall (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Brandon Foley and Audrey Owens (Arizona Game and Fish Department), as well as collaborators at Northern Arizona University and the University of Victoria, for their shared commitment to amphibian conservation and restoration within the Navajo Nation. I thank my committee members, Catherine R. Propper, PhD; Amanda W. Carter, PhD; Erika Nowak, PhD; Caren C. Helbing, PhD; and Lisa J. Hardy, PhD, for their mentorship and support. I also acknowledge Destiny C. Sanderson, Leonardo Medellín, Sofia Raffanelli, Audrey Longan, Riley Blahnik-Elliot, Emma Zabel, and Arianne Macready for their contributions to field and laboratory work. I carry deep gratitude to my family and community, whose teachings of respect, responsibility, and connection to the land ground every aspect of this work. I thank my brothers—Devin Jaden Webb, Amare D’Andre Store, and Christopher John Alberts—for their love and support, and my partner, Robert H., for his encouragement throughout this journey. Lastly, I thank the frogs and the land for allowing me to work with them and for being a place of grounding. This work is written in memory of my parents, Labernalene Store and Valeria Lynn Store, whose guidance continues to live in the waters, the songs of frogs, and the path I follow.

References

  1. Ash M. C., Carlone H. B., Matthews C. E. (2015). Almost a herpetologist”: the iterative influence of four lumbee male high school students on an informal herpetological research field experience. J. Am. Indian Educ. 54, 54 – 75. doi: doi:10.5749/jamerindieduc.54.3.0054
  2. Belsky A., Matzke A., Uselman S. (1999). Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54, 419 – 431. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1080/00224561.1999.12457258
  3. Brooks J. J., Markegard S. I., Langdon S. J., Anderstrom D.S.É., Douville M. G., George T. A.. (2024). Indigenous knowledge and species assessment for the Alexander Archipelago wolf: Successes, challenges, and lessons learned. J. Wildlife Manage. 88, e22563. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1002/jwmg.22563
  4. Bulow E. (1991). Navajo Taboos (Gallup, NM; Buffalo Medicine Books).
  5. Campbell Grant E. H., Nichols J. D., Lowe W. H., Fagan W. F. (2010). Use of multiple dispersal pathways facilitates amphibian persistence in stream networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United States America 107, 6936 – 6940. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1073/pnas.1000266107
  6. Carey C., Alexander M. (2003). Climate change and amphibian declines: Is there a link ? Diversity Distributions 9, 111 – 121. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00011.x
  7. Carjuzaa J., Ruff W. G. (2010). When western epistemology and an indigenous worldview meet: Culturally responsive assessment in practice. Available online at: https://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/9609 (Accessed October 10, 2025).
  8. Carroll S. R., Garba I., Figueroa-Rodríguez O. L., Holbrook J., Lovett R., Materechera S.. (2020). The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Sci. J. 19, 1 – 12. doi:, PMID: doi:10.5334/dsj-2020-043
  9. Castagno A. E., Ingram J. C., Camplain R., Blackhorse D. (2022). We constantly have to navigate”: Indigenous students’ and professionals’ strategies for navigating ethical conflicts in STEMM. Cultural Stud. Sci. Educ. 17, 683 – 700. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1007/s11422-021-10081-5
  10. Ceríaco L. M., Marques M. P., Madeira N. C., Vila-Viçosa C. M., Mendes P. (2011). Folklore and traditional ecological knowledge of geckos in Southern Portugal: Implications for conservation and science. J. Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 7, 26. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1186/1746-4269-7-26
  11. Crump M., Fenolio D. B. (2015). Eye of Newt and Toe of Frog, Adder’s Fork and Lizard’s Leg (Toronto, Canada: University of Chicago Press).
  12. Deloria V., Deloria B., Foehner K., Scinta S. (1999). Spirit & Reason: The Vine Deloria, Jr., Reader (Golden, CO: Fulcrum Pub).
  13. Dettinger M., Udall B., Georgakakos A. (2015). Western water and climate change. Ecol. Appl. 25, 2069 – 2093. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1890/15-0938.1
  14. Fonseca F. (2015). Navajo zoo cuts snake exhibit over tribal beliefs (Phoenix, AZ: The Arizona Republic). Available online at: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/06/12/navajo-snakes-beliefs-eliminates-zoo-exhibit/71149118/ (Accessed October 23, 2025).
  15. Ford J. D., King N., Galappaththi E. K., Pearce T., McDowell G., Harper S. L. (2020). The resilience of indigenous peoples to environmental change. One Earth 2, 532 – 543. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.014
  16. Gervais B. K., Voirin C. R., Beatty C., Bulltail G., Cowherd S., DeFrance S.. (2017). Native american student perspectives of challenges in natural resource higher education. J. Forestry 115, 491 – 497. doi: doi:10.5849/jof.2016-065R1
  17. Hayes T. B., Falso P., Gallipeau S., Stice M. (2010). The cause of global amphibian declines: A developmental endocrinologist’s perspective. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 921 – 933. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1242/jeb.040865
  18. James G. W. (1900). The hopi snake dance. Outing June. 36, 302 – 310.
  19. Kimmerer R. W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass (Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions).
  20. Kirkness V. J., Barnhardt R. (1991). FIRST NATIONS AND HIGHER EDUCATION: the four R’s — Respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. J. Am. Indian Educ. 30, 1 – 15.
  21. Klymus K. E., Merkes C. M., Allison M. J., Goldberg C. S., Helbing C. C., Hunter M. E.. (2020). Reporting the limits of detection and quantification for environmental DNA assays. Environ. DNA 2, 271 – 282. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1002/edn3.29
  22. Kovach M. (2021). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. 2nd ed. (Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press).
  23. Latulippe N., Klenk N. (2020). Making room and moving over: Knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 42, 7 – 14. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010
  24. Linares-Rosas M. I., Gómez B., Aldasoro-Maya E. M., Casas A. (2021). Nahua biocultural richness: An ethnoherpetological perspective. J. Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 17, 33. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1186/s13002-021-00460-1
  25. Louis R. P. (2007). Can you hear us now? Voices from the margin: using indigenous methodologies in geographic research. Geographical Res. 45, 130 – 139. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00443.x
  26. Mazzocchi F. (2006). Western science and traditional knowledge. EMBO Rep. 7, 463 – 466. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400693
  27. McGregor D. (2004). Coming full circle: indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future. Am. Indian Q. 28, 385 – 410. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1353/aiq.2004.0101
  28. Miriti M. N., Rawson A. J., Mansfield B. (2023). The history of natural history and race: Decolonizing human dimensions of ecology. Ecol. Appl. 33, e2748. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1002/eap.2748
  29. Moreno B., Crandall C., Monroe M. C. (2020). Factors influencing minority and urban students’ Interest in natural resources. J. Forestry 118, 373 – 384. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1093/jofore/fvaa008
  30. Nabhan G. P. (2003). Singing the Turtles to Sea: The Comcáac (Seri) Art and Science of Reptiles. Available online at: http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017468039&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA (Accessed December 18, 2025).
  31. Nadasdy P. (1999). The politics of tek: power and the “Integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology 36, 1 – 18.
  32. Navajo Natural Heritage Program (2020). Endangered species (Window Rock, AZ: Nndfw). Available online at: https://www.nndfw.org/nnhp/endangered.htm (Accessed August 1, 2024).
  33. Page-Reeves J., Marin A., Moffett M., DeerInWater K., Medin D. (2019). Wayfinding as a concept for understanding success among Native Americans in STEM: “learning how to map through life. Cultural Stud. Sci. Educ. 14, 177 – 197. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1007/s11422-017-9849-6
  34. Phaka F. M., Hugé J., Vanhove M. P., du Preez L. H. (2023). Frog and reptile conservation through the lens of South Africa’s nature-based cultural practices. Afr. J. Herpetology 72, 190 – 206. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1080/21564574.2023.2261021
  35. Pierotti R., Wildcat D. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge: the third alternative (commentary). Ecol. Appl. 10, 1333 – 1340. doi: doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010%255B1333:TEKTTA%255D2.0.CO;2
  36. Pollard E. M., Thaman R., Brodie G., Morrison C. (2015). Threatened biodiversity and traditional ecological knowledge: associated beliefs, customs and uses of herpetofauna among the `Are`Are on malaita island, Solomon Islands. Ethnobiology Lett. 6, 99 – 110. doi: doi:10.14237/ebl.6.1.2015.389
  37. Ramos S. C. (2022). Understanding Yurok traditional ecological knowledge and wildlife management. J. Wildlife Manage. 86, e22140. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1002/jwmg.22140
  38. Reid A. J., Eckert L. E., Lane J.-F., Young N., Hinch S. G., Darimont C. T.. (2021). Two-Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fisheries 22, 243 – 261. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1111/faf.12516
  39. Save the Snakes (2024). Save the snakes. Available online at: https://savethesnakes.org/women-and-serpents/interview-with-maria-elena-barragan-paladines/ (Accessed December 18, 2025).
  40. Seager R., Ting M., Held I., Kushnir Y., Lu J., Vecchi G.. (2007). Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Sci. (New York N.Y.) 316, 1181 – 1184. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1126/science.1139601
  41. Simpson L. (2002). Commit to and respect Indigenous knowledge—Before it’s too late. Biodiversity 3, 32 – 32. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1080/14888386.2002.9712600
  42. Smith L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. 2nd ed (London and New York: Zed Books).
  43. Stuart S. N., Chanson J. S., Cox N. A., Young B. E., Rodrigues A. S., Fischman D. L.. (2004). Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 1783 – 1786. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1126/science.1103538
  44. TallBear K. (2014). Standing with and speaking as faith: A feminist-indigenous approach to inquiry. J. Res. Pract. 10.
  45. Todd Z. (2016). An indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological turn: “Ontology” Is just another word for colonialism. J. Historical Sociology 29, 4 – 22. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1111/johs.12124
  46. Walter M., Kukutai T., Carroll S. R., Rodriguez-Lonebear D. (Eds.) (2020). Indigenous data sovereignty and policy (Routledge: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group). doi:, PMID: doi:10.4324/9780429273957
  47. Walter M., Suina M. (2018). Indigenous data, indigenous methodologies and indigenous data sovereignty. Int. J. Soc. Res. Method. 22, 233 – 243. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228
  48. Whyte K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecol. Processes 2, 7. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1186/2192-1709-2-7
  49. Williams D. H., Shipley G. P. (2018). Cultural taboos as a factor in the participation rate of Native Americans in STEM. Int. J. Stem Educ. 5, 17. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1186/s40594-018-0114-7
  50. Wilson S. (2020). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods (Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing).
  51. Yanou M. P., Ros-Tonen M. A. F., Reed J., Moombe K., Sunderland T. (2023). Integrating local and scientific knowledge: The need for decolonising knowledge for conservation and natural resource management. Heliyon 9, e21785. doi:, PMID: doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21785

Citation

Alberts, C. M. & Ramos, S. C. (2026). From two worlds to one: a Navajo (Diné) woman’s path in herpetology. Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, Volume 4. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
4 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Alberts and Ramos.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Catrina M. Alberts

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

ReviewCulture and conservation: a One Health approach to Indigenous and ancestral herptile knowledgeAshley N. Morgan, Fortunate Mafeta Phaka, Ida Ayu Dian Kusuma Dewi, Angela Julian, Andres Santiago Carrasco-Medina, Tariq Stark, Jywateju Kayabi, Iauapuru Trumai, Lorena Dall’Ara Guimarães, María Torres-Sánchez, Debra L. MillerCase ReportCase Report: Oviductal adenocarcinoma in an Argentine black and white tegu (Salvator merianae): clinical, imaging, surgical, and histopathological findingsAndreia Garcês, Roberto Sargo, Luís Sousa, Camila Cardoso, Luana Monteiro, Diogo Silva, Nuno Alvura, Justina Prada, Filipe SilvaOriginal ResearchEvaluating invasive reptile control efforts: nocturnal bulk removal of green iguanas (Iguana iguana Linnaeus, 1758) in Florida, USAFrank J. Mazzotti, Sergio A. Balaguera-Reina, Sidney T. Godfrey, Nathan P. Schwartz, Melissa A. Miller