Linking indigenous ecological knowledge to fluvial-territories management in Ecuadorian Andean-Amazonian watersheds

Long-term monitoring is a crucial asset for informed decision-making in viable ecosystem management. Conservation initiatives involving local stakeholders are receiving increasing support; however, in remote regions such as the Western Amazon, scientific data are often scarce, and conservation efforts rarely integrate Indigenous knowledge into decision-making. To address this gap, this study aims to promote Citizen Science as a bridge between Indigenous communities, their ecological knowledge, and scientific data, thereby advancing environmental management and freshwater ecosystems conservation to the next level. Our case study focuses on the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system in the Ecuadorian Amazon, home to the ancestral Waorani Indigenous Nationality. This area constitutes a biodiversity hotspot, where communities have relied on the integrity of the fluvial system that supports their livelihoods, which is threatened by anthropogenic pressures. Through the Citizen Science Project of the Alianza Aguas Amazonicas, Waorani monitors collected data, analyzed indicators of water quality, and documented the presence and abundance of edible fish. Data was co-produced through participatory field protocols, integrating community knowledge and scientific methods to inform about the ecological status of streams. Overall, results revealed that local monitors can successfully generate reliable datasets on water quality and fish diversity. This initiative highlights the potential of empowering Indigenous-led participatory freshwater conservation, reinforcing the role of local knowledge in generating and using data to preserve their territories.

1 Introduction

Citizen Science engages local and non-professional scientists directly in data collection and analysis, fostering collaboration with trained researchers (Eitzel et al., 2017). The role of Citizen Science in freshwater ecosystem monitoring is key and urgent, as these ecosystems are among the most threatened on Earth (Abell and Harrison, 2020). Freshwater ecosystems hold the key resource for human populations (Nina Lameira et al., 2025). However, the view of water resources has partially biased decisions towards water supply, leaving stakeholders and practitioners in a sectorized management approach, where ecosystems have not yet played a central role in providing ecosystem services and functions at the local, regional, and global levels (Harrison et al., 2016; Chandler et al., 2017). Integrating freshwater ecosystem services into the water supply and fisheries equation requires an understanding of collaborative management among users and stakeholders, marking a conjunctural situation for linking participation in freshwater ecosystem decision-making (Kimura and Kinchy, 2016; Tengo et al., 2021). This is particularly relevant, as freshwater ecosystems face additive environmental impacts from pollution, invasive species, climate change, and unsustainable resource extraction (Metcalfe et al., 2022; Buytaert et al., 2014). Therefore, monitoring these ecosystems is essential for protecting, conserving, managing, or restoring their functions and resources, enabling transdisciplinary management that will facilitate tracking biodiversity conservation efforts and livelihood improvements (Pandya, 2021).

Traditional monitoring methods, often conducted by government agencies or large research institutions, are resource-intensive and have laid the foundation for expanding and diversifying methods to overcome challenges in remote regions with limited infrastructure (Metcalfe et al., 2022). The current demand for information is concentrated in areas of difficult access, where local communities are eager to comprehend ecosystem services and functions. This highlights the need to foster Citizen Science approaches, filling data gaps to support eventual full instrumentation, networking, and/or traditional monitoring programs (Theobald et al., 2015; Eitzel et al., 2017). In Citizen Science freshwater projects, local monitors can become data generators, planners, and communicators by measuring key parameters of water quality and quantity (Lopes et al., 2021), tracking aquatic biodiversity (Konning et al., 2020; Doria et al., 2022), and assessing ecosystem integrity, such as riverine and habitat status, and environmental threats (Carlson and Cohen, 2018; Tengo et al., 2021; Reed et al., 2020; Metcalfe et al., 2022). In the face of climate change, early warnings of floods and droughts can enable communities to take informed actions and manage risks and threats in collaboration with scientists for validation (Carlson and Cohen, 2018). Ultimately, by integrating local knowledge with scientific data, the Citizen Science approach advocates for unlocking the potential of monitoring for long-term conservation (Athayde et al., 2024). Community monitoring programs, when supported by digital tools such as ICTIO or CrowdWater, can enhance data quality and community empowerment even in remote regions (Oviedo and Bursztyn, 2017; Blanco-Ramírez et al., 2025). Validation methods involving participatory cross-checks and local taxonomic indicators, as described in comparative Amazon basin studies, are crucial for establishing legitimacy and promoting the uptake of science (Costa et al., 2018; Silvano and Hallwass, 2020; Doria et al., 2022).

In this context, fluvial systems, which are often inaccessible for long-term research, present unique opportunities for Citizen Science initiatives in coordination with local knowledge (Athayde et al., 2024). This is the case for lowland areas in Andean-Amazonian watersheds, which face increasing threats from business-as-usual development (Torremorell et al., 2021; Galarza et al., 2021). This development has resulted in pollution loads from unprecedented illegal mining along the altitudinal gradient, untre.ated wastewater from all types of settlements (Buytaert et al., 2014; Mena et al., 2020; Shepard, 2024), erosion from road construction, and oil and formation water spills (Yusta-García et al., 2017). These pressing threats have heightened the awareness of indigenous people and local communities (IP&LC), driven demand for information, and prompted collaboration with academia, stakeholders, and non-governmental organizations to generate data for informed decision-making. This is the case of Indigenous communities in remote areas, such as the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system in the Ecuadorian Amazon, which have become stewards of their ancestral socio-ecological systems (Guzmán Torán, 2019; Gilbert, 2024). The Waorani, like many indigenous groups, face challenges in protecting their freshwater ecosystems and their forested lands from illegal fishing, wood harvesting, and, more recently, illegal mining. However, as stewards of their fluvial territories, they are determined to recover and integrate traditional ecological knowledge with other means of data generation to gain a meaningful voice in environmental decision-making processes.

To bridge the gap between local ecological knowledge and scientific data collection, we proposed three objectives: (1) to understand and describe the ecohydrological dynamics of the fluvial system according to the local community’s knowledge; (2) to build local capacity for freshwater monitoring by training community members in scientific data collection methods; and (3) to report the diversity of edible fish in their communities. By linking traditional knowledge with fluvial territory management, the Waorani Citizen Science project serves as an exemplary model of how community-driven initiatives can support the sustainable management of critical freshwater ecosystems in Andean-Amazonian fluvial systems (Koning et al., 2020; Athayde et al., 2024; Nina Lameira et al., 2025).

2 Methodology

We collaborated with the Waorani communities of Gomataon and Geyepade on a joint initiative to monitor water quality and biodiversity, assessing the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems within their territory (Theobald et al., 2015; Tengo et al., 2021). Part of the Waorani ancestral territory is located in the Curaray River Watershed (Figure 1a), a southern tributary of the Napo River, which is shared between Ecuador and Peru (Figure 1b). This white-water river has a hydrographic particularity that separates geomorphologically its 26,775 km² of area from the main stem of the Napo River. The headwaters of the Curaray River range from 289 m to 640 m. a.s.l harboring part of the Waorani and Kichwa territories and is considered a biological corridor between the Yasuní National Park and the Llanganates National Park (Figure 1c). The Curaray River flows for more than 800 km along a highly meandering trajectory, which contrasts with that of the Napo River (Figure 1d). The Waorani Indigenous communities have relied on this meandering system and its free-flowing conditions over time to travel around their territory for fishing, farming, hunting, and to settle in growing communities (Trujillo-Montalvo, 2023). By combining Indigenous ecological knowledge with scientific monitoring protocols (Encalada et al., 2019), we identified parameters that accurately represent or capture environmental conditions meaningful to Indigenous communities. To identify and match interests, we employed a participatory approach that enabled a shared understanding of ecohydrological dynamics, ecosystem functions, and the biodiversity of edible fish, as perceived by the members. To promote long-lasting engagement, we selected sampling methods that considered the remoteness and accessibility to lifestyles and necessities in a structured and organized community (Encalada et al., 2019). We also assessed the engagement of indigenous citizen monitors in collecting and interpreting data through edible-fish monitoring (Bonney et al., 2014; Tengo et al., 2021). We integrated the Waorani Citizen Science project with the Fluvial Reserve Initiative, which indigenous communities identified as a means of managing freshwater ecosystems in their territory.

Figure 1

Figure 1. The Amazon River Basin (green) and the flank of the Ecuadorian territory that drains into the Amazon, showing the Napo River basin (blue) (a). The shared Napo River watershed in Northern Ecuador and Peru, showing the Curaray River catchment as a primary tributary (b). The Curaray-Nushiño fluvial systems in the headwaters of the catchment, showing the Waorani Indigenous territory (purple) and the communities of Gomataon and Geyepade (c). Google Earth image® of the meandering Curaray River next to the Napo River, close to the junction in Peruvian territory (d).

2.1 Participatory approach and ecological knowledge exchange

The core of our Citizen Science approach emphasizes collaboration during 5–7-day field visits. We carried out workshops, training sessions, and knowledge-sharing activities to engage the communities and build local capacity for monitoring aquatic ecosystems (Bonney et al., 2014). These workshops merged local ecological knowledge with formal scientific interpretation, using communicational videos created in the aquatic habitats of the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system, which could be reviewed as needed. In Gomataon and Geyepade, the project began with two introductory workshops followed by training and revisiting practices during eight field visits. These sessions served as a platform for scientists to introduce the concept of Citizen Science and share the importance of monitoring Andean-Amazonian aquatic ecosystems. The workshops were designed to be informal and interactive, allowing community members to raise concerns, ask questions, and contribute their knowledge about the health of their local aquatic ecosystems (Hyder et al., 2017; Tengo et al., 2021). For example, the elderly shared traditional fishing methods, river navigation strategies, the seasonal movements of fish species, concerns about environmental pollution, and threats to their territories and livelihoods. Ecological knowledge exchange was essential for understanding the baseline ecological conditions of the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system from the communities’ perspective. The co-design of subsequent workshops was pivotal in members’ participation. Workshops included continuous interpretation from Spanish to Wao Tedero (Waorani language) to maintain active communication and interactive practice with games, walks, and visits to aquatic ecosystems. One key factor in the workshops’ design was adapting the schedule to accommodate flexible hours for women’s participation and to align with planned crop and farming activities. Additionally, we identified intergenerational challenges addressed in differentiated activities according to the assisting members (Loos et al., 2015). Training was a key component in building local capacity to observe and document changes, which involved hands-on activities for all community members.

2.2 Water quality and ecological integrity assessment

Monitoring water quality was co-created with the community members to secure the interest and utility of the data collected (Loos et al., 2015). Several water-related activities are primarily performed by women who prepare food, clean clothes, and bathe children. Therefore, women manifested an interest in understanding the quality of the water used for these purposes. Still, all community members learned scientific protocols and monitoring methods to measure water quality parameters, including water temperature (°C), conductivity (μS/cm), dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L), and pH (Jollymore et al., 2017; Kirchke et al., 2022). Also, appointed indigenous Citizen Scientists were guided in qualitatively assessing the microbiological conditions of drinking and bathing water (Encalada et al., 2019). To measure these conditions, we created “The Omanca kit,” a set of tools composed of water quality sensors and Petri-film field plates (3 M®) to assess Coliforms and E. coli in water. According to the co-design, the prevailing sites of interest were the streams near the communities. Water quality data was measured weekly, recorded in standardized forms, and sent via WhatsApp. Local monitors at Gomataon and Geyepade measured water quality parameters between March 2021 and March 2022.

During 11 field visits, five in the wet and six in the dry season, we sampled four streams for all ecological integrity variables (Encalada et al., 2019). We also sampled water for chemical analysis at the Core-Lab at Universidad San Francisco de Quito, to complement the continuous monitoring by Citizen Scientists. We collected 60 mL and 30 mL of filtered water for metals and nutrient analysis using a 0.45 μm filter and a sterilized syringe. Samples for metals analysis were preserved with 0.1% HNO₃, and nutrient samples were kept at cooler temperatures until transportation to the laboratory. We sampled six times in Gomataon and five times in Geyepade due to logistical difficulties in our last field visit to the latter community.

To assess the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems during field visits, we, together with Citizen Scientists, evaluated the Anthropogenic Pressures Index (API) by identifying human pressures on aquatic ecosystems (Encalada et al., 2019). We assessed the Fluvial Habitat Index (FHI-Am) to determine the hydromorphological dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. We evaluated the vegetation cover using the Riparian Quality Biotic Index for Amazonian rivers (QBR-Am) (Encalada et al., 2019). These indices provided us with scores assigned to qualitative criteria, enabling us to identify the ecosystem’s environmental status (Table 1). Complementarily, we conducted aquatic invertebrate sampling during five field visits to Geyepade and six visits to Gomataon. We sampled the streams in the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system qualitatively and calculated the Andean-Amazonian Biotic Index (AAMBI) (Encalada et al., 2019). Aquatic invertebrates were identified at the family level using a field guide designed for citizen scientists, which also identified invertebrate habitats and bait for fish. All individuals were counted and then released again into the streams. We assigned the scores with community members to provide insights into the concept of bioindicators of water quality. At the same time, the community provided us with insights into prey-predator dynamics, as they identified aquatic invertebrates as the primary prey of several fish and other aquatic insects (e.g., Odonate). Finally, we added the Environmental Status scores and the AAMBI score to calculate the overall Ecological Integrity Index and qualitative criteria of streams in Geyepade and Gomataon (Table 1). To assess differences between communities and potential effects of seasonality on indices and scores, we used Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for non-normally distributed data.

Table 1

Table 1. The ecological integrity index and quality criteria calculated from the environmental status index and the Andean-Amazonian biotic index to assess Amazonian fluvial systems.

2.3 Edible fish monitoring

Citizen Scientists demonstrated interest in becoming stewards of their fluvial systems, fostering long-term intergenerational engagement with local governance for fish protection. Scientists S shared ecological knowledge on fish diversity reported for the Napo River Basin and the Curaray–Nushiño fluvial system (Jácome-Negrete, 2013; Escobar-Camacho et al., 2025). Citizen Scientists identified fish presence near their localities, the timing of their presence, the type of habitats where fish were found, and indicators of what they identified as the’ health of the ecosystems’ (e.g., water color, odor, and forest quality). During the workshops, local fishers taught scientists about the frequencies at which species are encountered, emphasizing those that have become increasingly rare due to environmental degradation, pollution, and illegal fishing techniques near the territory (Tobes et al., 2022). Citizen Scientists were trained to record and enter new fish species encountered through the ICTIO app (www.aguasamazonicas.org). We equipped local communities with field guides, posters, and smartphones to digitally register species captured during subsistence fishing. We also documented together fishing methods, including visual surveys and simple trapping techniques, as well as species not listed in the app’s fish list.

3 Results

3.1 Ecohydrological dynamics through traditional ecological knowledge

One of the most significant outcomes of this project was the active involvement of diverse community members, such as elders, youth, and women—in the ecohydrological interpretation of aquatic phases that are integral to their livelihoods. Each group played a distinct role in monitoring efforts, according to their level of engagement and capability. Elders were instrumental in sharing their ecological knowledge of the river system, including the fluvial dynamics, the location and habitats of fish, and their concerns about the intergenerational gap in understanding seasonal patterns and weather conditions (Figure 2b). Both matriarchs and patriarchs, the Elders, provided insights into the long-term ecological changes they had observed over decades, which were crucial for interpreting the biodiversity data. Elders have also taken on important leadership roles in guiding community members and younger generations in conducting monitoring activities and learning about fishing techniques (Figure 2c). Youth in both communities were particularly engaged in the hands-on aspects of data collection. Young people led the aquatic monitoring effort, measuring water quality parameters and recording fish observations (Figures 2d–f). Although initially less involved, women in the Geyepade community played a critical role in the monitoring effort once they incorporated activities into their daily lives. Younger women showed more interest as they were versed in digital tools. Women in Gomataon were particularly associated with water quality assessments encompassing farming practices, as they are often responsible for the family’s food and water needs. Through in-field meetings and ecological knowledge sharing, members of the communities of Gomataon and Geyepade described and co-created with formal scientists a distribution of aquatic phases associated with the main river’s hydrograph (Figure 2g). Indigenous community members identified four aquatic phases directly related to their fluvial mobilization, fishing in the main river and small streams, habitat formation, and harvesting. Through in-map recognition and field validation, indigenous and formal scientists visited new habitats, assessed the hydrological footprint of floods, and observed farming practices adapted to seasonal conditions (Figures 3a–c).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Waorani citizen scientists’ ecological knowledge exchange for local species identification (a,b), applying fishing techniques for bait (c), measuring fish for registration (d), digital entries of common fish (e) and rare fish (f) in the ICTIO app; and ecohydrological description of aquatic phases according to local indigenous communities in the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system (g).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Waorani citizen scientists site selection for ecological integrity monitoring (a), sampling in situ water parameters in Gomataon (b) and Geyepade (c), to collect weekly data on temperature (d), conductivity (e), dissolved oxygen (f), and pH (g) in streams of the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system.

3.2 Water quality and ecological integrity

The water temperature fluctuated between 22 °C and 26 °C over the sampling period, with a noticeable peak during mid-year (around June 2021) and a decrease observed toward the end of the year (December 2021). Both sites exhibited relatively similar temperature patterns throughout the studied period, but a significant negative correlation with time was observed only in Geyepade (R² = −0.3982; p = 0.1431 Figure 3d), with Gomataon generally showing slightly higher temperatures than Geyepade. Temperature changes were clearly assessed and interpreted by young men, who identified shade and underground water contributions as the primary sources of temperature change and potentially pH variation. Conductivity ranged from 20 to 60 μS/cm, with Gomataon displaying higher variability than Geyepade and a significant negative time trend (R² = −0.4862; p = 0.1192) (Figure 3e). Geyepade showed more consistent values around 30–40 μS/cm, while Gomataon fluctuated more radically with overall higher conductivity in the stream, especially during mid-2021. Community members attributed the lower conductivity values at Geyepade to the mixing with inundated areas during seasonal variations or variations in soil composition. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 7 to 13 mg/L, with both sites exhibiting visible variations over the study period. Geyepade maintained higher dissolved oxygen levels, ranging from 7.5 to 13 mg/L. At the same time, Gomataon showed a slight increase, from around 8 to 12 mg/L, from September to December 2021, followed by a drop to lower levels, closer to 7 mg/L, by March 2022 (Figure 3f). Dissolved oxygen concentrations at both sites are inversely related to temperature trends, showing lower values during the warmer months and higher values during the cooler periods. The pH fluctuated between 5 and 8, with Gomataon showing slightly higher pH values (6–8) than Geyepade (5.5–7). Between September and December 2021, Geyepade experienced a sharp increase in pH values, reaching nearly 8, while Gomataon remained relatively stable within the 6–7 range (Figure 3g). Only in Geyepade was the time trend significant and positive (R² = 0.4668; p = 0.2081).

Citizen scientists and formal scientists assessed the environmental status of aquatic ecosystems using the Anthropogenic Pressures Index for Amazonian aquatic ecosystems (API-Am), which revealed less pressure in the Gomataon community compared to Geyepade (Figures 4a–c). The wet season slightly increased the API for both sites, but the difference between communities was not statistically significant in both seasons (W_wet = 9, p = 0.1113; W_dry = 7.5, p = 0.2683). The results suggest that anthropogenic pressures on streams at Geyepade are more evident than at Gomataon, particularly due to the higher number of members in Geyepade using water from the streams (Figure 4d). The Riparian Quality Biotic Index for Amazonian aquatic ecosystems (QBR-Am) indicated that Geyepade and Gomataon show high QBR-Am scores (>80) throughout seasons (Figure 4e), with Geyepade QBR-Am slightly outperforming Gomataon QBR-Am during the dry season and inversely in the wet season, with no statistical differences between sites for both seasons. The effect of season was barely significant on the QBR-Am of Geyepade (W = 32.5, p = 0.0234), but no significant effect was detected in Gomataon (W = 15; p = 0.6852). The Fluvial Habitat Index for Amazonian rivers (IHF-Am) showed that Gomataon had slightly higher FHI-Am scores than Geyepade in both seasons (Figure 4f). The dry season tended to have a slightly higher index than the wet season for both sites, suggesting that ecosystem health may be more robust in drier conditions. However, the difference is not statistically significant. The Andean Amazonian Biotic Index (AAMBI) assessed in Gomataon outperformed Geyepade, particularly during the dry season (Figure 4g). The wet season saw a slight decline in scores, consistent with the other indices, possibly reflecting the increased runoff or changes in dissolved oxygen during wetter conditions.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Waorani citizen scientists in Gomataon and Geyepade sampling aquatic ecosystems (a,b) for environmental status assessment through the Anthropogenic Pressures Index (API-Am) (c), the Riparian Biotic Quality for Amazonian rivers (QBR-Am) (d), the Fluvial Habitat Index for Amazonian rivers (IHF-Am) (e), and the Andean-Amazonian Biotic Index (AAMBI) (f) in the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system.

Across all indices, Gomataon generally showed better water quality and ecosystem integrity than Geyepade (Table 2). Both sites exhibited slightly better results in the dry season than in the wet season, although the seasonal differences are minimal for most indicators. The data suggest that aquatic ecosystems in Gomataon are healthier than Geyepade, with minor fluctuations between the dry and wet periods.

Table 2

Table 2. Ecological integrity assessment of aquatic ecosystems in Waorani communities of the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system.

3.3 Edible fish monitoring

Community members from both Gomataon and Geyepade collected data on edible fish species, including the number of individuals observed, along with an image and a description of their natural environment, thereby reinforcing the connection between the species and the study’s fieldwork. The reporting effort revealed 60 edible fish species commonly captured by Waorani Indigenous communities in the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system (Figure 5). Records were dominated by [Prochilodus nigricans: Bocachico] and [Pimelodus blochii: Barbudo], which are the primary edible fish that community members capture in various habitats throughout the seasons and are commonly found on the shores of the Nushiño River. Species like [Pseudoplatystoma punctifer: Pintadillo] and [Calophysus macropterus: Mota] were identified by local monitors as preferable protein sources for special gatherings. They are usually caught in the junction of tributaries to the Nushiño and Curaray Rivers. [Colossoma macropomum: Tambaquí] and [Arapaima gigas: Paiche] appeared only in limited numbers as they were captured during cruises in the Curaray River.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of individuals of edible fish species registered in the ICTIO app by Waorani Citizen Scientists of Gomataon and Geyepade in the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system.

4 Discussion

Integrating Indigenous ecological knowledge with formal scientific data collection in the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system presents a compelling model for enhancing the management of freshwater ecosystems in Andean-Amazonian watersheds. The results of this study indicate that Indigenous I-scientific collaboration provides a citizen-science based, cost-effective alternative to monitoring freshwater ecosystems in remote areas. Particularly, the concerns of elders who sought to disseminate ecological knowledge to young adults and other members looking to maintain the stewardship of protecting their ancestral territories. Elders’ ecohydrological depiction of their fluvial system played a critical role in interpreting seasonal changes despite observable increasing intensities in precipitation and prolonged periods of low flow in rivers. Traditional knowledge was consistent with regional observations of dry and wet seasons. However, although hydroclimatological information in the area is still needed to achieve an optimal match between local observations and formal measurements. In the fluvial system, Indigenous communities tracking fish migrations and assessing ecosystem integrity, complement to scientific methodologies that can be passed down through generations (Tengo et al., 2021). Previous studies have demonstrated that Indigenous knowledge is valuable in filling data gaps in remote regions. We found this applicable to the ecohydrological interpretation of the timing for fishing and harvesting (Ban et al., 2017), as well as the opportunity to provide long-term observations and collaboration with scientific studies (Reed et al., 2020). By integrating this knowledge with scientifically collected data, we enrich environmental monitoring efforts and deepen the ecological understanding that informs conservation and management strategies (Carlson and Cohen, 2018). The findings from this study also highlight the significant role that Citizen Science can play in environmental management, particularly in areas where traditional scientific monitoring programs are absent or underfunded. As noted by Theobald et al. (2015), Citizen Science has the potential to extend the reach of formal monitoring programs, allowing for data collection in remote or resource-limited areas. In the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system, Citizen Science has enabled the Waorani communities to actively monitor water quality parameters, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility for environmental stewardship and empowering communities to take informed actions in managing their ecosystems (Tengo et al., 2021; Metcalfe et al., 2022; Gilbert, 2024). Efforts to integrate Indigenous knowledge systems with scientific protocols—like those of the A’i Cofán in Ecuador and the Kayapó in Brazil—have demonstrated significant advances in collaborative data validation, intergenerational learning, and social cohesion (Sinche et al., 2023; Hallwass et al., 2020). Furthermore, the use of Citizen Science for water quality monitoring aligns with the increasing recognition that local communities should be key actors in environmental decision-making (Harrison et al., 2016). Like the Waorani, Indigenous communities possess a profound connection to their territories, with a deep understanding of seasonal patterns, fish populations, and the ecosystem services they provide (Tobes et al., 2022; Trujillo-Montalvo, 2023). However, as highlighted by Metcalfe et al. (2022), traditional environmental monitoring methods often struggle to keep pace with rapid ecological changes, particularly in remote regions with limited access (Athayde et al., 2024), where equipment maintenance represents practical challenges. The data collected by the Waorani Citizen Scientists in this study supplements existing scientific knowledge and provides early warnings of potential ecological threats, such as water pollution and habitat degradation, which might otherwise go unnoticed. Early detection is crucial for adaptive management strategies, enabling communities and formal scientists to respond promptly to emerging environmental challenges (Carlson and Cohen, 2018). Lopes et al. (2021) observed that seasonal changes in freshwater systems often influence water quality and ecosystem integrity. This could be attributed to several factors, including the varying levels of anthropogenic pressure, as observed in the studied communities within the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system. Geyepade, a larger community with higher water usage, exhibited greater anthropogenic pressures, which demand a higher participation in local water management practices that need to be strengthened to mitigate environmental degradation (Reed et al., 2020).

The data collected on edible fish diversity and abundance provided an essential baseline for assessing the ecosystem integrity of the fluvial ecosystems, using indicators that can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of environmental stressors. Monitoring edible fish species was critical for the Waorani communities, who rely on fishing for sustenance. Monitoring fish populations by local communities provides a unique opportunity to track changes in biodiversity that environmental pressures, such as pollution and overfishing, may drive. Community involvement and sustained citizen science monitoring over the years can contribute to data collection efforts that support ecosystem stewardship. However, challenges remain in effectively integrating Indigenous knowledge and citizen science into formal policy frameworks, particularly with fluctuating community engagement related to migration between remote territories and main cities (Buytaert et al., 2014; Lopes et al., 2021). While this study demonstrates the potential of such approaches, the lack of institutional support and recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems often hampers the broader application of these findings (Buytaert et al., 2014; Kirchke et al., 2022). There is a pressing need for policies that acknowledge and integrate Indigenous ecological knowledge into national and regional environmental governance structures. Creating synergies between Citizen Science initiatives and local ecological knowledge requires building trust and ensuring information is treated as equally valid data sources. Such integration could lead to more effective and culturally relevant conservation strategies that respect the rights of Indigenous peoples while enhancing biodiversity protection.

The results of this study underscore the importance of long-term, community-based monitoring programs, designed and implemented in collaboration with local populations. As emphasized by Bonney et al. (2014), Citizen Science is not just about data collection; it is also about fostering an engaged and informed community capable of advocating for its own environmental rights and sustainability (Gilbert, 2024; Pandya, 2021). Therefore, data becomes useful and transcendental as communities use it to make informed decisions, thus enforcing interpretation and understanding. By empowering the Waorani community to become active participants in the scientific process, this project has contributed to a more inclusive approach to freshwater management. Moreover, our findings suggest that the use of Citizen Science in remote regions could serve as a model for other communities facing similar ecological challenges. The success of this project in the Curaray-Nushiño fluvial system is a testament to the potential of collaborative efforts between local communities and formal scientists in addressing the pressing issues of freshwater conservation and ecosystem management in the Amazon (Sinche et al., 2023; Hallwass et al., 2020). This participatory approach is particularly relevant in freshwater ecosystems, which require the contributions of every stakeholder to mitigate pressure on them due to human development (Abell and Harrison, 2020).

5 Conclusions and recommendations

Collaborative efforts can bridge the gap between scientific research and community knowledge, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of conservation efforts in biodiverse yet vulnerable regions, such as the Amazon. Our first goal was to understand and describe the ecohydrological dynamics of the fluvial system according to the local community’s ecological knowledge, and community-based monitoring has thus shown its potential as a participative and collaborative cost-effective method for managing and understanding freshwater ecosystems toward fluvial-territory stewardship (Sinche et al., 2023; Hallwass et al., 2020). The sustainability of projects like this heightens the importance of long-term monitoring, where local initiatives foster people’s participation (Chandler et al., 2017). Our second goal was to build local capacity for freshwater monitoring by training community members in scientific data collection methods. Despite remoteness, effective communication was key to strengthening capacity with active engagement with indigenous monitors and accessibility to educational resources. Our third goal was to report the diversity of edible fish in their communities, which proved a viable approach using digital tools developed for the Alianza Aguas Amazónicas Initiative, which can facilitate data collection, ensure consistency, and allow real-time monitoring. Bridging the gap between younger generations and elders in passing traditional knowledge is essential for ensuring long-term environmental stewardship. The results of this project contributed to the local strategy promoting the Curaray-Nushiño Fluvial Reserve as an Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Mechanisms OMECs (Rosero-López et al., in prep.). This community initiative was designed as a long-term strategy to foster sustainable community-led monitoring, recognizing the importance of the Citizen Science project in prioritizing community cohesion and intergenerational strength to preserve and promote ecological knowledge exchange. Furthermore, policy frameworks can be enriched by community-based monitoring as a legitimate and effective tool in environmental governance and resource management at the local and national levels. External pressures that concern indigenous communities, such as illegal mining, deforestation, and harmful fishing practices, have always been discussed and reflected ongoing challenges that must be addressed to understand the urgency and needs of local communities and indigenous peoples in protecting freshwater ecosystems while maintaining their livelihoods. However, tackling solutions and addressing these threats were outside the scope of this study.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

DR-L: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. CV: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review and editing. GN: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Resources. MV: Resources, Writing – review and editing, Funding acquisition, Supervision. JD: Writing – review and editing, Investigation, Project administration, Visualization. AE: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing.

Funding

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This project was financed by the Wildlife Conservation Society Subaward USFQ_111699_202005-04.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Iyarina Ecolodge in Puerto Napo for all the coordination and logistics that made our visit to the communities possible. We thank volunteers who contributed to our project: Diego Mosquera, Manuela Boh, Mirela Petcu, and Daniel Escobar-Camacho.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used for grammar and syntax revisions: Grammarly.

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.

References

Abell, R., and Harrison, I. J. (2020). A boost for freshwater conservation. Science 370 (6512), 38–39. doi:10.1126/science.abe3887

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Athayde, S., Utsunomiya, R., Victoria-Lacy, L., Beveridge, C., Jenkins, C. N., Laufer, J., et al. (2024). Interdependencies between indigenous peoples, local communities, and freshwater systems in a changing Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 39 (3), e70034. doi:10.1111/cobi.70034

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ban, N. C., Eckert, L., McGreer, M., and Frid, A. (2017). Indigenous knowledge as data for modern fishery management: a case study of Dungeness crab in Pacific Canada. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 3 (8), 1379887. doi:10.1080/20964129.2017.1379887

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blanco-Ramírez, S., Bañales-Seguel, C., Guardado-Torrez, C., Seibert, J., and Van Meerveld, I. (2025). Implementation of a global citizen science app in community-based water monitoring: lessons learned from the crowdwater experiences in Latin America. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 10 (1), 10. doi:10.5334/cstp.749

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bonney, R., Shirk, J., Phillips, T. B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rushing, A. J., et al. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science 343 (6178), 1436–1437. doi:10.1126/science.1251554

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Buytaert, W., Zulkafli, Z., Grainger, S., Acosta, L., Alemie, T. C., Bastiaensen, J., et al. (2014). Citizen science in hydrology and water resources: opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development. Front. Earth Sci. 2, 26. doi:10.3389/feart.2014.00026

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carlson, T., and Cohen, A. (2018). Linking community-based monitoring to water policy: perceptions of citizen scientists. J. Environ. Manag. 219, 168–177. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.077

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chandler, M., See, L., Copas, K., Bonde, A. M. Z., Claramunt López, B., Danielsen, F., et al. (2017). Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 213, 280–294. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Costa, D. C., Pereira H, S., AEL Marchand, G., and CP Silva, S. (2018). Challenges of participatory community monitoring of biodiversity in protected areas in Brazilian Amazon. Diversity 10 (3), 61. doi:10.3390/d10030061

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Doria, C. C. R., Pinto, D. M., Castillo-Morales, K., Caller, M., Flores, C., Miranda-Chumacero, G., et al. (2022). The potential of citizen science to assess migratory patterns of Amazon fish. Hidrobiología neotropical y conservación acuática. Editor. INIA 1 (1). doi:10.55565/nhac.issc7920

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eitzel, M. V., Cappadonna, J. L., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R. E., Virapongse, A., West, S. E., et al. (2017). Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2 (1), 1–20. doi:10.5334/cstp.96

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Encalada, A. C., Guayasamín, J. M., Suárez, E., Mena, C. F., Lessmann, J., Sampedro, C., et al. (2019). Los ríos de las cuencas Andino-Amazónicas: Herramientas y guía de invertebrados para el diseño efectivo de programas de monitoreo. Quito: Trama Diseño.

Google Scholar

Escobar-Camacho, D., Valdiviezo-Rivera, J., Carrillo-Moreno, C., Argüello, P., and Swing, K. (2025). Exceptional concentration of fish diversity in Yasuní National Park, Ecuador (Napo River Basin). Biodivers. Data J. 13, e136476. doi:10.3897/bdj.13.e136476

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Galarza, E., Cabrera, M., Espinosa, R., Espitia, E., Moulatlet, G. M., and Capparelli, M. V. (2021). Assessing the quality of Amazon aquatic ecosystems with multiple lines of evidence: the case of the Northeast Andean foothills of Ecuador. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 107, 52–61. doi:10.1007/s00128-020-03089-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gilbert, C., and Kohl, M. T. (2024). Special issue: indigenous research and co-stewardship of wildlife. J. Wildl. Manag. 88, e22625. doi:10.1002/jwmg.22625

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guzmán Torán, J. J. (2019). When the forest screams. The rights of nature and indigenous rights as a mutually reinforcing resistance platform for the indigenous peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon (Doctoral dissertation, Global Campus of Human Rights).

Google Scholar

Hallwass, G., Schiavetti, A., and Silvano, R. A. (2020). Fishers’ knowledge indicates temporal changes in composition and abundance of fishing resources in Amazon protected areas. Anim. Conserv. 23 (1), 36–47. doi:10.1111/acv.12504

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harrison, I. J., Green, P. A., Farrell, T. A., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Sáenz, L., and Vörösmarty, C. J. (2016). Protected areas and freshwater provisioning: a global assessment of freshwater provision, threats and management strategies to support human water security. Aquatic Conservation Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26, 103–120. doi:10.1002/aqc.2652

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hyder, K., Wright, S., Kirby, M., and Brant, J. (2017). The role of citizen science in monitoring small-scale pollution events. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 120 (1-2), 51–57. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.038

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jácome-Negrete, I. (2013). Etnoictiología Kichwa de las lagunas de la cuenca baja del río Curaray (Amazonia), Ecuador. Biota Colomb. 14 (1).

Google Scholar

Jollymore, A., Haines, M. J., Satterfield, T., and Johnson, M. S. (2017). Citizen science for water quality monitoring: data implications of citizen perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 200, 456–467. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.083

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kimura, A. H., and Kinchy, A. (2016). Citizen science: probing the virtues and contexts of participatory research. Engaging Sci. Technol. Soc. 2 (1), 331–361. doi:10.17351/ests2016.099

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kirchke, S., Bennett, C., Bigham Ghazani, A., Franke, C., Kirschke, D., Lee, Y., et al. (2022). Citizen science projects in freshwater monitoring. From individual design to clusters? J. Environ. Manag. 309, 114714. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114714

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Koning, A. A., Perales, K. M., Fluet-Chouinard, E., and McIntyre, P. B. (2020). A network of grassroots reserves protects tropical river fish diversity. Nature 588 (7839), 631–635. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2944-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Loos, J., Horcea-Milcu, A. I., Kirkland, P., Hartel, T., Osváth-Ferencz, M., and Fischer, J. (2015). Challenges for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science in transitioning social–ecological systems. J. Nat. Conservation 26, 45–48. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2015.05.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lopes, P. F., de Freitas, C. T., Hallwass, G., Silvano, R. A., Begossi, A., and Campos-Silva, J. V. (2021). Just aquatic governance: the amazon basin as fertile ground for aligning participatory conservation with social justice. Aquatic Conservation Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31 (5), 1190–1205. doi:10.1002/aqc.3586

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mena, C. F., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Orta-Martínez, M., Fajardo, P., Chavez, E., et al. (2020). Community-based monitoring of oil extraction: lessons learned in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Soc. and Nat. Resour. 33 (3), 406–417. doi:10.1080/08941920.2019.1688441

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Metcalfe, A. N., Kennedy, T. A., Mendez, G. A., and Muehlbauer, J. D. (2022). Applied citizen science in freshwater research. WIREs Water 9 (1), e1578. doi:10.1002/wat2.1578

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nina Lameira, H. L., Guerrero-Moreno, M. A., da Silva, E. C., Oliveira, F. A., Teodósio, M. A., Dias-Silva, K., et al. (2025). Citizen science as a monitoring tool in aquatic ecology: trends, gaps, and future perspectives. Sustainability 17, 4972. doi:10.3390/su17114972

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Oviedo, A. F. P., and Bursztyn, M. (2017). Community-based monitoring of small-scale fisheries with digital devices in Brazilian Amazon. Fisheries Management and Ecology 24 (4), 320–329. doi:10.1111/fme.12231

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pandya, R. E. (2021). A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10 (6), 314–317. doi:10.1890/120007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reed, G., Brunet, N. D., and Natcher, D. C. (2020). Can indigenous community-based monitoring act as a tool for sustainable self-determination? Extractive Indus. Soc. 7, 1283–1291. doi:10.1016/j.exis.2020.04.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rosero-López, D., Ríos-Touma, B., Benítez, S., Anderson, E. P., Zapata-Ríos, G., Valdivieso, S., et al. (in prep). Natural fluvial reserves: a concept note for tailoring local strategies for global freshwater conservation.

Google Scholar

Shepard, G. H. (2024). “Water, water everywhere: health and sanitation in Indigenous communities of the Amazon,” in The lowland South American world (London: Routledge), 701–716.

Google Scholar

Silvano, R. A. M., and Hallwass, G. (2020). Participatory research with fishers to improve knowledge on small-scale fisheries in tropical rivers. Sustainability 12 (11), 4487. doi:10.3390/su12114487

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sinche, F., Cabrera, M., Huatatoca, C., Cusme, M., Segura, E., Ramirez, R., et al. (2023). A'i Cofán Indigenous community engagement when implementing benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring as a bioindicator tool of water quality in the Ecuadorian Amazonia. Limnol. Oceanography Bullet. 32 (1). doi:10.1002/lob.10532

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tengo, M., Austin, B. J., Danielsen, F., and Fernández-Llamazares, Á. (2021). Creating synergies between citizen science and Indigenous and local knowledge. BioScience 71 (5), 503–518. doi:10.1093/biosci/biab023

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Theobald, E. J., Ettinger, A. K., Burgess, H. K., DeBey, L. B., Schmidt, N. R., Froehlich, H. E., et al. (2015). Global change and local solutions: tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biol. Conservation 181, 236–244. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tobes, I., Carrillo-Moreno, C., Guarderas-Flores, L., Jácome-Negrete, I., and Velázquez-Cárdenas, Y. (2022). Ethnoichthyology and ethnotaxonomy of the Kichwa Indigenous people of Arawanu (Arajuno), in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Front. Ecol. Evolution 10, 826781. doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.826781

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Torremorell, A., Hegoburu, C., Brandimarte, A. L., Rodrigues, E. H. C., Pompêo, M., da Silva, S. C., et al. (2021). Current and future threats for ecological quality management of South American freshwater ecosystems. Inland Waters 11 (2), 125–140. doi:10.1080/20442041.2019.1608115

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Trujillo-Montalvo, P. (2023). “People of recent contact in the Ecuadorian Amazon,” in Amazon ecosystem-past discoveries and future prospects (London: IntechOpen).

Google Scholar

Yusta-García, R., Orta-Martínez, M., Mayor, P., González-Crespo, C., and Rosell-Melé, A. (2017). Water contamination from oil extraction activities in Northern Peruvian Amazonian rivers. Environ. Pollution 225, 370–380. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.02.063

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar