Much has been written about the use of natural resources by fishers and how their livelihoods depend upon the surrounding environment. Among small-scale fishers, plants are used for a variety of purposes, including the more than 200 species cited in interviews with 389 families from 7 small-scale fishing communities located on the coast of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, Brazil (Begossi et al., 2002). The diversity of fish should also be mentioned, even if only a subset of them is taken for sale. Local nomenclature (folk) has been found for most of the more than 100 species with which fishers have contact (Begossi and Figueiredo, 1995). Small-scale fishers depend on the resources that have been extracted for their livelihood, so management is also tied to food security. Further consideration is beyond the scope of this paper, but this subject is of overwhelming importance if management is going to be successful. As an example, the study associating management and food security (Begossi et al., 2013b) illustrates such relationships for small-scale fisheries of SE Brazil.
TAbLE 2
Comparison of the mean (Lmean) and minimum total length (Lmin); length at first maturity (Lm); and size at first reproduction (Fork Length, Lreprod), Mean population doubling time (Td) of fish in the Lutjanidae and Serranidae families caught by artisanal fisheries at sites in NE Brazil (Maceió and Porto do Sauípe) and SE Brazil (Copacabana, Paraty and Bertioga). Vulnerability is listed according IUCN Red List Status and Cheung et al., 2005. See Begossi et al., 2012a for details
Species or Site N Lmean
(mm) Lmin
(mm) LmFP & LreprodGO
(mm) IUCN
VulnerabilityFP VulnerabilityFP
(Cheung) ResilienceFP
(K) Td Stock statusLE Lutjanidae
Mutton snapper
L. analis 36 434 300 520FP
400GO Vulnerable Moderate to
high (47%) Low
K=0.13-0.25 4.5-14 overexploited Lane snapper
L. synagris 54 379 240 253FP
180GO Not evaluated Moderate
(38%) Medium
K=0.13-0.26 1.4-4.4 overexploited Silk snapper
L. vivanus 37 328 180 500FP Not evaluated High to very
high (68%) Low
K=0.09-0.32 4.5-14 Near the maximum limit Yellowtail snapper
O. chrysurus 66 388 320 237FP
250GO Not Evaluated High (59%) Low
K=0.10-0.16 4.5-14 overexploited Vermilion snapper
R.aurorubens 22 336 260 200-230FP Not Evaluated Moderate to
high (50%) K=0.20 1.4-4.4
-Sites NE brazil
Maceió, Alagoas 28 302 180 Porto Sauípe, bahia 137 373 250 SE brazil
Copacabana, Rio 35 418 300 bertioga, São Paulo 44 449 260
All Sites 385 180
Ntotal Lutjanidae 244 -
-Fish diet
In many cases, particularly when fishermen have doubts or when there is discrepancy among their answers, it is especially important to incorporate both etic and emic approaches. The etic approach to determining diet would be the direct observation of fish stomachs (see Begossi, 2008 for methods), and the emic approach would collect LEK from interviews. Figure 1 compares information about the stomach contents of a grouper, E. marginatus, obtained in the southeast coast of Brazil with answers given by fishers to questions about the diet of dusky grouper (Bertioga and Copacabana, Begossi and Silvano, 2008). With the exception of crabs, which make up a higher proportion of stomach contents than indicated by fishers´ answers, the stomach content analysis and interview results appear comparable. Crabs were especially represented by Cronius ruber in Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro and by Petrolisthes galatinus in Bertioga. A similar study conducted at Paraty, another site along the coast of Rio de Janeiro, showed that stomach contents largely included Cronius ruber and Pilumnus quoyi (crustaceans represented 35% and fish represented 18% of stomach contents, Begossi et al., 2012b).
TAbLE 2 (CONTINUED) Species or Site N Lmean
(mm) Lmin
(mm) LmFP & LreprodGO
(mm) IUCN
VulnerabilityFP VulnerabilityFP
(Cheung) ResilienceFP
(K) Td Stock statusLE Lutjanidae
Mutton snapper
L. analis 36 434 300 520FP
400GO Vulnerable Moderate to high (47%) Low
K=0.13-0.25 4.5-14 overexploited Lane snapper
L. synagris 54 379 240 253FP
180GO Not evaluated Moderate
(38%) Medium
K=0.13-0.26 1.4-4.4 overexploited Silk snapper
L. vivanus 37 328 180 500FP Not evaluated High to very
high (68%) Low
K=0.09-0.32 4.5-14 Near the maximum limit Yellowtail snapper
O. chrysurus 66 388 320 237FP
250GO Not Evaluated High (59%) Low
K=0.10-0.16 4.5-14 overexploited Vermilion snapper
R.aurorubens 22 336 260 200-230FP Not Evaluated Moderate to
high (50%) K=0.20 1.4-4.4
-Sites NE brazil
Maceió, Alagoas 28 302 180 Porto Sauípe, bahia 137 373 250 SE brazil
Copacabana, Rio 35 418 300 bertioga, São Paulo 44 449 260
All Sites 385 180
Ntotal Lutjanidae 244 -
-Species or Site N Lmean
(mm) Lmin
(mm) LmFP & LreprodGO
(mm) IUCN
VulnerabilityFP VulnerabilityFP
(Cheung) ResilienceFP
(K) Td Stock statusLE Serranidae
Coney
Cephalopolis fulva 170 255 165 160 Least concern Moderate to high (51%) Low
K=0.14-0.63 4.5-14 -Dusky grouper
Epinephelus marginatusa
59 409 240 470 Endangered High to very
high (72%) Low
K=0.03-0.09 4.5-14
-Comb grouper Mycteroperca acutirostris
37 404 310 ? Least concern High (58%) Low
K=? 4.5-14
a In another community, Paraty, Rio de Janeiro most groupers were also caught measuring less than 500 mm of TL (begossi et al., 2012b).
Local ecological knowledge (LEK): understanding and managing fisheries 13
Overall, fishers demonstrate strong knowledge of the diet of the dusky grouper, but it would be interesting to understand why crabs are underemphasized in LEK.
The diet of snappers was also examined using the same etic (stomach contents) and emic (LEK) tools (Begossi et al., 2011). In the case of snappers, questionnaires asked the general question of “What do snappers eat?” to 5 different coastal small-scale fishing communities in Brazil, which corresponded to 5 total species as follows: at Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro, Lutjanus analis (cióba, mutton snapper), the most abundant in this fishery; L. synagris (vermelho-ariocó, lane snapper), the most abundant in Bertioga (São Paulo coast), Paraty (Rio de Janeiro), and at the Maceió coast, Riacho Doce community (Alagoas State). At the Bahia, Porto do Sauípe community where snappers abound, we examined the stomachs of L. synagris, L. vivanus (vermelho legítimo, silk snapper), Ocyurus chrusurus (guaíuba, yellowtail snapper), and Romboplites aurorubens (paramirim, vermilion snapper). In the case of snappers, the stomach contents and the LEK information appear very comparable (Figure 2). In both figures, we observe that fish is overemphasized by LEK (it was counted per species, then it is the total mentioned by each interviewee). (See Begossi et al., 2012a).
Figure 1. Examples of comparisons of direct observations and local ecological knowledge (source:
Begossi and Silvano 2008). The percent of categories in stomach contents of dusky grouper (n=39 stomachs) and percent of answers of fishermen per category of food (n=21 interviews). Fish is marked with a different pattern since it might be over-‐represented: here the sum of fishers´ answers of different species is shown.
Figure 2. Examples of comparisons of direct observations and local ecological knowledge (source:
Begossi et al. 2011). The percent of categories in stomach contents of snappers (n=221 stomachs) and percent of answers of fishermen per category of food (n=70 interviews). Fish is marked with a different pattern since it might be over-‐represented: here the sum of fishers’ answers of different species is shown.
FIGURE 1
Examples of comparisons of direct observations and local ecological knowledge (source: Begossi and Silvano 2008). The percent of categories in stomach contents of dusky grouper (n=39 stomachs) and percent of answers of fishermen per category of food (n=21 interviews). Fish is marked with a different pattern since it might be
over-represented: here the sum of fishers´ answers of different species is shown
Figure 1. Examples of comparisons of direct observations and local ecological knowledge (source:
Begossi and Silvano 2008). The percent of categories in stomach contents of dusky grouper (n=39 stomachs) and percent of answers of fishermen per category of food (n=21 interviews). Fish is marked with a different pattern since it might be over-‐represented: here the sum of fishers´ answers of different species is shown.
Figure 2. Examples of comparisons of direct observations and local ecological knowledge (source:
Begossi et al. 2011). The percent of categories in stomach contents of snappers (n=221 stomachs) and percent of answers of fishermen per category of food (n=70 interviews). Fish is marked with a different pattern since it might be over-‐represented: here the sum of fishers’ answers of different species is shown.
FIGURE 2
Examples of comparisons of direct observations and local ecological knowledge (source:
Begossi et al., 2011). The percent of categories in stomach contents of snappers (n=221 stomachs) and percent of answers of fishermen per category of food (n=70 interviews).
Fish is marked with a different pattern since it might be over-represented: here the sum of fishers’ answers of different species is shown
Fish reproduction: the case of dusky grouper, common snook, and snappers Knowledge of fish reproduction can be considered to be a “vague niche”, and it is currently a priority for investigation in order to effectively manage species. Fishers can help, even if their degree of knowledge is less compared to other categories of biological knowledge, such as fish habitat. A helpful study of methods for analyzing LEK and translating it into useful research and management applications is Silvano and Valbo-Jorgensen (2008).
One way to address reproductive data analysis is to incorporate both emic and etic approaches into data collection, such as LEK and macroscopic gonad analysis (see Begossi 2008), respectively. Examples of this approach follow for the dusky grouper, E. marginatus, the common snook, Centropomus undecimalis, and species of the family Lutjanidae, an important target species of fishers from Bahia (Porto Sauípe).
In general, LEK on reproduction has been shown to be relatively poor compared to other forms of knowledge (Tables 3 & 4). However, in case of the study of dusky grouper, having no gonads for comparison, we could only rely on fishers’ information concerning the reproductive behavior of this fish for two periods, June-July and November- December).
In the case of C. undecimalis, an estuarine fish, we found that fishers tended to identify the season when eggs were found (Table 4). However, we need to have larger samples of fish and be certain that experienced fishers are selected in order to effectively analyze knowledge about fish reproduction. References to the autumn, but especially the spring-to-autumn, reproduction of C. undecimalis come from Lowerre-Barbieri (2003) and Peters et al. (1998), and Taylor et al. (1998) cites, among others, study sites in Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Venezuela.
LEK for Lutjanidae was especially interesting for Porto Sauípe, where 10 fishers out of 14 answered that snappers have mature eggs in spring (Begossi et al., 2011).
In Table 4, it is important to observe that, in Bahia, this is the period where very important and abundant snapper species, such as L. vivanus and O. chrysurus, have been shown to have mature eggs. However, in general, LEK on reproduction has been shown to be poor, as results obtained from fishers at Fortaleza (Ceará, Brazil) about Cephalopolis fulva2 (coney) (31% out of 13 did not know about it) and about Mycteroperca acutirostris (comb grouper)(both Serranidae) at Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro and Bertioga, São Paulo coast (57% out of 21 did not know about it). Figure 3 shows the method of collecting data on reproduction and diet of snappers in the fish market (etic). For more information, see Begossi et al. (2012).
TAbLE 3
Results taken from interviews with fishers. Example of reproductive periods of important target species Begossi and Silvano (2008, Silvano et al. (2006) based on LEK. We found just immature individuals of E. marginatus from fish landings, in which gonads were not observed macroscopically (Begossi and Silvano 2008, Begossi et al., 2012a)
2 Data collected by L.S. Silva in the Project FAPESP 2006/50435-0 coord. By Begossi.
Month % 2008a % 2006b
a Copacabana (Rio de Janeiro city), bertioga and Vitoria I. (São Paulo coast), Itacimirim (bahia coast, NE brazil), Florianopolis (Santa Catarina coast, Southern brazil).
b Arembepe, Valença, Porto Sauípe (bahia, NE brazil), Almada, Picinguaba, Puruba, bertioga (São Paulo coast, SE brazil).
Local ecological knowledge (LEK): understanding and managing fisheries 15
TAbLE 4
Percent of individuals of Centropomus undecimalis with visible eggs or sperm/mean taken from Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro) in 2007; Percent of answers from interviews (source: updated from Begossi, 2008). B = Bertioga, SP; C = Copacabana, Rio, RJ
Month LEK (%) EGGSb B,C SPERMAbB,C
Autumn 21 33 67
Winter 16 NS NS
Spring 16 0 100
Summer 16 0 100
Year round 5
DNK 26
Total (interviews/individuals) 19 24 24