Lane snapper, Mutton snapper, Yellowtail snapper
Lutjanus synagris, Lutjanus analis, Ocyurus chrysurus
Image © Diane Rome Peebles
Brazil
Trap, Handline
March 11, 2016
Fabio Caltabellotta, Ludmila Damasio, Daniele Vila Nova, Independent Research Analysts
Disclaimer: Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by
external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does
not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the
reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
2
About Seafood Watch®
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of
wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood
Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or
farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the
structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based
recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be
downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of
important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make
choices for healthy oceans.
Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood
Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and
ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s
conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or
“Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the
Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed
journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical
publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews
of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly
with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation
organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and
aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes,
Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be
updated to reflect these changes.
Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean
ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more
information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch®
program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.
3
Guiding Principles
Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed that
can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of
affected ecosystems.
Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wildcatch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:




How does fishing affect the species under assessment?
How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?
How effective is the fishery’s management?
How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?
Each criterion includes:


Factors to evaluate and score
Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating
Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria
ratings and the overall recommendation are color coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood
Watch pocket guide and the Safina Center’s online guide:
Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other
wildlife.
Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.
Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other
marine life or the environment.
1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
4
Table of Contents
About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 2
Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ..................................................................... 15
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 23
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ................................................................................................. 51
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem................................................................................ 58
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 62
References .................................................................................................................................................. 63
5
Summary
This report evaluates the main commercial snapper species—lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), yellowtail
snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), and mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis)—that are exported from Brazil to
the U.S. market. These species are mainly caught by the artisanal fishery of the Northeast and Southeast
region of Brazil with handlines and traps.
In terms of biomass, yellowtail snapper accounted for 20% of landings (approximately 1,951 metric tons
(MT) in 2011); lane snapper accounted for 50% of landings (4,988 MT in 2011); and mutton snapper
accounted for 30% of landings (approximately 3,015 MT in 2011). Landings of snappers have decreased
for the last decade in the Northeast and Southeast regions of Brazil, while remaining steady in the North
region. During 1998–2007, the state of Ceará was responsible for approximately 35% of all snapper
landings, followed by the state of Espirito Santo with 16% and the state of Bahia with 15%. Fishing
mortality rates for all three snapper species indicate clear signs of overexploitation in Brazil, calling for
management actions. But most landing reports in Brazil place these species in broader categories (i.e.,
labeling them “snappers” instead of with species names), which restricts the reliability of these data.
Fishing gears (handline and traps) evaluated in this assessment have showed significant differences
related to bycatch and their impact on the sea floor. Handline is considered a low-bycatch fishery and
does not impact the sea floor. But such fisheries in Brazil target species that are reported to be in
decline. These species include key functional groups that play an important role in the top-down control
of other species. On the other hand, trap fisheries are more common in the Northeastern region of
Brazil and, unlike handlines, this gear type reaches the seafloor of rocky bottom and coral reefs.
Information on the bycatch of this fishery includes ornamental reef fish and some elasmobranchs. There
have been no recent catch or landings data for both fisheries at a country level since 2011; however,
some updates for catch data can be obtained through survey operations. For management control,
Marine Protected Areas—although few in number along the Brazilian coastline (currently making up
only 2% of the entire Exclusive Economic Zone)—have been shown to improve fish stocks when
enforcement exists, particularly in no-take MPAs (less than 0.2% of EEZ).
Due to these factors mentioned and more detailed information in the report, Seafood Watch
categorizes snapper caught in Brazil on the Avoid list.
6
Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations
Stock / Fishery
Mutton snapper
Brazil Atlantic - Handline
Mutton snapper
Brazil Atlantic - Trap
Lane snapper
Brazil Atlantic - Handline
Lane snapper
Brazil Atlantic - Trap
Yellowtail snapper
Brazil Atlantic - Handline
Yellowtail snapper
Brazil Atlantic - Trap
Impacts on Impacts on Management Habitat and Overall
the Stock other Spp.
Ecosystem Recommendation
Red (1.41) Red (1.41) Red (1.00)
Yellow (2.92) Avoid (1.554)
Red (1.41)
Red (1.41)
Red (1.00)
Yellow (2.55) Avoid (1.503)
Red (1.73)
Red (1.41)
Red (1.00)
Yellow (2.92) Avoid (1.635)
Red (1.73)
Red (1.41)
Red (1.00)
Yellow (2.55) Avoid (1.581)
Red (1.41)
Red (1.41)
Red (1.00)
Yellow (2.92) Avoid (1.554)
Red (1.41)
Red (1.41)
Red (1.00)
Yellow (2.55) Avoid (1.503)
Scoring Guide
Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing
operations have no significant impact.
Final Score=geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor
Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern1F2, and no more than one Red
Criterion, and no Critical scores

Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management
Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical
scores.
2
Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid
recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).
7
Introduction
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation
Although many snapper species are caught along the Brazilian coast, this report discusses only the three
most important commercial species relative to the U.S. fish market: lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris),
yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), and mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis). Fishing methods assessed
for this report are handline and trap.
The fishing areas considered in this assessment are in the Northeast and Southeast regions of Brazil,
focusing on the artisanal fisheries.
Overview of the species and management bodies
In Brazil, snappers have been exploited by commercial fishing since the introduction of pargueiras, or
hooks and lines, during the 1950s and 1960s, in order to diversify from the tuna and lobster fishing that
have been in decline since then (Resende et al. 2003). This report analyses three species of snappers:
lane snapper, yellowtail snapper, and mutton snapper.
There is ineffective management of the three species of snappers discussed in this report. Along the
Brazilian coast, regulations are limited to a requirement for onboard maps and the legalization of the
use of handlines and trap (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). There are no size restrictions, catch limits,
seasonal closures, area closures, or other spatial management. There are some reef areas inside Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) that are under no-take and multiple-use regimes (Francini-Filho and Moura
2008) (Moura et al. 2007). But, because MPAs make up only 2% of the entire Exclusive Economic Zone,
they are not sufficient to reverse declines in reef fish abundance (Vila-Nova et al. 2014). Small-scale
fishers are becoming progressively more involved in the process of establishing policies for fisheries in
Brazil (CONFREM 2015). Several organizations in favor of Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries are gaining
force and promoting bottom-up governance (e.g., Fish Forever 2014).
The lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) is silvery pink to reddish in color, with short, irregular pink and
yellow lines on its sides with a diffuse black spot. Juvenile fish are found inshore over shallow reefs and
adults are found offshore, where they form large spawning aggregations (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Leite
et al. 2005). The lane snapper has been reported from the Western Atlantic (Bermuda and North
Carolina, United States) to southeastern Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea
(Cervigón 1993). The lane snapper becomes sexually mature at 15 cm total body length (TL) at 1 year of
age, and is a generalist carnivore and trophic opportunistic fish, preying on a wide range of resources
(Duarte and Garcia 1999) (Lessa et al. 2004). It is an important fishery resource and is highly esteemed
for its tasty white meat (Cavalcanti et al. 2010).
Yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) is a common reef-associated species in coastal waters in the
Western Atlantic from Massachusetts, United States to southeastern Brazil (Froese and Pauly 2015).
8
Growth rates for the yellowtail snapper vary by location (Araujo et al. 2002) (de Mattos and Maynou
2009), as does size at maturity, which ranges from 20 to 24.5 cm (Fredou et al. 2009) (Freitas et al.
2011a). The species usually feeds at night on plankton, fish, and benthic animals (crustaceans, worms,
and gastropods) (Ferreira et al. 2004) (Froese and Pauly 2015). Juveniles are generally found over
seagrass beds, feeding on plankton (Froese and Pauly 2015), and have been reported to dwell among
coral branches in Brazil (Coni et al. 2013). Yellowtail snapper is known to form spawning aggregations in
many fishing grounds along the coast (Costa et al. 2003) (Francini-Filho et al. 2004), and to spawn many
times a year with different spawning peaks in different locations (Diehdhiou 2000) (Freitas et al. 2011a)
(Begossi et al. 2011). It is reported to hybridize with Lutjanus synagris (Batista et al. 2012). This species is
one of the main resources in coastal artisanal fisheries, especially in the Northeast region of Brazil
(Teixeira 2004). Recent studies suggest that the population in Brazil is highly connected (da Silva et al.
2015), therefore management initiatives should consider the entire stock as one.
Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) is distributed in the Western Atlantic from Massachusetts, United
States to southeastern Brazil (Figueiredo 1980). It occurs in a variety of habitats, such as sand bottoms,
seaweed-dominated reefs, bays, mangroves, and estuaries (Allen 1985). In Brazil, it is commonly found
over hard substrates and reefs, in the northeastern and southeastern coast (Frédou & Ferreira 2005).
This species usually exhibits a diurnal feeding pattern (Watanabe 2001), which includes decapod
crustaceans and fishes as the most important food items (Pimentel & Joyeux 2010) (Freitas et al. 2011b).
The species displays two reproductive spawning seasons, between November and April, and the second
spawning between June and July (Teixeira et al. 2010). In Brazil, this species is mainly caught by handline
artisanal fisheries (Frédou & Ferreira 2005) and traps (Ribeiro 2004), especially in the Northeast region,
representing a great economic resource. Mutton snapper was listed as Vulnerable by the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (Huntsman 1996) and is considered Near
Threatened by the Brazilian management body (ICMBio 2014a).
Production statistics
Catch statistics of the snappers on the Brazilian coast were obtained from official national bulletins of
the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and from the Ministry
of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MPA), and through the Database of the Management for Statistical
Control of the Marine Fisheries Production–ProPesq® for the São Paulo State (Ávila-da-Silva et al. 1999).
On the Brazilian coast, yellowtail snapper accounted for 20% of landings (approximately 1,951 metric
tons (MT) in 2011); lane snapper accounted for 50% of landings (4,988 MT in 2011); and mutton snapper
accounted for 30% of landings (approximately 3,015 MT in 2011).
9
Figure 1: Total landings of lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) and mutton
snapper (Lutjanus analis), 1998–2011 (Data from IBAMA and MPA).
According to the landings data by state from 2007, yellowtail snapper and lane snapper were primarily
landed in Ceará (1,199 and 1,492 MT, respectively), while mutton snapper was primarily landed in
Espírito Santo (1,270 MT). Landings of snappers have decreased for the last decade in the Northeast and
Southeast regions of Brazil, while remaining steady in the North region. During 1998–2007, Ceará was
responsible for approximately 35% of all snapper landings, followed by Espirito Santo with 16% and
Bahia with 15%.
10
Figure 2: Commercial snapper landings by region, 1998–2007 (Data from IBAMA).
11
Figure 3: Percentage of commercial snapper landings by state, 1998–2007 (Data from IBAMA).
Importance to the U.S./North American market
The U.S. imports of edible fishery products in 2013 were valued at $18.0 billion. The main fish supplier
markets are: Asia, North America, and South America (59%, 17%, and 15% of total imports,
respectively). In South America, Brazil ranks fourth among the fish supplier markets to the United States,
exporting mainly lobsters and a variety of fishes including snappers (NOAA 2013).
12
Figure 4: Principal areas of import to the United States (NOAA 2013).
Between 1998 and 2014, the United States imported from Brazil a total of 54,976 MT of snapper, which
represented around $207.0 million. Annual imports during this period peaked in 2003 with 5,839 MT. In
2005, imports started to decrease, and between 2008 and 2009 reached the lowest values at around
1,150 MT. Since 2010, the volume of snapper imports is considered stable at around 2,500 MT per year
(NOAA 2015).
13
Figure 5: Total snapper production imported by the United States from Brazil, 1998–2014 (NMFS 2015).
Common and market names
Ocyurus chrysurus
Acceptable market name: snapper
Common name: yellowtail snapper
Vernacular name: palu-i'usama
Lutjanus synagris
Acceptable market name: snapper
Common name: lane snapper
Vernacular name: spot snapper, redtail snapper, silk snapper
Lutjanus analis
Acceptable market name: snapper
Common name: mutton snapper
Vernacular name: muttonfish, pargo, pargo criollo
(FDA 2015)
14
Primary product forms
Snappers are exported to the U.S. market both fresh (whole and gutted) and frozen (whole and gutted)
(Cunha et al. 2012). Fillets of snappers are also exported from Brazil, but are less common. Between
1996 and 2008, the main categories of snappers that were exported to the United States by the
companies of Rio Grande do Norte (i.e., from the Northeast region of Brazil) are presented in Table 1
(Carvalho et al. 2013).
Table 1: Percentages of processed snapper exported by companies in Rio Grande do Norte, between 1996 and
2008 (Data from Carvalho et al. 2013).
15
Assessment
This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for
Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.
Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation
This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The
inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown.
The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing
mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:
•
•
•
Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
Criterion 1 Summary
LANE SNAPPER
Region / Method
Brazil Atlantic
Handline
Brazil Atlantic
Trap
MUTTON SNAPPER
Region / Method
Brazil Atlantic
Handline
Brazil Atlantic
Trap
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
Region / Method
Brazil Atlantic
Handline
Brazil Atlantic
Trap
Inherent
Stock Status Fishing
Vulnerability
Mortality
2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 1.00:High
Concern
Concern
2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 1.00:High
Concern
Concern
Subscore
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
2.00:Medium 2.00:High
Concern
2.00:Medium 2.00:High
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00:High
Concern
1.00:High
Concern
Subscore
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
1.00:High
2.00:High
Concern
Fishing
Mortality
1.00:High
Concern
1.00:High
Concern
Subscore
Red (1.732)
Red (1.732)
Red (1.414)
Red (1.414)
Red (1.414)
Red (1.414)
16
Criterion 1 Assessment
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history
characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing (
Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history
characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate
age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size,
and middle of food chain).
High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history
characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late
maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator).
Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to
fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth
rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or
consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level
(e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.
4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not
overfished
3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent
vulnerability to fishing.
2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is
unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.
1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below
fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its
contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).
3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level,
but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species,
17
•
•
•
but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population
is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).
2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing
mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is
depleted, reasonable management is in place.
1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR
fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.
0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to
curtail overfishing.
LANE SNAPPER
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Medium
The FishBase vulnerability score for lane snapper is 38 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds to a
“medium” inherent vulnerability. Lane snapper has a long lifetime (≈22 years) but reaches sexual
maturity within 1 year (Aschenbrenner, A. C., 2009) (Leite et al. 2005) (Lessa et al. 2004).
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Moderate Concern
The latest estimates of lane snapper biomass were made in 2005 and 2006 (Klippel et al. 2005) (MMA
2006). In 2005, the biomass estimated for the states of Bahia and Espirito Santo was 608 tons, and in
2006 the biomass estimated for the northeast region of Brazil was 7,200 tons. Because there are no
recent studies of lane snapper biomass in Brazil, and the species’ vulnerability score is medium, we
assigned this species’ abundance score as “moderate” concern.
18
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The fishing mortality data on lane snapper in Brazil is outdated. According to Lessa et al. 2004 (Lessa et
al. 2004), lane snapper fishing mortality is high: 0.197. In a more recent study (Fredou et al. 2009), the
estimates of fishing mortality vary from 0.056 to 2.980, depending on the scenario considered. The
estimated parameters for biomass also vary greatly (see Table 2). Because the current F is unknown and
there is no specific management in place for this species at a national level, we assign the species a
rating of “high” concern. In addition, Lessa et al. 2004 (Lessa et al. 2004) also assessed the stock of lane
snapper in the northeast as experiencing overfishing.
Rationale:
Table 2: Estimates of fishery parameters and target management action based on Fmax for lane snapper (Fredou et
al. 2009).
19
MUTTON SNAPPER
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Medium
The FishBase vulnerability score for mutton snapper is 47 (Froese and Pauly 2015). The life-history
characteristics that underlie the “medium” vulnerability score for this species are: maximum longevity
of 40 years for the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (SEDAR, 2008), and 29 years for the east coast
of Florida and northeastern Brazil (Burton, 2002) (Lessa et al. 2004); von Bertalanffy growth parameters
of L∞ = 87.4 cm TL (total length), k = –0.16 y–1, and t0 = –1.32 for the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico (SEDAR, 2008), L∞ = 86.9 cm TL, k = 0.16 y–1, and t0 = –0.94 for the east coast of Florida (Burton,
2002), and L∞ = 59.0 cm TL, k = 0.16 y–1, and t0 = –1.8 for northeastern Brazil (Lessa et al. 2004); age at
maturity of 3.7 years (SEDAR, 2008); and natural mortality ranging from M = 0.11 (SEDAR, 2008) (Lessa
et al. 2004) to M = 0.28 (Burton, 2002).
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
No evidence is available to suggest that the stock is either above or below reference points. The latest
estimates of biomass values were calculated from cohort analysis and ranged from 1,568 to 90,720 t
(Fredou et al. 2009). In the past, the Brazilian Ministry of Environment (MMA 2004) classified mutton
snapper as a threatened species; however, due to the pressure of industrial fisheries, this species was
reclassified to Appendix II as overexploited (MMA 2005). Considering that the current biomass is
unknown, we have assigned “high” concern for this criterion, based on the global evaluation of mutton
snapper by the IUCN Red List as a Vulnerable species (Huntsman 1996) (IUCN 2015) and as a Near
Threatened species by the Brazilian National List (ICMBio 2014).
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
According to Klippel et al. (2005), an increasing trend in exploitation rates was observed for mutton
snapper using virtual population analysis, with the fishing mortality rates exceeding the natural
20
mortality rate (F/Z > 0.5), mainly for individuals > 65 cm of FL (Klippel et al. 2005). These authors have
also suggested that, based on the Thompson & Bell prediction models, mutton snapper should be
regarded as lightly overexploited since the optimal level of fishing mortality was at 80% of the current.
In 2009, using different scenarios for assessing snapper stocks, Fredou et al. (2009) estimated the
fishery parameter Fcurrent for mutton snapper that ranged from 20% to 40% above FMAX when M = 0.1,
indicating that the stock is overexploited (Fredou et al. 2009). Therefore, considering the uncertainty in
the current F value, which appears to have increased significantly, and the lack of effective
management, the stock should be considered as “high” concern.
Rationale:
Table 3: Estimates of fishery parameters and target management action based on Fmax for mutton snapper (Fredou
et al. 2009).
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High
The FishBase vulnerability score for yellowtail snapper is 65 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds
to a “high” inherent vulnerability. Yellowtail snapper has a long lifespan and slow growth rate, which
make the species susceptible to overfishing (Araujo et al. 2002). Moreover, the species appears to
present populations with limited distribution along the Brazilian coast (Diedhiou et al. 2004), making
these local stocks easily vulnerable to intensive fisheries.
21
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
In the past, the biomass of yellowtail snapper was estimated at 8,910 t, or approximately 18,000,000
recruits (Klippel et al. 2005). In 2009, another estimate was performed using several scenarios (Fredou
et al. 2009) (see Table 4). Both studies indicate that this species’ abundance is declining. There are no
recent studies of biomass for yellowtail snapper in Brazil (Safina Center 2014a). Because there are no
recent studies concerning yellowtail snapper stocks in Brazil, and since the species-vulnerability score is
high, we assign this species an abundance score of “high” concern.
Rationale:
Table 4: Estimates of fishery parameters and target management action based on Fmax for yellowtail
snapper (Fredou et al. 2009).
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Cumulative fishing pressure on yellowtail snapper in Brazil is quite high. Yellowtail snapper
was classified as overexploited in a recent study using local ecological knowledge in the northeast coast
of Brazil. But the importance of yellowtail snapper to local fisheries and its current abundance
(compared to other species) may mask its overexploited status (Bender et al. 2013). Overall, yellowtail
snapper is broadly fished in Brazil, and there are overexploited populations (Costa et al. 2003) (Floeter
et al. 2006) (IBAMA 2006)(Mariano and Rosa 2010) especially in the central coastal region (Klippel et al.
2005). The estimates of fishery mortality for yellowtail snapper may vary from 0.003 to 0.591 in
different scenarios. The estimated parameters for biomass may also vary greatly (see Table 4).
Maximum yield is not clear for this species and exhibits overexploitation (see Table 4). F0.1 was 0.055 (at
M = 0.17), which represents an 80% reduction in FCURRENT (Fredou et al. 2009). There is no specific
management in place for this species at a national level; however, the only gears allowed for snapper
22
fisheries in general are traps and vertical longlines (IBAMA 2011). Participatory approaches to
management have been suggested, including the establishment of catch and effort limitations, setting
no-take zones in spawning sites, and temporal closures (Freitas et al. 2011a). Because the population is
depleted and management restrictions are only locally implemented (i.e., not effective at a national
level), we assign this species a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.
Rationale: See Table 4 in Factor 1.2 above.
23
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species
All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under
assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related
mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or
threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the
lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which
evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The
Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:
•
•
•
Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
Criterion 2 Summary
Lane snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
Species
BLACK GROUPER
CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER
DOG SNAPPER
GOLIATH
MUTTON SNAPPER
NURSE SHARK
QUEEN TRIGGERFISH
RED GROUPER
SILK SNAPPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER
1.00
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
1.414
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
Subscore
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
24
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
High
LANE SNAPPER
Medium
CONEY
Medium
Lane snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
Species
AGASSIZ'S PARROTFISH
BLACK GROUPER
CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER
DOG SNAPPER
GRAY PARROTFISH
MUTTON SNAPPER
NURSE SHARK
QUEEN TRIGGERFISH
RED GROUPER
SILK SNAPPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
LANE SNAPPER
CONEY
2.00: High
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.414
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.644
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Low
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Low
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
Medium
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.732
1.414
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
Subscore
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.644
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.732
25
Mutton snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
Species
BLACK GROUPER
CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER
DOG SNAPPER
GOLIATH
MUTTON SNAPPER
NURSE SHARK
QUEEN TRIGGERFISH
RED GROUPER
SILK SNAPPER
VERMILION SNAPPER
YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
LANE SNAPPER
CONEY
AGASSIZ'S PARROTFISH
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
Medium
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
Mutton snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
Species
1.00
1.00
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
Subscore
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.644
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Low
2.00: High
Concern
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.732
1.414
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
Subscore
1.414
26
BLACK GROUPER
High
CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER
High
DOG SNAPPER
High
GRAY PARROTFISH
Low
MUTTON SNAPPER
Medium
NURSE SHARK
High
QUEEN TRIGGERFISH
Medium
RED GROUPER
High
SILK SNAPPER
High
VERMILION SNAPPER
Medium
YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER
High
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
High
LANE SNAPPER
Medium
CONEY
Medium
Yellowtail snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
1.00
Species
BLACK GROUPER
CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER
DOG SNAPPER
GOLIATH
MUTTON SNAPPER
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.414
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.644
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.732
1.414
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
Subscore
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
27
NURSE SHARK
High
QUEEN TRIGGERFISH
Medium
RED GROUPER
High
SILK SNAPPER
High
VERMILION SNAPPER
Medium
YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER
High
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
High
LANE SNAPPER
Medium
CONEY
Medium
Yellowtail snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Subscore:: 1.414
Discard Rate:
Species
AGASSIZ'S PARROTFISH
BLACK GROUPER
CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER
DOG SNAPPER
GRAY PARROTFISH
MUTTON SNAPPER
NURSE SHARK
QUEEN TRIGGERFISH
RED GROUPER
SILK SNAPPER
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.414
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.644
C2 Rate:
Inherent
Stock Status
Vulnerability
Low
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Low
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
High
2.00: High
Concern
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.732
1.414
Fishing
Mortality
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
Subscore
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
1.414
28
VERMILION SNAPPER
Medium
YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER
High
YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER
High
LANE SNAPPER
Medium
CONEY
Medium
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
2.00: High
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
3.00:
Moderate
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.00: High
Concern
1.414
2.33:
Moderate
Concern
2.644
1.414
1.414
1.732
The fish species assessed under Criterion 2 include those most commonly caught with snappers in
Brazilian handline and trap fisheries. They were chosen based on their catch levels and their
conservation status (e.g., Endangered, Vulnerable, Threatened, Near Threatened) on the IUCN Red List
and/or the Brazilian National Red List. The literature consulted to select the species for Criterion 2
included fishery reports with landings data and ranks of most commonly caught species in handline and
trap fisheries, as well as scientific papers and grey literature (i.e., M.Sc. and Ph.D. dissertations).
The lowest scoring Criterion 2 species that determined the handline scores for the assessed snappers
are: black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), Caribbean red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus), dog snapper
(Lutjanus jocu), Goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara), nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum), queen
triggerfish (Balistes vetula), red grouper (Epinephelus morio), silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus), vermilion
snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), and yellowmouth grouper (Mycteroperca interstitialis).
The lowest scoring Criterion 2 species that determined the trap scores for the assessed snappers are:
Agassiz’s parrotfish (Sparisoma frondosum), black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), Caribbean red
snapper (Lutjanus purpureus), dog snapper (Lutjanus jocu), gray parrotfish (Sparisoma axillare), nurse
shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum), queen triggerfish (Balistes vetula), red grouper (Epinephelus morio),
silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus), vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), and yellowmouth grouper
(Mycteroperca interstitialis). For the handline and trap fisheries, these species limit the score for
Criterion 2 due to a set of characteristics that particularly include high vulnerability, declining or
unknown current stock status, and fishing mortality stated as unknown or as higher than optimal levels.
All mentioned limiting species had a low score of 1.414 on the assessment.
29
Criterion 2 Assessment
AGASSIZ'S PARROTFISH
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Low
Agassiz’s parrotfish is a target species for trap fisheries in Brazil. The FishBase vulnerability score is 34,
corresponding to “low” inherent vulnerability (Froese and Pauly 2015). This species is endemic to Brazil
and some oceanic islands (St. Paul’s Rocks and Cape Verde) and presents early sexual maturity at 17
months or so (Lessa et al., 2015).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Agassiz’s parrotfish is an endemic species listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria
A3cd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), although the list is currently suspended by a judicial order. The main
reason to list this species as Vulnerable is due to a population decrease up to 70% in the last 8 years
(ICMBio 2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government, we assigned Agassiz’s
parrotfish as “high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The fishing mortality rate (F) for Agassiz’s parrotfish is unknown in Brazil. This species is caught in many
areas, mainly by fishing traps. Among the states of Pernambuco, Paraíba, and Rio Grande do Norte, this
type of fishing has increased. In 2003, in Pernambuco and Rio Grande do Norte, catches of 36 boats
using traps recorded 36.14 t of Sparisoma spp., especially S. frondosum in Rio Grande do Norte. By
analyzing official catch data, the annual average landings of Sparisoma species were estimated around
200 t in Pernambuco for 1996 to 2001, as well as for 2002 and 2005 (136.5 and 280.5 t,
30
respectively) (Lessa et al. 2015). At various points of distribution there were inferred declines of up to
85% in the last 8 years in unprotected reefs, based on comparisons with fully protected areas, which
cover less than 0.1% of the Brazilian reefs (ICMBio 2014).
Based on a generational estimate of about 8 years, there is a prediction of local extinctions in
unprotected areas during the next 24 years. Although sharp declines have not been observed for this
species, the population is projected to decline by at least 30% over the next 24 years if the current
fishing pressure continues (ICMBio 2014). Because current F is unknown and there is no specific
management for this species, we assign a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
BLACK GROUPER
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High
Black grouper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014)
(Begossi et al. 2012) (Fredou et al. 2009). The FishBase vulnerability score is 63 (Froese and Pauly 2015),
which corresponds to “high” vulnerability. This species is a protogynous hermaphrodite that has slow
growth and late maturity, and forms spawning aggregations, making it more sensitive to overfishing
(Crabtree and Bullock 1998) (Freitas, 2014).
31
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Black grouper is listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A2d) (MMA 2014)
(ICMBio 2014), although the list is currently suspended by a judicial order. Underwater visual census
estimates show low abundances along the Brazilian coast, even in strictly protected areas (ICMBio
2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government and its inherent vulnerability is
high, we assigned black grouper an abundance score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The fishing mortality rate (F) for black grouper in Brazil is unknown; however, accentuated population
declines were registered in Brazil since the 1970s, due to a directed fishery targeting this species for
several decades (ICMBio 2014). It is also fished throughout its range in Brazil, including fisheries
targeting large aggregations known as arribadas or correção. It is expected that this species will
continue to decline if current threats remain (ICMBio 2014). Because the current F is unknown and
there is no specific management for this species, we assign a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
32
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High
The Caribbean red snapper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and
Godelman 2014) (Begossi et al. 2012) (Fredou et al. 2009). The FishBase vulnerability score for the
species is 60 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Caribbean red snapper has low resilience, a long life
span, and slow growth, so its vulnerablilty score is “high” (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Souza 2002).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The Caribbean red snapper is listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List
(criteria A2bcd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), although the list is currently suspended by a judicial order.
The main reason to list this species as Vulnerable is due to a population decrease by 45% within three
generations (ICMBio 2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government, we
designated Caribbean red snapper as “high” concern.
33
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Catches have been reported as collapsed since the late 1980s. The species is currently only exploited on
the Northern coast of Brazil, with signs of decline (about 30%), after intense fishing depleted the stock
in other parts where it was once abundant (ICMBio 2014). The fishing mortality rate (F) is unknown, but
it is thought that overfishing is occurring. There are two specific management regulations for this
species: one for minimum catch size and one for spatial/seasonal closures and allowed fishing gears
(Bezerra and Godelman 2014). Because there are specific management regulations for this species in an
attempt to recover depleted stocks, but their effectiveness is unknown, we assign fishing mortality as
“high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
34
CONEY
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Medium
Coney is a target species for handline fisheries (at various depths) and trap fisheries (in deeper reefs:
30–100 m) in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014) (Leite et al. 2005) (Marques S. 2011). The FishBase
vulnerability score for the species is 51 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Coney has a low resilience and is a
protogynous hermaphrodite, beginning life as female and changing sex at about 18 cm length, which
places the species vulnerability score as “moderate” (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Freitas et al. 2011a)
(Marques S. 2011).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Moderate Concern
One of the highest biomass levels recently recorded for coney in Brazil is 13 kg/100 m², at an oceanic
island where fishing pressure on this species is low and may act as an important factor to benefit
smaller, non-target species to increase its density/abundance (Coelho et al. 2012). In other coastal
areas, the abundance is known to be much lower (Coelho et al. 2012). Because there is no evidence to
suggest that coney stock in Brazil is either above or below reference points, and because its inherent
vulnerability score is moderate, this species’ abundance is considered as “moderate” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Moderate Concern
The fishing mortality rate (F) was estimated in Pernambuco State at 0.46/year (37%) with a survival rate
of 63%, and specimens are mostly captured at 6–11 years of age (Marques S. 2011). Because the species
35
is not of concern based on the most recent assessment made by the Brazilian government (ICMBio
2014), but fishing mortality throughout Brazil is unknown, we consider the species as
“moderate” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
DOG SNAPPER
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High
Dog snapper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014)
(Begossi et al. 2012) (Fredou et al. 2009). The Fishbase vulnerability score is 66 (Froese and Pauly 2015).
Dog snapper has low resilience, medium to high longevity, slow growth, and forms spawning
36
aggregations predictable in space and time, which sets this species vulnerability to “high” (Rezende and
Ferreira 2004) (Freitas et al. 2011a) (Froese and Pauly 2015) (França and Olavo 2015).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
In the past, the biomass of dog snapper was estimated at 2,604 t and approximately 400,000 recruits
(Klippel et al. 2005), suggesting that the stock is in decline. Another study (Fredou et al. 2009) came to a
similar conclusion of population decline (see Table 5). Because there are no recent studies concerning
dog snapper stocks in Brazil, and since the species’ vulnerability score is high, we assign this species a
score of “high” concern.
Rationale:
Table 5: Estimates of fishery parameters and target management action based on Fmax for dog snapper (Fredou et
al. 2009).
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The estimates of fishery mortality for dog snapper may vary from 0.002 to 1.042 in different scenarios
(Fredou et al. 2009). The estimated parameters for biomass may also vary greatly (see Table 5).
Considering the calculated natural mortality M = 0.12, the stock of dog snapper is overexploited or fully
37
exploited in Northeast Brazil (Fredou et al. 2009). Dog snapper is also evaluated as Near Threatened by
the Brazilian government due to low abundance and fishing pressure (ICMBio 2014). There is no specific
management in place for this species at a national level, and the only gears allowed for snapper
fisheries in general are traps and vertical longlines (IBAMA 2011). Because the population is depleted
and management restrictions are not species-specific, we assign this species a fishing mortality score of
“high” concern.
Rationale: See Table 5 in Factor 2.2 above.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
38
GOLIATH
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
High
The Atlantic goliath grouper is a target species for handline fisheries in Brazil (Giglio et al. 2014). The
FishBase vulnerability score is 70 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Among some of the life-history
characteristics that have been used to assign a “high” vulnerability for this species are a maximum age
of 37 years for females and 26 years for males; von Bertalanffy growth parameters: L∞ = 2006 mm TL, k
= 0.126y–1, and t0 = –0.49; age at maturity between 4 and 6 years for males and 6 and 7 for females
(Bullock et al 1992).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
High Concern
Altantic goliath grouper populations have declined significantly, by more than 80%. Goliath grouper is
listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN Red List (Craig 2011) (IUCN 2015) and it is listed as Critically
Endangered by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A2bcd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), although this
list is currently suspended by a judicial order. Based on the high inherent vulnerability and a significant
population decline, and considering the status of concern by the government and by the IUCN Red List,
we have assigned goliath grouper a score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
High Concern
The fishing mortality rate (F) is unknown for goliath grouper, and even though it is protected in many
countries (including Brazil since 2002 through a fishing moratorium (MMA 2012)), this species is still
landed through illegal catches, according to official reports (Giglio et al. 2014). In 2015, the fishing
moratorium was renewed for another 8 years (MMA 2015), which accounts for a total of 21 years of
39
protection. Considering that the current F is unknown and there is no effective management for this
species, we have assigned fishing mortality as “high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
GRAY PARROTFISH
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Low
The gray parrotfish is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Marques and Ferreira
2010) (Ivo et al. 2010). The FishBase vulnerability score is 35 (Froese and Pauly 2015). This species is
endemic in Brazil and it has a complex socio-sexual system based on protogynous hermaphroditism
(Gaspar 2006) that makes this species have “low” vulnerability to overfishing.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Gray parrotfish is an endemic species listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria
A3cd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), althougth the list is currently suspended by a judicial order. The main
reason to list this species as Vulnerable is a population decrease of up to 85% in the last 8 years (ICMBio
40
2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government, we assigned gray parrotfish as
“high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The fishing mortality rate (F) rate for gray parrotfish is unknown in Brazil, although this species is caught
in many areas, mainly by fishing traps. Among the states of Pernambuco, Paraíba, and Rio Grande do
Norte, this type of fishing has increased. In 2003, in Pernambuco and Rio Grande do Norte, catches by
36 boats using traps recorded 36.14 t of Sparisoma spp., especially S. axillare in Pernambuco. Catches
are for the international market (export) and in 2008 these increased to 225 t. Declines of over 85%
were inferred in several unprotected reef areas in the last 8 years, based on comparisons with fully
protected areas, which cover less than 0.1% of the Brazilian reefs (ICMBio 2014).
Based on a generational estimate of about 7 years, local extinctions are predicted in unprotected areas
for the next 21 years. Although sharp declines were not observed throughout the distribution, a
reduction in the population of at least 40% is projected over the next 21 years if the current fishing
pressure continues (ICMBio 2014).
Because current F is unknown and there is no specific management in place for this species at a national
level, we assign the species a ranking of “high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
41
NURSE SHARK
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High
Nurse shark is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Marques and Ferreira 2010). The
FishBase vulnerability score is 69 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Some life-history aspects that have been
used to assign a “high” vulnerability for this species are: late sexual maturity of females between 223
and 231 cm of TL (representing 86% of their maximum size) and of males at about 214 cm TL
(representing 83% of their maximum size), a biennial reproductive cycle, and low number of offsprings
(mean of 34 embryos) (Castro 2000).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Nurse shark populations declined at least 30% over the last three generations, and it is listed as
Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A2abcd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014). Based on the
high inherent vulnerability, the population decline, and the status of concern by the Brazilian
government, we have assigned nurse shark a score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The fishing mortality rate F for nurse shark is unknown. Considering that the current F is unknown and
that there is no effective management for this species, we have assigned a fishing mortality score of
“high” concern.
42
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
QUEEN TRIGGERFISH
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Medium
Queen triggerfish is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman
2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 54 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Some life-history aspects that
have been used to assign a “medium” vulnerability for this species are: a maximum age of 14 years; von
Bertalanffy growth parameters of L∞ = 441.3 mm FL, k = 0.14y–1, and t0 = –1.18; age at maturity
between 6 and 8 years (Albuquerque et al 2011); and natural mortality of M = 1.15 (Netto 2009).
43
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Queen triggerfish is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN Red list (Roberts 1996)(IUCN 2015) and as Near
Threatened by the Brazilian National Red List (ICMBio 2014). Considering that we do not have evidence
to suggest that the abundance of queen triggerfish stock is either above or below reference points, and
considering its status of concern by the IUCN Red List and high inherent vulnerability, we designated
queen triggerfish as “high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The fishing mortality rate F for queen triggerfish is unknown. Considering that the current F is unknown
and that there is no effective management for this species, we have assigned a fishing mortality score of
“high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
44
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
RED GROUPER
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High
The red grouper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman
2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 63 (Froese and Pauly 2015). This species is a protogynous
hermaphrodite, and females reach a size at first maturity of L50 = 47 cm TL (Freitas 2014). Maximum age
observed was 37 years (Bullock et al. 1992), 30 years (Freitas 2014), and 29 years (SEDAR 2014). The von
Bertalanffy growth parameters estimated were: L∞ = 82.9 cm FL, k = 0.13y–1, t0 = –1.20 (SEDAR 2014);
and L∞ = 90.75 cm TL, k = 0.062y–1, t0 = –4.184 (Freitas 2014). Age at maturity ranged between 7 and 8
years (Freitas, 2014), and age at transition was estimated in 7.2 years (Burgos et al 2007). Therefore,
considering these life-history traits, we have assigned a “high” vulnerability score for this species.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Red grouper is classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN Red List (Garcia-Moliner & Eklund 2004) (IUCN
2015) and as Vulnerable by the National Red List in Brazil (Criteria A4d) (MMA 2014). Sharp declines
were observed in its abundance at three locations along the Brazilian coast (e.g., Pará, Abrolhos Bank,
and Rio de Janeiro), inferring a population reduction of 30% (ICMBio 2014). Based on the high inherent
45
vulnerability, the presence of population reduction, and the status of concern by the IUCN Red List and
by the Brazilian government, we have assigned a score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The fishing mortality rate (F) for red grouper is unknown. Considering that the current F is unknown and
that there is no effective management for this species, we have assigned a fishing mortality score of
“high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
46
SILK SNAPPER
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High
Silk snapper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014).
The FishBase vulnerability score is 68 (Froese and Pauly 2015). The silk snapper has low resilience;
matures quickly but has moderate growth rates and can live for over 30 years; and forms schools with
other target species, which sets the species vulnerability to “high” (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Safina
Center 2014b).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
In the past, the biomass of silk snapper was estimated at 1,174 t and approximately 1,400,000 recruits
(Klippel et al. 2005). There are no recent studies on the abundance status or biomass for silk snapper in
Brazil. But the species is listed as Near Threatened by the most recent Brazilian assessment (ICMBio
2014). For this reason, we assign the species a “high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The stock of silk snapper was regarded as fully exploited in a study performed in 2005 at an important
section of the coast for this fishery (Klippel et al. 2005). At that time, the exploitation rate obtained for
Northeast Brazil was ECURRENT = 0.7. There is no specific management in place for this species at a
national level, and the only gears allowed for snapper fisheries in general are traps and vertical longlines
47
(IBAMA 2011). Because current F is unknown and there is no specific management for this species, we
assign a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
VERMILION SNAPPER
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Medium
Vermilion snapper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman
2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 50 (Froese and Pauly 2015). The vermilion snapper has a
medium resilience, slow growth rate, discernible spawning peak, and high longevity (Rodrigues 2011)
(Froese and Pauly 2015) (Freitas et al. 2011a), resulting in a “medium” vulnerability score.
48
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
In the past, the biomass of vermilion snapper was estimated at 1,314 t and approximately 5,100,000
recruits (Klippel et al. 2005). The study also indicated that the stock for this species is in decline. There
are no recent studies of biomass for vermilion snapper in Brazil. But, because the species is listed as
Near Threatened by the latest national assessment due to intense fishing pressure (ICMBio 2014), we
designate this species as “high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Cumulative fishing pressure for vermilion snapper seems to be too high to recover: the species is widely
fished in Brazil, with severely overexploited populations especially in the central coastal region (Klippel
et al. 2005). There is no specific management in place for this species at a national level and the only
gears allowed for snapper fisheries in general are traps and vertical longlines (IBAMA 2011). Because
the population is depleted and management restrictions are not species-specific, we assign this species
a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
49
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High
Yellowmouth grouper is a target species in handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman
2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 68 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Two aspects of reproduction make
this species highly vulnerable to overfishing: protogynous hermaphroditism, and the sex change
happens only after 4 years (Bullock and Murphy 1994).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Yellowmouth grouper is classified as Vulnerable by the National Red List in Brazil (Criteria A2d+4d)
(MMA 2014), although the list is currently suspended by judicial order. This is a naturally rare
species. Although a severe population decline was reported for this species off the Brazilian coast since
the 1970s, the interpretation of the data is complicated by the fact that all species within the genus
Mycteroperca are grouped in fishery statistics (MMA 2014). Because it is considered a species of
concern by the government, we designated yellowmouth grouper as “high” concern.
50
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
The fishing mortality rate (F) rate for yellowmouth grouper in Brazil is unknown; furthermore, it is a
naturally rare species. Because the current F is unknown and there is no specific management for this
species, we assign a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
< 20%
Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of
fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad
(akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All
bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively)
(Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all
catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
< 20%
The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or
regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some
ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus,
and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species,
Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).
51
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness
Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of
non-retained species (bycatch strategy).
The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is
determined as follows:
•
•
•
Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2)
is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy
(Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.
Criterion 3 Summary
Region / Method
Brazil Atlantic
Handline
Brazil Atlantic
Trap
Management
of
Retained
Species
1.000
1.000
Management
of
Non-Retained
Species
All Species
Retained
1.000
Overall
Recommendation
Red(1.000)
Red(1.000)
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy
Scoring Guidelines
Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific
Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track
Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly
effective.’
•
•
•
•
•
5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered.
4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’
and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’
3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’
2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management
Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’
1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species
of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’
52
•
0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches
threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and
unreported fishing occurring.
Factor 3.1 Summary
Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species
Region / Method
Strategy Recovery Research Advice
Enforce Track
Inclusion
Brazil Atlantic
Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Moderately
Handline
Effective
Brazil Atlantic
Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Moderately
Trap
Effective
Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management
goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating,
there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been
successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
In general, management strategies are not implemented or enforced for fisheries in Brazil. Handline
fisheries occur over the entire Brazilian coast, usually with an offshore limit at the edge of the
continental shelf (de Mattos 2004). Traps are most often used in Rio Grande do Norte and Pernambuco
(Begossi et al. 2012) (Cunha et al. 2012). Handline and trap fisheries are generally artisanal and
registration of the activity is required by the federal government. For the species assessed in this report,
there are no size or effort restrictions, seasonal closures, or any other species-specific management
strategy. Many fisher villages occur within or nearby Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), commonly in
Marine Extractive Reserves or Environmental Protected Areas—both designed by Brazilian law for
sustainable use of natural resources. But previous studies suggest that managing reef fisheries within
only the existing MPAs (which make up only 2% of the entire Exclusive Economic Zone) (Vila-Nova et al.
2014) may not reverse the current declining trend (Freitas et al. 2011a). Co-management arrangements
tend to be the few succcess stories of small-scale fisheries management in Brazil (Seixas et al. 2009), but
even in these cases, success depends on the socio-cultural conditions within each community, coupled
with their understanding of and compliance with the rules (Freitas et al. 2014). It is also suggested that
buffer zones may facilitate establishing both spatial management tools (e.g., new no-take areas
covering spawning sites) and temporal management tools (e.g., seasonal closures) (Freitas et al. 2011a)
53
(Freitas et al. 2014). Due to the general lack of controls over reef fish catches for the majority of the
Brazilian coast (except as described above), management strategy scores as “ineffective.”
Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern
Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild
overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their
likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high
likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to
minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
Some of the main species that are retained in handline and trap fisheries are listed as Threatened by the
Brazilian National Red List (Sparisoma frondosum and S. axillare, Mycteroperca bonaci and M.
interstilialis, Epinephelus itajara and E. morio, Lutjanus purpureus, Ginglymostoma cirratum, and
Balistes vetula), and the remainder are listed as Near Threatened by the same assessment (MMA 2014)
(ICMBio 2014). The list is currently suspended by a judicial order, so these species remain without any
specific regulations for stock recovery. Due to the lack of recovery plans for these overfishing and
threatened species, recovery of stocks scores as “ineffective.”
Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring
Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population
and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments
must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population
status.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
Scientific research and monitoring have been carried throughout the coast, mainly by academics, and
are usually not performed to guide fisheries management. Government-led research has taken place in
the past (IBAMA 2006), but it has not been updated. Very recently (i.e., in less than a year), communitybased initiatives such as socioeconomic monitoring (SocMon) and local monitoring systems have started
to be implemented in coastal communities along the coast (ICMBio 2015), some with the support of
scientific research (Fish Forever 2014). But at this point, this type of monitoring is only in its early stages
and the first results will be local. Despite these scarce initiatives, basic information for the majority of
54
reef fish species targeted by these fisheries is unavailable. Fisheries statistics are also not reliable.
Scientific research and monitoring scores as “ineffective” because data collection is minimal and
insufficient.
Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice
Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific
recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating
is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
There are no specific catch limits set by management agencies for the assessed species. These species
have severely declined over the past years, mainly due to unmonitored fisheries (ICMBio 2014), and
scientific advice recommends that these species need to be managed in a precautionary way. There has
been no systematic research to inventory fishery resources or to provide scientific advice to
management on an annual basis (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). But quite recently (September 2015), a
partnership between the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture
established four permanent management committees to provide scientific advice to foster long-term
fisheries policies at a national level (MPA 2015). This was an optimistic scenario, but later in the year the
Ministry of Fisheries was extinguished, returning this matter to uncertainty. Because of that, we will
score scientific advice as “ineffective” at this point. With the re-establishment and further development
of policies from these committees and compliance, we assume that this score will soon be changed.
Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly
Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
Enforcement and monitoring for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil can be considered inadequate
because it is usually carried out only in limited locations (i.e., within MPAs—see (ICMBio 2015) (Fish
Forever 2014)) while being absent in most parts of the coast (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). Due to the
lack of enforcement over large portions of the coast, enforcement scores as “ineffective.”
55
Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record
Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable
levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is
given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of
species overtime.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
Official statistics are available only until 2011; however, since 2007, industrial and artisanal landings
data have been combined on the reports (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). There is proof of incorrect
estimates and uncertain extrapolations with these data, making them unreliable (Isaac et al. 2008).
Recent initiatives for managing and monitoring small-scale fisheries in Brazil include SocMon and selfmonitoring, which are being applied in Marine Extractive Reserves and other Sustainable Use Marine
Protected Areas in Brazil (ICMBio 2015) (Fish Forever 2014). These are specific protocols established by
the Brazilian environmental agency that promotes participatory monitoring involving local fishers.
Although measures are in place, they have not been there long enough (< 1 year) to evaluate their
effectiveness. Previous studies support the success of co-management for small-scale fisheries in
Brazil (Seixas et al. 2009). But the management within these MPAs contributes to the protection of only
a small portion of the stock. Other management measures (e.g., no-take Marine Protected Areas and
size limits) have not significantly contributed to recovery of stocks at a national level. Because of these
constraints, track record scores as “ineffective.” With the development of the above initiatives and
consistent results, we can anticipate that this score can improve.
Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion
Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are
individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the
management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given
if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Moderately Effective
Small-scale fishers are becoming progressively more involved in the process of establishing policies for
fisheries in Brazil (CONFREM 2015). Several organizations that advocate for fisheries territorial use
rights are gaining force and voice to promote bottom-up governance (e.g., Fish Forever
2014). Participatory approaches to management in some Extractive Reserves and other Sustainable Use
MPAs, including the establishment of catch and effort limitations, settting no-take zones in spawning
56
sites, and temporal closures, have also been suggested (Freitas et al. 2011a). Stakeholder engagement
scores as “moderately effective” because inclusion efforts are underway.
Bycatch Strategy
Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species
Region / Method
All Kept Critical
Strategy Research Advice
Enforce
Brazil Atlantic
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Handline
Brazil Atlantic
No
No
Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective
Trap
Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the
fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly
Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures
in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation
measures, etc.).
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
Bycatch management strategy and implementation score as “ineffective” because no specific bycatch
management measures are available for trap fisheries.
Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring
Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of
bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating,
assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an
adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are
being met.
57
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
This subcriterion is scored as “ineffective” because there is no regular collection or analysis of data, or
significant scientific research support.
Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice
Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific
recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating
is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
We attribute the same score as in Subfactor 3.1.4 in the Harvest Strategy section.
Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow
management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a
Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of
compliance.
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Ineffective
We attribute the same score as Subfactor 3.1.5 in the Harvest Strategy section.
58
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem
This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if
there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and
food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated.
Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all
natural and human stressors on the environment.
The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation
of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is
determined as follows:
•
•
•
Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.
Criterion 4 Summary
Region / Method
Brazil Atlantic
Handline
Brazil Atlantic
Trap
Gear Type and Mitigation of
Substrate
Gear Impacts
4.00:Very Low 0.25:Minimal
Concern
Mitigation
3.00:Low
0.25:Minimal
Concern
Mitigation
EBFM
Overall Recomm.
2.00:High
Concern
2.00:High
Concern
Yellow (2.916)
Yellow (2.550)
Justification of Ranking
Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom
4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear
3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom
longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats.
Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (
2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet,
trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on
mud/sand
1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g.,
cobble or boulder)
0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)
59
Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is
uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Very Low Concern
Even though handlines typically do not contact the bottom, there are possible impacts from boats’
anchors on the reefs (Freitas et al. 2011a) (Renan et al. 2014). Therefore, this gear type scores as “very
low” concern rather than none.
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Low Concern
Snapper species (L. synagris, L. analis, and O. chrysurus) are mainly caught with trap gear in
Northeastern Brazil (Lessa et al. 2004) (Ribeiro 2004) (Fredou et al. 2006) (Marques and Ferreira 2010)
(Carvalho et al. 2013). This fishery occurs on the seafloor of rocky bottom and coral reefs in the
northern coast of Pernambuco (Marques and Ferreira 2010) and in the state of Rio Grande do Norte
(Carvalho et al. 2013). There is localized impact from boat anchors on the reefs because fishers anchor
their boats over them.
Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
+1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%)
with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and
modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’
mitigation measures.
+0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in
place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.
+0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other
habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being
reduced.
0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Minimal Mitigation
Despite the fact that the handline fishery is seen as a low-impact activity to the benthos, target species
in Brazil are facing overexploitation (Bender et al. 2013) (Burda and Schiavetti 2008) (IBAMA 2006).
Although Marine Protected Areas are low in number along the Brazilian coastline (currently making up
60
only 2% of the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (Vila-Nova et al. 2014)), they have been shown to
improve fish stocks when enforcement exists (Floeter et al. 2006), particularly in no-take MPAs (less
than 0.2% of EEZ (Vila-Nova et al. 2014)). The MPAs that do exist are aimed to recover overexploited
stocks, not to mitigate against gear impacts to the benthos. Mitigation of gear impacts scores as
“minimal.”
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
Minimal Mitigation
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) represent 2% of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Brazilian
coast, which includes no-take reserves (Vila-Nova et al. 2014), and are closed to all fisheries (Floeter et
al. 2006), including trap fishing gear. These efforts have reduced the spatial footprint of fisheries in
these protected areas; therefore, the trap fishery is deemed to have “minimal” mitigation on the
benthic fauna.
Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Scoring Guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and
ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery
area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide
food to predators).
4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in
place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the
ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery
supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.
3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the
ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of
these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible
and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.
2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and
no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.
1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the
fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in
trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.
61
Brazil Atlantic, Handline
Brazil Atlantic, Trap
High Concern
Snappers and groupers are the main targeted species of handline and trap fisheries on the Brazilian
Northeast coast. They are a group of exceptionally important species that play an important role in the
top-down control of lower trophic-level species on reefs (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 1996) (Friedlander and
DeMartini 2002) (Kramer and Heck 2007). Their removal from the environment may negatively affect
ecological processes in the region (Freitas et al. 2011b) and may have significant indirect effects at the
ecosystem level (Farmer and Wilson, 2010). Thus, it is possible that reduction of the biomass of
snappers can have substantial impacts on the marine ecosystem. Additionally, there is no national
policy to regulate catches in this fishery (Bender et al. 2013) (Burda and Schiavetti 2008). Considering
the effects of trophic cascades and the detrimental food web impacts that are resulting from the
fishery, we assigned a score of “high” concern for this criterion.
62
Acknowledgements
Seafood Watch® would like to thank Fabio Di Dario of the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,
Thierry Frédou of the Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, and Matheus Oliveira Freitas of Meros
do Brazil Institute for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy and clarity.
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood
recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the
conclusions reached in this report.
63
References
Burton, M. L. 2002 Age, growth and mortality of mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis, from the east coast of
Florida, with a brief discussion of management implications. Fishery research 59 (1-2): 2002.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on
19 November 2015.
Lessa, R., Silva, C.R., Dias, J.F. and Santana, F.M. 2015. Demography of the Agassiz’s parrotfish Sparisoma
frondosum (Agassiz, 1831) in north-eastern Brazil. Journal of Marine Biological.
doi:10.1017/S0025315415001034
Abdalaha, P.R. and Sumaila, U.R. 2007. An historical account of Brazilian public policy on fisheries
subsidies. Marine Policy, 31.
Allen G.R. 1985. Snappers of the world: An annotated and illustrated catalogue of Lutjanid species know
to date. FAO Fish. Synop., Rome.
Araujo J.N., Martins A.S., and Costa K.G. 2002. Age and growth of yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus,
from central coast of Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 50, 47-57.
Arreguin-Sanchez F., Munro J.L., Balgos M. and Pauly D. 1996. Biology, fisheries and culture of tropical
groupers and snappers. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 48, 449 p.
Idade, crescimento e mortalidade do Ariocó Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) capturado pela frota
artesanal no Banco dos Abrolhos. Dissertação de Mestrado, UESC, Ilhéus.
Atum do Brasil. 2015. http://www.atumdobrasil.com.br/produtos.php
Ávila-da-Silva A. O., Carneiro M. H., and Fagundes L. 1999. Sistema gerenciador de banco de dados de
controle estatístico de produção pesqueira marítima – ProPesq. Anais do XI Congresso Brasileiro de
Engenharia de Pesca e I Congresso Latino- americano de Engenharia de Pesca 2, 824-832.
Batista C.H.O., Camargo G.M.B., Oliveira P.G.V., Pinheiro P.B., Fernandes C.A., Travassos P., Hazin, F.H.V.
2012. Occurrence of the hybrid snapper between yellowtail snapper Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch 1791) and
lane snapper Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus 1758) (Perciformes: Lutjanidae) in the Southwest Atlantic,
Northeast Brazi. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 7, 45-49.
Begossi A., Salivonchyk S.V., Araujo L.G., Andreoli T.B., Clauzet M., Martinelli, C.M., Ferreira A.G.L.,
Oliveira L.E.C. and Silvano R.A.M. 2011. Ethnobiology of snappers (Lutjanidae) target species and
suggestions for management. J Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7, 1.
Begossi A., Lopes P.F.M. and Silvano R.A.M. 2012. Co-Management of Reef Fisheries of the SnapperGrouper Complex in a Human Ecological Context in Brazil. In: G.H. Kruse, H.I. Browman, K.L. Cochrane, D.
64
Evans, G.S. Jamieson, P.A. Livingston, D. Woodby, and C.I. Zhang (eds.), Global Progress in EcosystemBased Fisheries Management. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Bender M., Floeter S., and Hanazaki N. 2013. Do traditional fishers recognise reef fish species declines?
Shifting environmental baselines in Eastern Brazil. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20, 58–67.
Bezerra R.C.A. and Godelman, E. 2014. As Pescarias de Vermelhos no Brasil: Caraterísticas, estado dos
estoques e sugestões para melhorar a gestão. CeDePesca.
Bressan P.M., Kierulff M.C.M. and Sugieda A.M. 2009. Fauna ameaçada de extinção no estado de São
Paulo: Vertebrados. São Paulo: Fundação Parque Zoológico de São Paulo: Secretaria do Meio Ambiente.
Bugoni L., Neves T.S., Leite N.O., Carvalho D., Sales G., Furness R.W., Stein C.E., Peppes F.V., Giffoni B.B.
and Monteiro D.S. 2008. Potential bycatch of seabirds and turtles in hook-and-line fisheries of the
Itaipava fleet, Brazil. Fisheries Research 90, 217-224.
Bullock L.H. and Murphy M.D. 1994. Aspects of the life history of the yellowmouth grouper,
Mycteroperca interstitialis, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science, 55(1), 30-45.
Burda C.L. and Schiavetti A. 2008. Análise ecológica da pesca artesanal em quatro comunidades
pesqueiras da Costa de Itacaré, Bahia, Brasil: Subsídios para a Gestão Territorial. Revista de Gestão
Costeira Integrada 8(2), 149-168.
Campos P.N., de Castro M.S., and Bonecker A.C.T. 2010. Occurrence and distribution of Carangidae
larvae (Teleostei, Perciformes) from the Southwest Atlantic Ocean, Brazil (12-23 degrees S). Journal of
Applied Ichthyology 26(6), 920-924.
Carvalho R.A.A., Cunha F.E.A., Montezuma A.M.N., Araújo M.E. 2013. Captura e processamento de
peixes recifais no estado do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil. Actapesca 1(1), 91-103.
Cavalcanti E.T.S., Takemoto R.M., Alves L.C. and Chellappa S. 2010. First record of endoparasite
Philometra sp. (Nematoda: Philometridae) in lane snapper Lutjanus synagris from the coast of Rio
Grande do Norte Brazil. Marine Biodiversity Records 93(3), 1 - 4.
Cervigón F. 1993. Los Peces Marinos de Venezuela. Fundación Los Roques. Volumen II. Caracas,
Venezuela. 497 p.
Cetra M. and Petrere M. 2014. Seasonal and annual cycles in marine small-scale fisheries (Ilheus –
Brazil). Fisheries Management and Ecology 21, 244–249.
Cheung W.W.L., Pitcher T.J. and Pauly D. 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic
extinction vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol. Conserv. 124,97-111.
Coelho F.N., Pinheiro H.T., Santos R.G., Albuquerque C.Q. and Martins A.S. 2012. Spatial distribution and
diet of Cephalopholis fulva (Ephinephelidae) at Trindade Island, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 10(2),
383-388
65
CONFREM. 2015. Comissão Nacional de Fortalecimento das Reservas Extrativistas e Povos Tradicionais
Extrativistas Costeiros e Marinhos
Coni E.O.C, Ferreira C.M., Moura R.M., Meirelles P.M., Kaufman L. and Francini-Filho R. 2013. An
evaluation of the use of branching fire-corals (Millepora spp.) as refuge by reef fish in the Abrolhos Bank,
eastern Brazil. Environmental biology of fishes 96(1), 45-55.
Costa P.A.S., Braga A.D. and da Rocha L.O.F. 2003. Reef fisheries in Porto Seguro, Eastern Brazilian coast.
Fisheries Research 60, 577–583.
Crabtree R.E. and Bullock L.H. 1998. Age, growth and reproduction of black grouper, Mycteroperca
bonaci, in Florida waters. Fishery Bulletin 96 (4).
Cunha F.E.A., Carvalho R.A.A. and Araújo M.E. 2012. Exportation of reef fish for human consumption:
long-term analysis using data from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Bol. Inst. Pesca, São Paulo 38(4), 369378.
da Silva R., Veneza I., Sampaio I., Araripe J., Schneider H. and Gomes G. 2015. High Levels of Genetic
Connectivity among Populations of Yellowtail Snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus (Lutjanidae – Perciformes), in
the Western South Atlantic Revealed through Multilocus Analysis. PLoS ONE 10(3).
de Mattos S.M.G. 2004. A bioeconomic analysis of the coastal fishery of Pernambuco state, NorthEastern Brazil. Phd Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya. 293 p.
de Mattos S.M.G., and Maynou F. 2009. Virtual population analysis of two snapper species, Lutjanus
analis and Lutjanus chrysurus, caught off Pernambuco State, north-eastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of
Oceanography 57, 229-242.
Dias-Neto J. 2011. Proposta de Plano Nacional de Gestão para o uso sustentável de elasmobrânquios
sobre-explotados ou ameaçados de sobre-explotação no Brasil / José Dias Neto, Organizador. – Brasília:
Ibama.
Diedhiou, M., Ferreira, B.P. and Rezende, S.M. 2004. Idade e crescimento da guaiúba, Lutjanus chrysurus
(Bloch, 1791), na costa nordeste do Brasil. Arq. Ciên. Mar Fortaleza, 37: 39-52
Diehdhiou M. 2000. Aspectos biológicos da guaiúba Lutjanus chrysurus Bloch, 1791 (Perciformes:
Lutjanidae) na costa nordeste do Brasil: idade, cresimento, morfometria e pesca. MSc thesis,
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.
Duarte L.O. and Garcia C.B. 1999. Diet of the lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris (Lutjanidae), in the Gulf of
Salamanca, Colombia. Caribbean Journal of Science 35, 54–63.
Food and Drug Administration. 2015. The Seafood List: FDA's Guide to Acceptable Market Names for
Seafood sold in Interstate Commerce.
66
Feitosa C.V., Ferreira B.P., and Araújo M.E. 2008. A rapid newmethod for assessing sustainability of
ornamental fish by-catch from coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research 59, 1092–1100.
Feitoza B.M., Rosa R.S., and Rocha L.A. 2005. Ecology and zoogeography of deep reef fishes in
northeastern Brazil. Bulletin of Marine Science 76, 725-742.
Ferreira B.P., Rezende S.M., Teixeira S.F. and Frédou T. 2004. Sinopse Idade, Crescimento, Mortalidade,
Reprodução e Avaliação de Estoques de Lutjanus chrysurus
Fish Forever. 2014. http://www.fishforever.org/where/brazil/
Floeter S.R., Halpern B.S. and Ferreira C.E.L. 2006. Effects of fishing and protection on Brazilian reef
fishes. Biological Conservation 128, 391-402.
França A.R. and Olavo G. 2015. Indirect signals of spawning aggregations of three commercial reef fish
species on the continental shelf of Bahia, east coast of Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography
63(3):289-302
Francini-Filho, R. B. and Moura, R. L. 2008. Evidence for spillover of reef fishes from a no-take marine
reserve: An evaluation using the before-after control-impact (BACI) approach. Fisheries Research 93
(2008) 346–356.
Francini-Filho R., Fonesca J., Sala E. and Menezes N. 2004. Ecology and conservation of reef fish
spawning aggregations in the Abrolhos Bank, Brazil. BP Conservation Programme, Final Report. 59 p.
Fredou, T. and Ferreira, B.P. 2005. Bathymetric trends of North- eastern Brazilian snappers (Pisces,
Lutjanidae): Implications for the reef fishery dynamic. Braz. Arch. Biol. Tech., 48, 787-800.
Fredou T., Ferreira B.P. and Letourneur Y. 2006. A univariate and multivariate study of reef fisheries off
northeastern Brazil. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63, 883-896
Fredou T., Ferreira B.P. and Letourneur Y. 2009. Assessing the stocks of the primary snappers caught in
northeastern Brazil reef systems 1. Traditional modeling approaches. Fisheries Research 99, 90-95.
Frehse F.A. 2006. Estrutura da População de três espécies da família Clupeidae: Harengulll clupeola,
Opisthonema oglinum e Sardinella brasiliensis, no Complexo Estuarino de Paranaguá, Paraná. BSc
monograph. Universidade Federal do Paraná
Freitas M.O. 2009. Pesca artesanal e biologia reprodutiva do ariocó Lutjanus synagris (Lutjanidae) no
banco dos Abrolhos. MSc dissertation. Santa Cruz State University. 116p.
Freitas M.O., Moura R.L., Francini-Filho R.B. and Minte-Vera C.V. 2011. Spawning patterns of
commercially important reef fish (Lutjanidae and Serranidae) in the tropical western South Atlantic.
Scientia Marina 75, 135-146.
Freitas M.O., Abilhoa V., Silva G.H.C. 2011. Feeding ecology of Lutjanus analis (Teleostei: Lutjanidae)
from Abrolhos Bank, Eastern Brazil. Neotrop. ichthyol. 9(2 ), 411-418.
67
Freitas MO, Rocha GRA, Chaves PTC, Moura RL 2014. Reproductive biology of the lane snapper, Lutjanus
synagris, and recommendations for its management on the Abrolhos Shelf, Brazil. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of the United Kingdom 94(8): 1711-1720.
Freitas, M. O. 2014. AUTO-ECOLOGIA DE Epinephelus morio E Mycteroperca bonaci: EPINEFELÍDEOS
COMERCIALMENTE IMPORTANTES E AMEAÇADOS NO BANCO DOS ABROLHOS. Tese de Doutorado.
UFPR, Curitiba.
Friedlander A.M. and DeMartini E.E. 2002. Contrasts in density, size, and biomass of reef fishes between
the northwestern and the main Hawaiian islands: the effects of fishing down apex predators. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 230, 253-264.
Froese R. and Pauly D. (Editors). 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.
www.fishbase.org, version (02/2015).
Gaspar A. L. B. 2006. Idade, crescimento e padrões de recrutamento do bobó Sparisoma axillare, a APA
Costa dos Corais. Dissertação de mestrado, UFPE, Recife.
Giglio V.J., Bertoncinib A.A., Ferreira B.P., Hostim-Silva M. and Freitas M.O. 2014. Landings of goliath
grouper, Epinephelus itajara, in Brazil: despite prohibited over ten years, fishing continues. Natureza e
conservação. 12(2),118–123.
Huntsman G. 1996. Lutjanus analis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 07 May 2015
IBAMA. 2006. Programa REVIZEE: avaliação do potencial sustentável de recursos vivos na zona
econômica exclusiva: relatório executivo/MMA, SQA, BRAZIL, 208p.
IBAMA. 2011. Instrução Normativa Interministerial nº 10, de 10 de Junho de 2011.
ICMBio. 2013. Portaria ICMBio Nº 179, de 12 de Abril de 2013
ICMBio. 2014. Avaliação do Risco de Extinção - Peixes Marinhos.
http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/fauna-brasileira/estado-de-conservacao/2745-peixesmarinhos.html
ICMBio. 2014a. Avaliação do Risco de Extinção - Peixes Marinhos.
http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/fauna-brasileira/lista-de-especies-dadosinsuficientes.html
ICMBio. 2015. ICMBio participa de curso sobre monitoramento socieconômico e biológico. ICMBio em
Foco 335, 12-13.
ICMBio. 2015a. Peixes - Epinephelus itajara (Lictenstein, 1822) - Mero
Isaac V.J., Santo R.V.E., Nunes J.L.G. 2008. A estatística pesqueira no litoral do Pará: resultados
divergentes. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 3: 205-213.
68
Ivo C.T.C., Vasconcelos J.A. and Osório F.M. 2010. Pesca de peixe com covos no estado do Rio Grande do
Norte. Bol. Téc. Cient. CEPENE 18(1), 75-85.
Klippel S., Olavo G., Costa P.A.S., Martins P.A.S. and Peres M.B. 2005. Avaliação dos estoques de
lutjanídeos da costa central do Brasil: análise de coortes e modelo preditivo de Thompson e Bell para
comprimentos, p. 83-98. In: Costa P.A.S., Martins A.S., Olavo G. (orgs.). Pesca e potenciais de exploração
de recursos vivos na região central da Zona Econômica Exclusiva brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Museu
Nacional (Série Livros, 13), 83-98.
Kramer K.L. and Heck Jr K.L. 2007. Top-down trophic shifts in Florida Keys patch reef marine protected
areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 349, 111-123.
Laporta M., Miller P., Horta H. and Riestra G. 2006. First report of leatherback turtle entanglement in
trap lines in the Uruayan continental shelf. Marine Turtle Newsletter 112, 9-11.
Leite N.O.J., Martins A.S. and Araújo J.N. 2005. Idade e crescimento de peixes recifais na região central
da Zona Econômica Exclusiva entre Salvador e o cabo de São Tomé-RJ (13°S a 22°S). In: Costa P.A.S.,
Martins A.S, Olavi G. (Eds.) Pesca e potenciais de exploração de recursos vivos na região central da Zona
Econômica Exclusiva brasileira. (Serie livros n.13). Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional, 203-216.
Lessa R.P., Nóbrega M.F. and Bezerra-Júnior J.L. 2004. Dinâmica de Populações e Avaliação de Estoques
dos Recursos Pesqueiros da Região Nordeste, Volume II. Recife. 274 p.
Lino M.A.S. 2003. Estudo biológico-pesqueiro da manjuba Opisthonema oglinum (Lesueur, 1818) da
região de Itapissuma, Pernambuco. BSc monograph, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco.
Mariano E.F. and Rosa R.S. 2010. Caracterização da pesca artesanal no litoral da Paraíba. Bol. Téc. Cient.
CEPENE 18(1), 61-74.
Marques S. and Ferreira B.P. 2010. Composição e características da pesca de armadilhas no litoral norte
de Pernambuco - Brasil. Bol. Téc. Cient. CEPENE 18(1), 49-60.
Marques S. 2011. Reprodução, idade e crescimento de três espécies da família Epinephelidae no litoral
de Pernambuco. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, PhD thesis. 164p.
Martins C. 2006. O Mercado Norte-americano de Pescados e Frutos do Mar. American Chamber of
Commerce for Brazil.
Matos, R.M.G and Araújo, M.E. 2007. BIOLOGIA REPRODUTIVA DO PRINCIPAL PEIXE ORNAMENTAL
MARINHO, Holacanthus ciliaris (Actinopterygii), EXPORTADO PELO BRASIL. XV Congresso de Iniciação
Científica da UFPE.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2004. Instrução Normativa nº 5, de 21 de Maio de 2004.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2005. Instrução Normativa N.º 52, de 8 de Novembro de 2005.
69
Ministério Meio Ambiente. 2006. Avaliação do Potencial Sustentável de Recursos Vivos na Zona
Econômica Exclusiva - Relatório Executivo. Brasilia. 303 p.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2014. Portaria MMA nº 445. Anexo I. Brasília
Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2015. Portarias Interministeriais nº 13 e nº 14/2015.
Monteiro-Neto C., Cunha F.E.A., Nottingham M.C., Araújo M.E., RosaI.L., and Barros G.M.L. 2003.
Analysis of the marine ornamental fish trade at Ceará State, northeast Brazil. Biodiversity and
Conservation 12, 1287–1295.
Moura R. L., Dutra G. F., Francini-Filho R. B., Minte-Vera C. V., Curado I.B., Guimarães F.J., Oliveira R.F.
and Alves D. C. 2007. Fisheries management in the Marine Extractive Reserve of Corumbau, Bahia. In
Aquatic Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tools. Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, 175–
187.
Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura. 2011. Boletim Estatístico da Pesca e Aquicultura. Brasília.
Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura. 2015. CPGs inauguram novo tempo no setor pesqueiro do Brasil.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015. Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division: Snappers imports Brazil
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES STATISTICS FISHERIES OF THE UNITED STATES, 2013
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2015. NOAA FISHWATCH - U.S. SEAFOOD FACTS.
http://www.fishwatch.gov/wild_seafood/outside_the_us.htm
Noronha Pescados. 2015. http://www.noronhapescados.com.br/produtos
Pimentel C. R. and Joyeux J. C. 2010. Diet and food partitioning between juveniles of mutton Lutjanus
analis, dog Lutjanus jocu and lane Lutjanus synagris snappers (Perciformes: Lutjanidae) in a mangrovefringed estuarine environment. Journal of Fish Biology (2010) 76, 2299–2317.
Produmar. 2015. http://www.produmar.ind.br/produtos.php
Renan X., Trejo-Martínez J., Caballero-Arango D. and Brulé T. 2014. Growth stanzas in an EpinephelidaeLutjanidae complex. Rev. Biol. Trop. (Int. J. Trop. Biol. ISSN-0034-7744) 63(1), 175-187.
Resende S.M., Ferreira B.P. and Fredou T. 2003. A pesca de lutjanídeos no nordeste do Brasil: histórico
das pescarias, características das espécies e relevância para o manejo. Bol. Técn. Cient. CEPENE, 11(1),
257 - 270.
Rezende S.M. and Ferreira B.P.2004. Age, growth and mortality of dog snapper Lutjanus jocu (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) in the northeast coast of Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, 51(2): 107-121.
70
Ribeiro F.P. 2004. Composição da biocenose e abundância relativa de peixes capturados com covos nos
Estados do Rio Grande do Norte e Pernambuco. Boletim Técnico Científico do CEPENE 12, 113–128.
Rodrigues V.L.A. 2011. Dieta e aspectos reprodutivos de Rhomboplites aurorubens (Teleostei,
Lutjanidae) na costa central do Brasil. Bachelor monograph. UFES.
Roos D., Roux O. and Conand F. 2007. Notes on the biology of the bigeye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus
(Carangidae) around Reunion Island, southwest Indian Ocean. Scientia Marina 71(1), 137-144.
Safina Center. 2014a. Yellowtail snapper - Brazil: full species report.
Safina Center. 2014b.Silk snapper - full species report
Sampaio, F.D.F. and Ostrensky, A. 2013. Brazilian environmental legislation as tool to conserve marine
ornamental fish. Marine Policy 42, 280–285.
Santa Inês Pescados. 2015.http://www.santainespescados.com.br/interna.php?cod=41463
Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR). 2008. SEDAR 15A stock assessment report 3 (SAR 3)
South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico mutton snapper. Charleston, SC. 410 p.
Seixas C.S., Minte-Vera C.V., Ferreira R.G., Moura R.L., Curado I.B., Pezzuti J., Thé A.P.G. and FranciniFilho R.B. 2009. Co-managing commons: Advancing Aquatic Resources Management in Brazil. In: P.
Lopes and A. Begossi (eds.), Current Trends in Human Ecology, pp. 156-182. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northumberland.
Smith J.W. 1994. Biology and Fishery for Atlantic Thread Herring, Opisthonema oglinum, along the North
Carolina Coast. Marine Fisheries Review, 56(4), 1-7.
Souza R.F.C. 2002. Dinâmica populacional do Pargo, Lutjanus purpureus Poey, 1875 (Pisces: Lutjanidae)
na plataforma norte do Brasil. Master Dissertation.
Souza J.M. and Clistenes A. 2011. Estudos Reprodutivos em espécies de peixes de importância comercial
da Baía de Todos os Santos. XV Semana de Iniciação Científica da Universidade Estadual de Feira de
Santana.
Teixeira S.F. 2004. Análise das incertezas das estimativas dos parametros de crescimento e mortalidade
utilizados na avaliacao de estoques de peixes recifais no nordeste do Brasil. PhD thesis, Universidade
Federal de Pernambuco.
Teixeira S. F., Duarte Y. F. and Ferreira B.P. 2010. Reproduction of the fish Lutjanus analis (mutton
snapper; Perciformes: Lutjanidae) from Northeastern Brazil. Rev. Biol. Trop. (Int. J. Trop. Biol. ISSN-00347744) Vol. 58 (3), 791-800.
Vaz-dos-Santos A.M., Costa M.R. and Cruvinel C.M. 2013. Análise da ictiofauna capturada em cerco fixo
flutuante na Praia de Toque-Toque Pequeno, Litoral Norte do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. UNISANTA
BioScience 2(2), 7-16.
71
Vila-Nova D.A., Ferreira C.E.L., Barbosa F.G. and Floeter S.R. 2014. Reef fish hotspots as surrogates for
marine conservation in the Brazilian coast. Ocean & Coastal Management, 102, 88–93.