lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 91 (2014) 50e57

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

From fish to ecosystems: The perceptions of fishermen neighboringa southern Brazilian marine protected area

Ivan Machado Martins a,*, Rodrigo Pereira Medeiros b, Natalia Hanazaki a

aDepartamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina e UFSC, Florianópolis, SC, BrazilbCentro de Estudos do Mar, Universidade do Paraná e UFPR, Pontal do Paraná, PR, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 22 February 2014

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ55 48 37219460.E-mail addresses: ivan2885@yahoo.com.br, ivanmma

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.01.0150964-5691/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are being created worldwide and are important tools for conservationand fisheries management. However, the impact of MPAs on artisanal fishing communities is still poorlyunderstood. In this research, we sought to understand the perceptions of artisanal fishers living aroundthe Arvoredo Biological Reserve, a no-take MPA located in southern Brazil, and their relationship withthe MPA. The fishing communities in this study are located in Tijucas Bay, an estuary located within thebuffer zone of this MPA but outside its boundaries. Data collection was conducted using interviews andparticipatory mapping with artisanal fishers. The results show that fishers have detailed knowledgeabout different species, the bay, and the connections between the bay and the MPA. The fishers notedthat the proper functioning of the MPA relies on avoiding industrial fishing in its borders and to limittrawling within the bay. Such measures are already in the MPA management plan, but lack of complianceis a perceived constraint. Data also show that local ecological knowledge is important to support themonitoring and evaluation of MPAs.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are usually established tomaintain the diversity of marine life. An MPA can potentially fosterpopulation recoverywithin the protected region and can enable therecovery to expand to nearby areas (Halpern et al., 2010). Availabledata support the positive effects of MPAs on increasing fish abun-dance and biomass within these reserves when compared to areaswhere fishing is allowed (Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2011; Lester et al.,2009; Graham et al., 2003). MPAs must also protect importanthabitats, such as spawning and nursery areas, to maintain thebiological connections between different environments (Vila-Novaet al., 2011; Appeldoorn et al., 2003; Murray et al., 1999). Since theimplementation of the Brazilian protected areas policy in 2002,efforts have been made to create new and to re-structure existingMPAs (Prates, 2007). Prior to this regulation, Brazilian MPAs facedseveral challenges, including poor management, financial issues,and bureaucratic problems (Gerhardinger et al., 2010), which hadled to negative effects on the livelihoods of fishers (Diegues, 2008).

rtins@gmail.com (I.M. Martins).

The Marine Biological Reserve of Arvoredo, in southern Brazil, isa no-take protected area (similar to IUCN category Iae Strict naturereserve (Dudley, 2008)) that was created in 1990 to protect a sig-nificant proportion of the marine biodiversity and coastal ecosys-tems in the region. This region was also chosen as an MPA becauseit is an important nursery ground for several species of fish, mol-lusks, and crustaceans (IBAMA, 1996). Any activity within this MPAis forbidden, except for scientific research and environmental ed-ucation when it is specifically authorized by the managementagency.

The buffer zone of this MPA corresponds to an area of 50 kmaround its limits, consisting of a total of 850 000 ha, includingTijucas Bay, an estuary to the west of the Arvoredo MPA with aperimeter of 35 km and an area of 110 000 ha. Estuaries andmangroves are highly productive coastal systems and are amongthose most affected by human activities such as pollution andoverfishing (Halpern et al., 2009). In addition to their productivity,estuaries are important nursery areas for many marine species andare often used as breeding and spawning sites by fish (Costa andSouza-Conceição, 2009). Brazilian law requires that buffer zonesmust have specific rules and restrictions to minimize negativeimpacts on MPAs (BRASIL, 2000). Regarding fishing regulations,only boats under 10 GRT (gross register tonnage) are permittedwithin the 10 km zone surrounding the Arvoredo MPA. In addition,

Fig. 1. Region of Tijucas Bay showing the studied communities: Tijucas (Barra do Rio),Santa Luzia and Canto dos Ganchos; and Arvoredo MPA boundaries.

I.M. Martins et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 91 (2014) 50e57 51

trawl fishing in the shallower areas of the Tijucas Bay is restricted toprotect nursery grounds for fish and shrimp species (IBAMA, 2004).These actions are intended to reduce fishing pressure surroundingtheMPAwhilemaintaining the connectivity between estuarine andreef systems.

However, top-down management affects the robustness of MPAgovernance and can also create conflicts between fisheries andconservation goals. The Arvoredo MPA was created without anyparticipation from fishers, which has led to conflicts and a lack ofcompliance (Vivacqua and Vieira, 2005; Medeiros, 2009). The cre-ation of the MPA banned fishing within its boundaries around theislands and resulted in a displacement and intensification of fishingactivity in nearby areas, such as the Tijucas Bay, mainly for shrimptrawling (Wahrlich, 1999; Marchioro and Polette, 1998).

The problemwith the intensification of fishing efforts outside ofthe MPA is that this might neutralize the conservation objectives ofthe protected area, especially when fishing access is not controlled(Laevastu et al., 1996). Thus, the objective of this study was to un-derstand the perceptions of artisanal fishers toward the charac-teristics of Tijucas Bay, their relationship with the Arvoredo MPA,and the major threats to fish species to stimulate the connectionbetween the fishers and the conservation process. It has beenshown that the perception and knowledge of fishers are importantfor marine conservation (Drew, 2005). For example, the identifi-cation of long-term ecological changes (Lauer and Aswani, 2010),the spatial distribution of resources (Gerhardinger et al., 2009), andindicators of MPA performance (Leleu et al., 2012) can all be ob-tained from the local fishers’ knowledge.

2. Study area

Tijucas Bay is a mosaic of coastal and marine ecosystems withinthe municipalities of Governador Celso Ramos, Tijucas, Porto Belo,and Bombinhas. The bay is located on the central coast of SantaCatarina State in southern Brazil and includes the estuary of theTijucas River. Tijucas Bay is home to several species of fish andseasonal marine fauna, and it is an important area for the conser-vation of benthic and pelagic diversity within the region (IBAMA,2004). This diversity is due to the variety of sea bottom charac-teristics and the high biological productivity in the area (Schettiniet al., 2010; Resgalla-Junior et al., 2008).

There are eight fishing communities surrounding the inner areaof the bay. The selection of the studied communities was based ondata from the Responsible Fisheries of Tijucas Bay project (UNIVALI,2008). The communities were chosen because they have a greaterdependence on fish resources and a larger proportion of fisherswhose target species are fish. The three communities studied wereBarra do Rio, Canto dos Ganchos, and Santa Luzia (Fig. 1). Thesecommunities all have a higher dependence on fishing activity thanother fishing villages in the area, with no livelihood diversificationsuch as tourism or mussel or oyster farming.

3. Methods

Fieldwork was conducted between June 2010 and September2011. After preliminary visits to provide an overview of the studyarea and the communities, meetings were held with local leaders topresent the project and to obtain informed consent for the research.Local leaders accompanied the initial visits to the fishers to pro-mote community trust of the researcher and thus greater involve-ment. We used snowball sampling (Bernard, 1995), beginning withthe fishers who were introduced by the local leaders and includingother fishers identified thereafter who also targeted fish as theirmain catch.

Interviewed fishers were asked about the importance of the bayand its relation to the Arvoredo MPA as well as the species thatbreed, spawn, and feed within the bay. Threats to artisanal fisherieswere investigated through fishers’ perceptions of the majorchanges in their fishing activities throughout the region as well astheir perceptions about the possible types of fisheries that could bedetrimental to the maintenance of the biological characteristics ofthe bay. The fishers’ relationships to the Arvoredo MPA wereinvestigated through the benefits perceived by the fishers as aresult of the creation of the protected area. After the general per-ceptions of the fishers regarding the changes in the region wereelicited, the fishers were asked about what might be done toreverse the situation. These questions were asked to understandthe fishers’ knowledge about the biological and ecological charac-teristics of targeted species and the benefits of the MPA to fisheries.

In a second round of interviews, the same fishers were askedabout the spatial distribution of fish resources. Based on a printedmap of the region (nautical chart by Brazilian Navy number 1903,scale 1: 50 000), the fishers created maps of the distribution andabundance of fish (Gerhardinger et al., 2009; Aswani and Lauer,2006). The fishers illustrated the fishing areas currently used tocatch the four main species fished within the region: white catfishGenidens barbus, croakerMicropogonias furnieri, weakfishMacrodonancylodon, and mullet Mugil liza (see also Martins, 2012; Martinset al., 2013). In addition, the fishers recorded the spatial distribu-tion of juveniles of these species on the map to identify the po-tential nursery areas. The fishers were also asked to generate a mapidentifying the fishing areas that were used before the creation ofthe ArvoredoMPA. Themaps were drawn by individual fishers or ingroups of five people depending on the availability, proximity, andaffinity among the interviewees. This process involved a total of 12mappingworkshops held between July and September 2011, duringwhich one researcher drew the maps with the help of the fisherswhile another researcher recorded the discussions taking placeduring the mapping procedures.

Data from the interviews were systematized and grouped toidentify patterns of responses. The maps drawn by the fishers weredigitalized and overlain using the Inkscape 0.48.2 software and theNOAA digital spatial database1. After the overlay process, weightswere assigned to areas marked more than once, which created ascale that ranged from 0 (no use area) to 8 (area with the highest

I.M. Martins et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 91 (2014) 50e5752

frequency of use, as cited in independent mapping workshops). Theintensity of the colors used on the maps indicates this scale, withthe darker areas being the most cited. Finally, the maps of each fishspecies were overlain to generate two maps based on the percep-tion of the fishers: one for the fishing areas and one for the nurseryareas.

4. Results

Thirty-six fishers were interviewed in the three studied com-munities, which corresponded to 90% of the fishers who catch fishas their main source of income. The perception of most fishers (31citations) was that Tijucas Bay is essential or important to fishing.The main argument supporting this perception was the recognizedrole of the bay as a site for fish and shrimp reproduction and as anursery ground (22 citations). According to the fishers, the fish seekTijucas Bay to reproduce because it has quiet, shallow, and warmwater and muddy bottom (considered a food source and a shelterfrom predators for juvenile fish). Another important characteristicmentioned was the abundance of fish and shrimp in the area (eightcitations).

All fishers interviewed stated that Tijucas Bay is used as abreeding or nursery area by species such as white catfish Genidensbarbus (21 citations), seabob shrimp Xiphopenaeus kroyeri (19 ci-tations), croaker M. furnieri (12 citations), weakfish Macrodonancylodon and Isopisthus parvipinnis (12 citations), mullet M. liza(ten citations), black drum Pogonias cromis (seven citations),Atlantic tripletail Lobotes surinamensis (five citations), and sharkSphyrna sp. (three citations). An additional 17 species had less thantwo citations describing their use of the bay as a breeding andnursery area (Table 1). Some fishers (12 citations) said that allspecies that occur in the bay use it as a place to reproduce.

The maps drawn by the fishers from Tijucas Bay showed thatthey identify the whole bay as a nursery ground; however, the

Table 1Species using the bay as nursery and foraging area, according to 33 interviewedfishermen in Tijucas Bay, southern Brazil.

Species Frequency of citations

Nursery Foraging

Genidens barbus 21 5Micropogonias furnieri 12 3Macrodon ancylodonIsopisthus parvipinnis

12 8

Xiphopenaeus kroyeri 19 0Mugil sp. 10 2Pogonias cromis 7 7Lobotes surinamensis 5 19Mugil liza 4 0Sphyrna sp. 3 9Stellifer sp. 2 2Centropomus sp. 2 1Peprilus paru 2 0Engraulidae 2 0Oligoplites saurus 1 2Trichiurus lepturus 1 3Mycteroperca sp. 1 2Paralonchurus brasilienis 1 1Batoidea 1 1Mycteroperca sp. 1 1Pomatomus saltatrix 0 5Scomberomorus brasiliensis 0 4Crustacea 1 0Clupeidae 1 0Tetraodontidae 1 0Pleoticus muelleri 1 0Litopenaeus schmitti 1 0Selene sp. 1 0

maps indicate that the nursery activity primarily occurs in theshallow areas near the beach and the mouths of the rivers (Fig. 2).Apart from the species that breed within the bay, the fishersmentioned several species that foraged in the bay, includingL. surinamensis (19 citations), Sphyrna sp. (nine citations),M. ancylodon and I. parvipinnis (eight citations each), P. cromis(seven citations), G. barbus and bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix (fivecitations each), Scomberomorus brasiliensis (four citations), andcutlass Trichiurus lepturus and M. furnieri (three citations each).Eight other species were cited two times or less (Table 1). Inaddition to identifying the species that feed in the bay, the fishersalso identified their target resources. These resources includedsardines (Clupeidae), anchovies (Engraulidae), small mullets(Mugilidae), and shrimp (Penaeidae).

The changes over the years and the impacts on the maintenanceof fishing activity must be identified to understand the character-istics of Tijucas Bay and its relationship to fishing communities. Themajor changes noticed by the fishers were the decrease in abun-dance (21 citations) and diversity of fish (four citations). The fishersfrom Tijucas Bay also noted an increase in fishing effort (nine ci-tations) and a decrease in shrimp abundance (four citations).Increased pollution and noise caused by boats (three citations)were also mentioned.

Themain types offishing gear thatwere consideredharmfulwereassociatedwith shrimptrawling (23citations), followedby industrialfishing (14 citations), primarily from purse seines (ten citations).“Drum fishing” was also considered harmful by some fishers (fivecitations) because the noise emitted by this type of fishing scaresaway species trying to reproduce in the bay. For drum fishing or“batuque,” which is a very common practice used to catch catfishduring spawning,fishers place nets near the breeding sites and circlearound while banging the boat’s hull with a paddle. The aim is tofrighten the catfish with the noise and to drive the fish into the net.

Some fishers indicated that trawling should be prohibited in theshallow portion of the bay (ten citations), and others thought thatthe activity should be banned in the whole area, from ArvoredoIsland to Tijucas Bay (three citations). Some fishermen thought thatthe power of boat engines allowed to trawl within the bay shouldbe limited to no greater than 18 hp (two citations).

Considering the goals of the Arvoredo MPA, the fishers wereasked about their perceptions of the benefits provided by the

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of nursery areas of the main species of commercial interest(white catfish, croaker, weakfish and mullet), according to 20 interviewed fishermen inTijucas Bay, Brazil. Darker colors correspond to higher frequency of citations.

I.M. Martins et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 91 (2014) 50e57 53

Arvoredo MPA to fishing. Most interviewees (31 citations) declaredthat they did not realize the benefits resulting from the creation ofthe reserve. However, five fishers recognized benefits from theMPA, including increased abundance within the MPA boundaries(four citations) and the fact that industrial fishing was banned inthe surrounding area (one citation).

From the other side, the Arvoredo MPA overlaps with one of themost productive fishing areas. This areawas one of the main fishinggrounds for fish and squid in the region (two citations) (Fig. 3a). Themost common issue raised by the fishers was the characteristics ofthe fish species and the MPA design. The fishers claimed that re-sources are migratory (11 citations), and species such as squid,bluefish, and croaker are not benefiting from the MPA. Specifically,the MPA is not a nursery site for these species, and these species donot remain there as adults. Thus, according to these characteristics,fishers believe that this MPA is ineffective in relation to recovery oftarget fish populations. For some of the fishers, the current designof the Arvoredo MPA is only effective for reef fish (five citations).

According to the perspectives of the fishers, the creation of a no-take zone for industrial fishing, the establishment of limits for trawlfishing, and effective surveillance are priority actions that areneeded to improve fisheries management.

5. Discussion

5.1. Fish reproduction and foraging within Tijucas Bay

The fishers’ perceptions showed that the bay is an important sitefor fishing, mainly because the fish use Tijucas Bay to reproduce andas a nursery site. Fish species can permanently occupy bays whilemaking use of estuaries transiently, occasionally, or during partic-ular life stages. This pattern is exhibited by some juveniles in es-tuaries, where the habitat is ideal for their development (Francoet al., 2008) because it provides advantages such as high foodavailability, ideal water temperature, and low biotic stress(Vasconcelos et al., 2010; Beck et al., 2001; Gibson,1994). Accordingto the fishers, this environment is suitable for these juvenilesbecause the area has quiet, shallow, warmer waters and because ofthe mud on the bay’s bottom (considered a food source and ashelter from predators for juvenile fish). These perceived features,such as variations in temperature and salinity when compared tonearby areas, low hydrodynamics, a high occurrence of slurry, anddepths less than 5 m inside the bay, were previously observed inthe region (Schettini et al., 2010; Schettini and Carvalho, 1998).

The biological information about the species that use Tijucas Bayas a breeding or nursery site corroborates the fishers’ perceptions.

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of the fishing grounds (a) before the creation of Arvoredo MPA (REimportance (white catfish, croaker, weakfish and mullet), according to 20 interviewed fishe

White catfish use estuarine regions to breed and as a nursery areaduring early life stages (Haimovici et al., 2006; Araujo, 1988). Theseabob shrimp X. kroyeri spends its entire life cycle (larval, juvenile,and adult) in estuarine areas or near the coast (Branco, 2005;Branco et al., 1999). The croaker, weakfish, and mullet spawn inpelagic coastal areas but use estuaries as nursery grounds fordevelopment in their early life stages (Albieri and Araujo, 2010;Bruno and Muelbert, 2009; Marin et al., 2003; Vizziano et al.,2002; Juras and Yamaguti, 1989). Black drum use estuarine-coastal habitats and migrate to warmer waters during the winterfor breeding (Carvalho-Filho, 1999). The Atlantic tripletail is also atypical species within bays and estuaries (Dulcié and Dragicevic,2011; Strelcheck et al., 2004; Brown-Peterson and Franks, 2001;Menezes and Figueiredo, 1980). Sphyrna sharks have coastal habits,and young individuals are often caught in shallow waters(Figueiredo, 1977), indicating that estuaries are an important sitefor their development (Costa and Chaves, 2006).

In addition to its nursery role, the characteristics of Tijucas Bayfavor biological productivity, mainly related to the coastalmorphology and contributions from the Tijucas and Itajai-AcuRivers (Resgalla-Junior et al., 2008). The plume that is formedfrom the high sediment discharge of these rivers promotes uniqueproductivity and substrate conditions (Resgalla-Junior et al., 2008;Schettini et al., 2010). The fishers perceived these characteristics,and they all reported that fish use the bay as a place to search forfood, which is favored by the high productivity of the region. Thisinformation highlights that the region is not only a nursery for theearly stages of development of species but also that the bay isimportant due to its high productivity, which attracts mainlydemersal adult fish that use estuaries as preferred foraging sites(Haimovici, 1998).

The local knowledge that demersal adult fish seek the innerwaters of the bay also demonstrates that fish stocks can bethreatened by the capture of large predators, as has been high-lighted in several studies showing that the marine food chain isbeing influenced by topedown effects due to catches of largepredators (Heithaus et al., 2008; Christensen et al., 2003;Myers andWorm, 2003). Although some large predators have disappeared(e.g., Luiz and Edwards, 2011), the fishers from Tijucas Bay indicatedthat fisheries affect different ecological groups and can preyintensively on all trophic levels.

5.2. Main impacts on the Tijucas Bay environment

The decrease in fish abundance in southern Brazil has beenshown in studies at both the artisanal scale (Vasconcelos et al.,

BIO Arvoredo), in 1990, and (b) currently used for fishing the main species of comercialrmen in Tijucas Bay, Brazil. Darker colors correspond to higher frequency of citations.

I.M. Martins et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 91 (2014) 50e5754

2007) and the industrial scale (Haimovici, 1998). Most of the spe-cies within the state of Santa Catarina have overfished stocks(Vasconcelos et al., 2007; BRASIL, 2006). The literature also cor-roborates accounts from the Tijucas Bay fishers about increases infishing effort (Sunye, 2006) and decreases in shrimp abundance(Pezzuto et al., 2008).

Trawling is widely known to cause major impacts in marine andcoastal environments (Kumar and Deepthi, 2006). The draggingassociated with trawling reduces the complexity of the sea bottom,reduces the diversity of benthic organisms, and affects nutrientcycling. This activity also resuspends sediment and causes long-term impacts on biogeochemical cycles (Olsgard et al., 2008). Thecomposition and structure of benthic macrofauna in the Tijucas Bayhave beenmodified as a result of decades of exploitation for shrimpbottom trawling, which has changed the original structure of thebottom of the bay (Almeida and Vivian, 2011). Another problemwith trawling is the high amount of bycatch associated with theactivity (Eayrs, 2007; Gillett, 2008). In Tijucas Bay, 59% of the fishcatch from trawling is composed of juvenile fish (Pezzuto et al.,2008). The removal of this biomass further contributes to overf-ishing in the region.

In the studied region, there are problems related to the asym-metry of access to fishing resources between industrial and arti-sanal fishers. The industrial fleet has vessels with powerful engines(up to 700 hp) and storage capacities that exceed 40 tonnes (Sunye,2006). Fishers reported that purse seine fishing was the mostdamaging activity occurring in the bay. In fact, purse seine fishing isknown for its high efficiency and ability to capture schools of fish.Miranda et al. (2011) showed that in one month, a single purseseine vessel caught 13.5% more mullet than all of the artisanalfishers from three municipalities on the coast of São Paulo insoutheastern Brazil combined.

5.3. Fisher relationships with the Arvoredo MPA

Previous studies that discuss MPA design support the fishers’arguments that to be effective, MPAs should be distributed alongenvironmental gradients, thus protecting different species andhabitats (Murray et al., 1999). However, rare and vulnerable habi-tats, such as estuaries, seagrass beds, and mangroves, should befully represented (Sladek-Nowlis and Friedlander, 2004). The reefecosystems will only work properly when connected biologicallyby a mosaic of habitat types (Dawson et al., 2006; Appeldoorn et al.,2003); the existence of MPA networks is a promising way to ensurethis connectivity without requiring the exclusion of activities over alarge area.

Networks of MPAs have the greatest chance of including allspecies and life stages when they encompass representative por-tions of all types of ecologically relevant habitats (Friedlander andParrish, 1998; Murray et al., 1999). Studies have also shown thatthe high biomass associated with the islands is most likely a resultof their proximity to areas of productive nurseries (Appeldoornet al., 2003). Estuaries are not only important for pelagic anddemersal species, as was noted by the fishers from Tijucas Bay. Reeffish also depend on the estuaries and mangrove swamps for theirdevelopment in the early stages of life (Vila-Nova et al., 2011),making the protection of these environments relevant for theefficient management of all species, whether reef, coastal,demersal, or pelagic. Thus, the islands that constitute the ArvoredoMPA may be partially dependent on Tijucas Bay, which wasconsidered to be a local nursery by the fishers and is present in theMPA Management Plan, for part of their diversity and biomass(IBAMA, 2004).

The goal of the Arvoredo MPA management plan is tostrengthen the connectivity between nursery sites and the

protected area. To achieve this goal, the plan created an area withrestrictions on trawl fishing (also known as ARPA) to allow for thereproduction of marine species in shallow coastal areas (IBAMA,2004). ARPA includes five areas, two of which are located withinTijucas Bay, and covers the areas where the three studied com-munities are located. The creation of ARPA pleased the interviewedfishers because most of them considered trawling as the mainhindrance to the maintenance of artisanal fishing. The fishersidentified the shallow areas as having the highest concentrations ofjuvenile fish (Fig. 2), and these areas are mostly within the ARPA.However, the fishers observed a total lack of law enforcement inthese areas. The fishers frequently stated that there was a need formore effective surveillance; this point was also highlighted byMedeiros (2009).

Another issue raised by fishers from Tijucas Bay was that thecreation of the Arvoredo MPA displaced fishing efforts into the bay.This condition was also shown in the mapping workshops, whenthemain fishing grounds before the creation of ArvoredoMPAwerecompared to the current fishing grounds of the main exploitedspecies in the region (Fig. 3). Fishing efforts prior to the creation ofthe MPA were concentrated in the external areas of the bay;however, today, fishing occurs almost totally in interior areas. Asimilar result was found in previous work conducted with fishersfrom Tijucas Bay (Marchioro and Polette, 1998). The displacementof fishing efforts into the bay has increased fishing in an areaimportant for productivity, substrate characteristics, nurseryfunction, and vulnerability to human activities (Almeida andVivian, 2011; Schettini et al., 2010; Medeiros, 2009; Resgalla-Junior et al., 2008; IBAMA, 2004; Schettini and Carvalho, 1998).This result was most likely not expectedwhen the MPAwas createdand further undermines the connectivity between differenthabitats.

The Arvoredo MPA management plan proposed to reduce theimpact of fishing by creating the ZNP (“Zona de Normatização daPesca,” or Normalization of the Fishing Zone), where fishing ispermitted only for boats less than 10 GRT within 10 km of theArvoredo MPA border (IBAMA, 2004). The ZNP proved ineffectivefor the species studied due to difficulty with monitoring the in-dustrial fleet. This situation began to change after the establish-ment of the National Program of Fishery Vessel Tracking throughSatellite Systems (also called PREPS e “Programa de Rastreamentode Embarcações por Satélite,” or Satellite Vessel Tracking Program)in 2006. The PREPS allows for a continuous and accurate moni-toring of fishing activity and is an important tool for fisheriesmanagement and monitoring the activities of the fleet. The 10-kmbuffer zone began to be enforced after the establishment of thisprogram, as noted by the fishers who reported that the industrialfleet recently ceased to operate in the region. However, once theindustrial fleet ceased to operate in the vicinity of Arvoredo MPA,fishers noted another problem: a medium-sized fleet. This fleet hassimilar technology to the industrial fleet, including sonar andwinches, and can operate within the 10-km buffer zone. Themedium-sized fleet has intermediate characteristics of both in-dustrial fisheries and artisanal fisheries. The fishing power of thisfleet is significantly above the artisanal fleet, but it has a processingand marketing scheme similar to the industrial fleet (Medeiros,2009). This fleet currently does not fit into the rules of the indus-trial or the artisanal fisheries and is thus free to use all ecosystems.

An interesting example that can be emulated was the creation ofa network of MPAs in the archipelago of San Andre in the OldProvidence and Santa Catalina, Colombia, which took into accountboth scientific knowledge and local fishers’ knowledge of the re-gion (Friedlander et al., 2003). Local fishers played a major role inthe process of creating these MPAs through the identification ofpriority areas in which fishing activity should be banned

I.M. Martins et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 91 (2014) 50e57 55

completely (Friedlander et al., 2003). The results of the work in theColombian archipelago show similarities to this study in southernBrazil, where the fishers from Tijucas Bay prioritize the protectionof nursery areas. In another example of a successful MPA, the CaboPulmo National Park in the Gulf of California, Mexico, recoveredmore than 400% of its fish biomass after its creation (Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2011). According to Aburto-Oropeza et al. (2011),the positive outcome in this MPAwas due to a combination of socialand ecological factors as well as a decision-making process basedon the local community, which can be contrasted to what wasobserved in the Arvoredo MPA in the present study.

5.4. What can be done?

From the fishers’ point of view, it is necessary to create anexclusion zone for industrial fishing close to the Arvoredo MPA andwithin Tijucas Bay because it is incompatible for the industrial andartisanal fleets to capture the same fish resources in the same areas.In addition, the industrial fleet has enough structure, autonomy,and storage technology to fish in more distant areas from the coast,whichwould generate fewer conflicts with artisanal activity. In fact,the fishers’ proposal for the creation of exclusion zones for theindustrial fleet in coastal areas already exists in the form of the ZNParea, where industrial fleet action is prohibited (IBAMA, 2004), butit is not enforced in practice.

Another proposal made by the fishers was the creation oftrawling exclusion zones. The interesting part of this proposal isthat some of the fishers interviewed also occasionally fish forshrimp. As with industrial fishing, there is a trawling exclusion zonewithin Tijucas Bay (IBAMA, 2004), but there is a lack of enforcementof this rule. The prohibition of this activity in the shallow areasseems to have less social impact and may be easier to implementbecause the rule already exists and needs only to be enforced.Another measure to improve enforcement is the supervision of theshrimp fishing season, which runs from March to May.

The total exclusion of trawl fishing throughout the region wasdiscarded due to the socio-economic implications that the sus-pension of this activity would have for the region. Approximately80% of the artisanal vessels do not have the autonomy to operateoutside Tijucas Bay (Medeiros, 2009). In contrast, the exclusion oftrawling from shallow areas would not have a major effect onartisanal fishers because a greater abundance of shrimp are locatedin the external parts of the bay rather than the internal areas(Pezzuto et al., 2008). Therefore, the exclusion of activity fromshallow areas of the bay, as proposed by the fishers and by theArvoredo MPA Management Plan (IBAMA, 2004), is a viable mea-sure that will ensure the maintenance of trawling in other areas ofthe region. Moreover, the economic impacts of fishing exclusion inshallow areas would not be large, whereas the ecological benefitswould be great.

Two proposals from the Tijucas Bay fishers have been institu-tionalized since 2004, with the creation of the management plan ofthe Arvoredo MPA. The proposals show that fishers can and shouldparticipate in discussions regarding resource use in the ArvoredoMPA. From the fishers’ point of view, it is useless to propose newrules or actions, as those that have been proposed thus far have notbeen fully implemented. One way to make enforcement moreefficient would be to increase communication between the envi-ronmental agencies (ICMBio and the Environmental Police) and thefishers. Reconciling these two groups has the potential to empowerthe fishers to protect the resources and the ecosystem that theydepend on and to improve the performance of regulatory agencies.

Fishery systems behave like complex adaptive systems (Mahonet al., 2008), where problems are meant to be “wicked.” “Wickedproblems” are complex, ambiguous and difficult to define from

larger problems (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2009). Fisheries andMPA governance in Brazil are still locked in a “command-and-control” ideology (Holling and Meffe, 1996), with institutional en-vironments for innovative management being either rare or absent(Silva et al., 2013). Therefore, strategies to cope with situationsusing adaptive management and co-management approaches(Olsson et al., 2004; Janssen and Ostrom, 2006) are needed. Thesestrategies help to make management and governance more robust(Ostrom, 2005) and can include elements such as a diversified kit ofmanagement tools (Garcia et al., 2003), bridging scientific knowl-edge and traditional ecological knowledge (Berkes, 2008), and theeffective engagement of stakeholders (Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997).Brazil has several examples of fisheries co-management, most ofwhich involve MPAs (Seixas and Kalikoski, 2009; Kalikoski et al.,2009).

6. Conclusions

Our results show that fishers from Tijucas Bay have a deepknowledge about the bay ecosystem and its relationship to theArvoredo MPA. Indeed, this local knowledge can be an importanttool formonitoring and evaluating theMPA because it encompassesinformation about the species, the environment, and the impactson the ecosystem while incorporating a strong relationship withscientific knowledge. Furthermore, the fishers’ perceptionsregarding the actions that should be taken to improve the fisheriesare similar to the Arvoredo MPA management plan. The mapsdrawn by fishers could help to assign biologically and ecologicallyimportant areas in and around the MPA.

In this context, the participation of fishers in the MPA estab-lishment and management process is of paramount importance,especially in areas where scientific knowledge is limited or frag-mented. Engaging fishers in management boards could also be ofgreat importance to overcome topedown resource managementideology.

Another important finding is that most fishers did not realizethe benefits from the creation of the Arvoredo MPA. Apparently,this lack of awareness is due not only to a lack of enforcement andsurveillance, which is a common complaint among managers andlocal environmentalists, but also to the ineffectiveness of the MPAin preserving its surroundings, such as nursery areas within TijucasBay, and reducing fishing efforts in the buffer zone.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the fishers from Barra do Rio, Canto dosGanchos, and Santa Luzia for dedicating their time and expertise tothis project. Thanks to D.G. Martins for helping during datacollection, to FAPESC for financial support (7032/2010-7), and toCNPq for providing a research productivity grant to the third author(306895/2009-9).

References

Aburto-Oropeza, O., Erisman, B., Galland, G.R., Mascareñas-Osorio, I., Sala, E.,Ezcurra, E., 2011. Large recovery of fish biomass in a no-take Marine Reserve.PLoS One 6 (8), e236 01.

Albieri, R.J., Araujo, F.G., 2010. Reproductive biology of the mullet Mugil liza (Tele-ostei: Mugilidae) in a tropical Brazilian bay. Zoologia 27 (3), 331e340.

Almeida, T.C.M., Vivian, J.M., 2011. Macrobenthic associations in a South AtlanticBrazilian enclosed bay: the historical influence of shrimp trawling. Mar. Pollut.Bull. 62, 2190e2198.

Appeldoorn, R.S., Friedlander, A., Sladek-Nowlis, J., Usseglio, P., Mitchell-Chui, A.,2003. Habitat connectivity in reef fish communities and marine reserve designin Old Providence-Santa Catalina, Colombia. Gulf Caribb. Res. 14 (2), 139e154.

Araújo, F.G., 1988. Distribuição, abundância relativa e movimentos sazonais deBagres Marinhos, Siluriformes, Ariidae no estuário da Lagoa dos Patos, RS,Brasil. Rev. Bras. Zool. 5, 509e543.

I.M. Martins et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 91 (2014) 50e5756

Aswani, S., Lauer, M., 2006. Incorporating Fishermen’s local knowledge andbehavior into geographical information systems (GIS) for designing Marineprotected areas in Oceania. Hum. Organ. 65 (1), 81e102.

Beck, M.W., Heck, K.L., Able, K.W., Childers, D.L., Eggleston, D.B., Gillanders, B.M.,Halpern, B., Hays, C.G., Hoshino, K., Minello, T.J., Orth, R.J., Sheridan, P.F.,Weinstein, M.R., 2001. The identification, conservation, and managementof estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. BioScience 51,633e641.

Berkes, F., 2008. Sacred Ecology, second ed. Routledge, New York, p. 313.Bernard, H.R., 1995. Research Methods in Anthropology - Qualitative and Quanti-

tative Approaches, second ed. Altamira Press, United States of America, p. 585.Branco, J.O., Lunardon-Branco, M.J., Souto, F.X., Guerra, C.R., 1999. Population

structure of Sea-Bob-Shrimp Xiphopenaeus kroyeri (Heller, 1862) in Itajaí-AçúOutfall, SC, Brazil. Braz. Arch. Bio. Techn. 42 (1), 115e126.

Branco, J.O., 2005. Biologia e pesca do camarão sete-barbas Xiphopenaeus kroyeri(Heller) (Crustacea, Penaeidae), na Armação do Itapocoroy, Penha, SC. Rev. Bras.Zoo. 22 (4), 1050e1062.

BRASIL, 2000. Lei 9985/00 que Institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidade de Con-servação da Natureza.

BRASIL, 2006. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Secretaria de Qualidade Ambiental.Programa REVIZEE: avaliação do potencial de recursos vivos na zona econômicaexclusiva: relatório executivo. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília.

Brown-Peterson, N.J., Franks, J.S., 2001. Aspects of the reproductive biology oftripletail, Lobotes surinamensis, in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Proc. Gulf Car-ibb. Fish. Inst. 52, 586e597.

Bruno, M.A., Muelbert, J.H., 2009. Distribuição espacial e variações temporais daabundância de ovos e larvas de Micropogonias furnieri, no estuário da Lagoa dosPatos: registros históricos e forçantes ambientais. Atlântica 31 (1), 51e68.

Carvalho-Filho, A., 1999. Peixes: costa brasileira. Melro, São Paulo, p. 320.Christensen, V., Guenette, S., Heymans, J.J., Walters, C.J., Watson, R., Zeller, D.,

Pauly, D., 2003. Hundred-year decline on North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish.Fish. 4, 1e24.

Costa, L., Chaves, P.T.C., 2006. Elasmobrânquios capturados pela pesca artesanalna costa sul do Paraná e norte de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Biota Neotropica 6 (3),1e10.

Costa, M.D.P., Souza-Conceição, J.M., 2009. Composição e abundância de ovos elarvas de peixes na baía da Babitonga, Santa Catarina, Brasil. PanamJAS 4 (3),372e382.

Dawson, M.N., Grosberg, R.K., Botsford, L.W., Steneck, R.S., Cowen, R.K., Paris, C.B.,Srinivasan, A., 2006. Connectivity in marine protected areas. Science 313 (5783),43e45.

Diegues, A.C., 2008. Marine protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries in Brazil. In-ternational Collective in Support of Fishworkers, Chennai, India, p. 68.

Drew, J., 2005. Use of traditional ecological knowledge in Marine conservation.Conserv. Biol. 19, 1286e1293.

Dudley, N., 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p. 106.

Dulcié, J., Dragicevic, B., 2011. First record of the Atlantic tripletail, Lobotes sur-inamensis (Bloch, 1790), in the Adriatic Sea. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 27 (6), 1385e1386.

Eayrs, S.A., 2007. Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical Shrimp-trawl Fisheries.FAO, Rome.

Franco, A., Elliott, M., Franzoi, P., Torricelli, P., 2008. Life strategies of fishes in Eu-ropean estuaries: the functional guild approach. Mar. Eco. Prog. Ser. 354, 219e228.

Figueiredo, J.L., 1977. Manual de Peixes Marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. I Introdução.Cações, raias e quimeras. Universidade de São Paulo, Museu de Zoologia, p. 104.

Friedlander, A.M., Parrish, J.D., 1998. Habitat characteristics affecting fish assem-blages on Hawaiian coral reef. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 224, 1e30.

Friedlander, A., Sladek-Nowlis, J., Sanchez, J.A., Appeldoorn, R., Usseglio, P.,McCormick, C., Bejarano, S., Mitchell-Chui, A., 2003. Designing effective marineprotected areas in seaflower biosphere reserve, Colombia, based on biologicaland sociological information. Conserv. Biol. 17 (6), 1769e1784.

Garcia, S.M., Zerbi, A., Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T., Lasserre, G., 2003. The EcosystemApproach to Fisheries: Issues, Terminology, Principles, Institutional Founda-tions, Implementation and Outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 443, 71.

Graham, N.A.J., Evans, R.D., Russ, G.R., 2003. The effects of marine reserve protectionon the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Environ.Conserv. 30, 200e208.

Gerhardinger, L.C., Hostim-Silva, M., Medeiros, R.P., Matarezi, J., Bertoncini, A.A.,Freitas, M.O., Ferreira, B.P., 2009. Fishers’ resource mapping and goliath grouperEpinephelus itajara (Serranidae) conservation in Brazil. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 7 (1),93e102.

Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.A.S., Jones, P.J.S., Sales, G., Ferreira, B.P., 2010. Marineprotected dramas: the flaws of the brazilian national system of Marine pro-tected areas. Environ. Manage. 47, 630e643.

Gibson, R.N., 1994. Impact of habitat quality and quantity on the recruitment ofjuvenile fishes. Neth. J. Sea Res. 32, 191e206.

Gillett, R., 2008. Global Study of Shrimp Fisheries. FAO, Rome, p. 331. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper 475.

Haimovici, M., 1998. Present state and perspectives for the southern Brazil shelfdemersal fisheries. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 5 (4), 277e290.

Haimovici, M., Vasconcellos, M., Kalikoski, D.C., Abdalah, P., Castello, J.P.,Hellembrandt, D., 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do Rio Grande do Sul.In: Isaac, V.J., Martins, A.S., Haimovici, M., Andriguetto, J.M. (Eds.), A pescamarinha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI: recursos, tecnologias,

aspectos socioeconômicos e institucionais, Projeto RECOS: Uso e apropriaçãodos recursos costeiros. Grupo Temático: Modelo Gerencial da pesca. UFPA,Belém, pp. 157e180.

Halpern, B.S., Ebert, C.M., Kappel, C.V., Madin, E.M.P., Micheli, F., Perry, M.,Selkoe, K.A., Walbridge, S., 2009. Global priority areas for incorporating landesea connections in marine conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2 (4), 189e196.

Halpern, B.S., Lester, S.E., Kellner, J.B., 2010. Spillover from marine reserves and thereplenishment of fished stocks. Environ. Conserv. 36, 268e276.

Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., Worn, B., 2008. Predicting ecological conse-quences of marine top predator declines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 (4), 202e210.

Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K., 1996. Command and control and the pathology of naturalresource management. Conserv. Biol. 10 (2), 328e337.

IBAMA, 1996. Plano de ação emergencial da Reserva Biológica Marinha do Arvoredo.Brasília.

Portaria IBAMA 81, de 10 de outubro de 2004 IBAMA, 2004. Aprova o plano demanejo da Reserva Biológica Marinha do Arvoredo.

Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E., 2006. Governing social-ecological systems. Handb.Comput. Econ. 2, 1465e1509.

Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., 2009. Fisheries and coastal governance as a wickedproblem. Mar. Policy 33 (4), 553e560.

Juras, A.A., Yamaguti, N., 1989. Sexual maturity, spawning and fecundity of kingweakfish Macrodon ancylodon, caught off Rio Grande do Sul State (southerncoast of Brazil). Bol. Inst. Oceanogr. 37 (1), 51e58.

Kalikoski, D.C., Seixas, C.S., Almudi, T., 2009. Gestão compartilhada e comunitária dapesca no Brasil: avanços e desafios. Ambiente Sociedade 12, 151e172.

Kumar, A.B., Deepthi, G.R., 2006. Trawling and by-catch: implications on marineecosystem. Curr. Sci. 90, 922e931.

Laevastu, T., Alverson, D.L., Marasco, R.J., 1996. Exploitable Marine Ecosystems:Their Behavior and Management. Fishing News Books, Oxford(UK), p. 336.

Lauer, M., Aswani, S., 2010. Indigenous knowledge and long-term ecological change:detection, interpretation, and responses to changing ecological conditions inPacific Island communities. Environ. Manage. 45, 985e997.

Leleu, K., Alban, F., Pelletier, D., Charbonnel, E., Letourmeur, Y., Boudouresque, C.F.,2012. Fishes’ perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine ProtectedAreas (MPAs). Mar. Policy 36, 414e422.

Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I.,Gaines, S.D., Airamé, S., Warner, R.R., 2009. Biological effects within no-takemarine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33e46.

Luiz, O.J., Edwards, A.J., 2011. Extinction of a shark population in the Archipelago ofSaint Paul’s Rocks (equatorial Atlantic) inferred from the historical record. Biol.Conserv. 114 (12), 2873e2881.

Mahon, R., McConney, P., Roy, R.N., 2008. Governing fisheries as complex adaptivesystems. Mar. Policy 32, 104e112.

Marchioro, G.B., Polette, M., 1998. Uso do espaço marinho pertencente à ReservaBiológica Marinha do Arvoredo por pescadores artesanais de Zimbro (Bombi-nhas - SC). In: Semana Nacional de Oceanografia (Ed.), Extended Abstract. FURG,Rio Grande, pp. 110e112.

Marin, B.J.E., Quintero, A., Bussiere, D., Dodson, J.J., 2003. Reproduction andrecruitment of white mullet (Mugil curema) to a tropical lagoon (MargaritaIsland, Venezuela) as revealed by otolith microstructure. Fish. B-NOAA 101 (4),809e821.

Martins, I.M., 2012. Conhecimento ecológico de pescadores artesanais sobre peixesde interesse comercial: contribuições para o manejo e conservação na Baía deTijucas, SC. Master thesis. UFSC, Florianópolis, p. 116.

Martins, D.G., Martins, I.M., Hanazaki, N., 2013. Desembarque de peixes da pescaartesanal na Barra do Rio, Tijucas e SC, Brasil. Biotemas 26 (2), 237e247.

Medeiros, R.P., 2009. Possibilidades e obstáculos à Co-Gestão Adaptativa de Siste-mas Pesqueiros Artesanais: Estudo de caso na Área da Baía de Tijucas, litoralCentro-Norte do estado de Santa Catarina, no paríodo de 2004 a 2008. Phdthesis. UFSC, Florianópolis, p. 337.

Menezes, N.A., Figueiredo, J.L., 1980. Manual de Peixes Marinhos do Sudeste doBrasil. IV Teleostei (3). Universidade de São Paulo, Museu de Zoologia, p. 96.

Miranda, L.V., Carneiro, M.H., Peres, M.B., Cergole, M.C., Mendoça, J.T., 2011. Con-tribuições ao processo de ordenamento da pesca da espécie Mugil Liza (Tele-ostei: Mugilidae) nas regiões Sudeste e Sul do Brasil entre os anos de 2006 e2010. Ser. Relat. Tec. Inst. Pesca 49, 1e23.

Murray, S.N., Ambrose, R.F., Bohnsack, J.A., Botsford, L.W., Carr, M.H., Davis, G.E.,Dayton, P.K., Gotshall, D., Gunderson, D.R., Hixon, M.A., Lubchenco, J.,Mangel, M., MacCall, A., McArdle, D.A., Ogden, J.C., Roughgarden, J., Starr, R.M.,Tegner, M.J., Yoklavich, M.M., 1999. No-take reserve network: protection forfishery population and marine ecosystem. Fisheries 24, 11e25.

Myers, R.A., Worm, B., 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish com-munities. Nature 423, 280e283.

Olsgard, F., Schaanning, M.T., Widdicombe, S., Kendall, M.A., Austen, M.C., 2008.Effects of bottom trawling on ecosystem functioning. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 366,123e133.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., 2004. Adaptive co-management for building resil-ience in social-ecological systems. Environ. Manage. 34, 75e90.

Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press,p. 385.

Pezzuto, P.R., Alvarez-Perez, J.A., Wahrlich, R., 2008. The use of the swept areamethod for assessing the seabob shrimp Xiphopenaeus kroyeri (Heller, 1862)biomass and removal rates based on artisanal fishery-derived data in southernBrazil: using depletion models to reduce uncertainty. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 36(2), 245e257.

I.M. Martins et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 91 (2014) 50e57 57

Pomeroy, R.S., Berkes, F., 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy 21 (5), 465e480.

Prates, A.P., 2007. Plano nacional de áreas protegidas: o contexto das áreas costeiras ematinha. In: Prates, A.P., Blanc, D. (Eds.), Áreas aquáticas protegidas como instru-mento de gestão pesqueira, Série Áreas Protegidas do Brasil, vol. 4, pp. 17e23.

Resgalla-Junior, C., Souza, V.G.C., Rorig, L.R., Schettini, C.A.F., 2008. Spatial andtemporal variation of the zooplankton community in the area of influence ofthe Itajaí-Açu river, SC (Brazil). Braz. J. Oceanogr. 56, 211e224.

Schettini, C.A.F., Almeida, D.C., Siegle, E., Alencar, A.C.B., 2010. A snap shot of sus-pended sediment and fluid mud occurrence in a mixed-energy embayment,Tijucas Bay, Brazil. Geo-Mar. Lett. 30, 47e62.

Schettini, C.A.F., Carvalho, J.L.B., 1998. Hidrodinâmica e distribuição de sedimentosem suspensão dos estuários dos rios Itapocu, Tijucas e Camboriú. Notas Tec.Facimar 2, 141e153.

Seixas, C.S., Kalikoski, D.C., 2009. Gestão participativa da pesca no Brasil: levanta-mento das iniciativas e documentação dos processos. Desenvolv. Meio Ambi-ente 20, 119e139.

Silva, C.N.S., Broadhurst, M.K., Medeiros, R.P., Dias, J.H., 2013. Resolving environ-mental issues in the southern Brazilian artisanal penaeid-trawl fishery throughadaptive co-management. Mar. Policy 42, 133e141.

Sladek-Nowlis, J., Friedlander, A., 2004.Marine reserve function anddesign forfisheriesmanagement. In: Norse, E.A., Crowder, L.B. (Eds.), Marine conservation Biology:the Science of Maintain the Sea’s Biodiversity. Island press, Washington, D. C.

Strelcheck, A.J., Jackson, J.B., Cowan Jr., J.H., Shipp, R.L., 2004. Age, growth, diet, andreproductive biology of the tripletail, Lobotes surinamensis, from the north-central Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Mex. Sci. 22, 45e53.

Sunye, P.S., 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do Estado de Santa Catarina. In:Isaac, V.N., Haimovici, M., Martins, S.A., Andriguetto, J.M. (Eds.), A pesca mari-nha e estuarina do Brasil no início do século XXI: recursos, tecnologias, aspectossocioeconômicos e institucionais. UFPA, Belém, pp. 141e156.

UNIVALI, 2008. Projeto Pesca Responsável na Baía de Tijucas. Relatório Final.Available at: http://siaiacad09.univali.br/pescatijucas/ (accessed 03.11.13.).

Vasconcellos, M., Diegues, A., Sales, R., 2007. Limites e possibilidades na gestão dapesca artesanal costeira. In: COSTA, A. (Ed.), Nas redes da pesca artesanal, firsted., vol. 1. IBAMA; PNUD, Brasília, pp. 15e84.

Vasconcelos, R.P., Reis-Santos, P., Maia, A., Fonseca, V., França, S., Wouters, N.,Costa, M.J., Cabral, H.N., 2010. Nursery use patterns of commercially importantmarine fish species in estuarine systems along the Portuguese coast. Est. Coast.Shelf Sci. 86, 613e624.

Vila-Nova, D.A., Bender, M.G., Carvalho-Filho, A., Ferreira, C.E.L., Floeter, S.R., 2011.The use of non-reef habitats by Brazilian reef fish species: considerations for thedesign of marine protected areas. Natureza Conservação 9, 79e86.

Vizziano, D., Forni, F., Saona, F., Norbis, W., 2002. Reproduction of Micropogoniasfurnieri in a shallow temperate coastal lagoon in the southern Atlantic. J. Fish.Biol. 60, 1e11.

Vivacqua, M., Vieira, P.F., 2005. Conflitos socioambientais em Unidades de Con-servação. Politica Sociedade 4, 139e162.

Wahrlich, R., 1999. A Reserva Biológica Marinha do Arvoredo (SC) e a atividadepesqueira regional. Master thesis. UFSC, Florianópolis, p. 132. . 7.1. Web refer-ences 1. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coast (accessed 05.11.13.).