UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Fisheries Catch Reconstructions for Brazil's Mainland and Oceanic Islands Freire, Kátia de Meirelles Felizola; Pauly, D. (Daniel) 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


52383-Freire_K_et_al_Fisheries_catch_reconstructions_brazil.pdf [ 1.62MB ]
JSON: 52383-1.0354313.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0354313-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0354313-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0354313-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0354313-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0354313-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0354313-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

ISSN 1198-6727Number2015 VolumeFisheries Centre Research ReportsFisheries catch reconstructions For Brazil’s mainland and  oceanic islands23 4ISSN 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, CanadaFisheries Centre Research Reports2015 Volume 23 Number 4Fisheries catch reconstructions ForBrazil’s mainland and   oceanic islandsEdited byFisheries Centre Research Reports 23(4)48 pages © published 2015 byThe Fisheries Centre,University of British Columbia2202 Main MallVancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 ISSN 1198-6727 Kátia de Meirelles Felizola Freire and Daniel PaulyContentA Research Report from the Fisheries Centre at UBCFisheries centre research reports are aBstracted in the Fao aquatic sciences and Fisheries aBstracts (asFa)issn 1198-6727  Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(4)48 pages © Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2015Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(4)2015Edited byPreface iReconstruction of catch statistics for Brazilian marine waters (1950-2010) 3Kátia de Meirelles Felizola Freire, José Augusto Negreiros Aragão, Ana Rosa da Rocha Araújo,  Antônio Olinto Ávila-da-Silva, Maria Camila dos Santos Bispo, Gonzalo Velasco, Marcus Henrique Carneiro, Fernanda Damaceno Silva Gonçalves, Karina Annes Keunecke, Jocemar Tomasino Mendonça, Pietro S. Moro, Fabio S. Motta, George Olavo, Paulo Ricardo Pezzuto, Raynara Filho Santana, Roberta Aguiar dos Santos, Isaac Trindade-Santos, José Airton Vasconcelos, Marcelo Vianna and Esther DivovichOceanic islands of Brazil: catch reconstruction from 1950 to 2010 31Esther Divovich and Daniel PaulyKátia de Meirelles Felizola Freire and Daniel PaulyiCatch data are essential to the management of fisheries. In Brazil, the compilation and analysis of catch data from the marine fisheries, for various reasons, have always been a difficult issue.One of these reasons is the sheer size of the country, which ranges from the tropics (6°N) to the temperate area (34°S),i.e. from climate zone where multispecies fisheries predominate to a climate zone where single-species fish stocks can become so abundant as to support targeted fisheries. This wide range of ecological conditions, matched by a similarly wide range of cultural and economic conditions, is reflected in the different coastal states of Brazil. This is the reason why the reconstruction of the fisheries catches of Brazil were done by state-by-state, then added up. This is also the reason why the catch reconstruction for the Brazilian mainland has many co-authors, most of them contributing their state-specific knowledge of and perspective on ‘their’ fisheries.This Fisheries Centre Research Report also includes a contribution on the oceanic islands of Brazil, i.e. the St. Peter and St. Paul Archipelago in the Northeast, Fernando de Noronha off Recife and Trindade & Martim Vaz Islands in the Southwest of the Brazilian coast.Data on the fisheries of these islands were quite scarce, and we hope that this report motivates Brazilian colleagues in assembling and publishing more information on these islands, to help correct, update and/or complement what islands, are in fact, very preliminary reconstructions.We are well aware that this also applies to our reconstruction of the marine fisheries catches of the Brazilian mainland, which need to be reviewed by more colleagues and revised as required. Also, the catch data it presents, covering the years from 1950 to 2010, will soon need to be updated to 2014. In the meantime, we hope that this report will be found useful.The EditorspreFaceBrazil - Freire et al. 3reconstruction oF catch statistics For Brazilian marine waters (1950-2010)1 Kátia de Meirelles Felizola Freirea, José Augusto Negreiros Aragãob; Ana Rosa da Rocha Araújoc, Antônio Olinto Ávila-da-Silvad, Maria Camila dos Santos Bispoe, Gonzalo Velascof,  Marcus Henrique Carneirog, Fernanda Damaceno Silva Gonçalvesh, Karina Annes Keuneckei, Jocemar Tomasino Mendonçaj, Pietro S. Morok, Fabio S. Mottal, George Olavom,  Paulo Ricardo Pezzuton, Raynara Filho Santanao, Roberta Aguiar dos Santosp,  Isaac Trindade-Santosq, José Airton Vasconcelosr, Marcelo Viannas and Esther Divovicht aUniversidade Federal de Sergipe (UFS), Departamento de Engenharia de Pesca e Aquicultura (DEPAQ), São Cristóvão, Sergipe, Brazil,   kmffreire2015@gmail.com; coordinator, commercial (all states), recreational (all states)bInstituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA), Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil, j_aragao@hotmail.com; commercial (Ceará)cUFS/DEPAQ, anarosaaraujop@gmail.com; commercial (Amapá, Pará, Sergipe)dInstituto de Pesca, Unidade Laboratorial de Referência em Controle Estatístico da Produção Pesqueira Marinha (IP-ULRCEPPM), Santos, São Paulo, Brazil, aolinto@pesca.sp.gov.br; commercial (São Paulo)eUFS/DEPAQ, mila-beijaflor@hotmail.com; commercial (all states)fUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG), Instituto de Oceanografia, Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, gonzalo.velasco.c@gmail.com; commercial (Rio Grande do Sul)gInstituto de Pesca, Núcleo de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento do Litoral Norte (IP-NPDLN), Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil, mcarneiro@pesca.sp.gov.br; commercial (São Paulo)hUFS/DEPAQ; fernanda.ceno@hotmail.com; commercial (Piauí, Paraíba, Bahia)iUniversidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,  keunecke@ufrrj.br; commercial (Rio de Janeiro)jInstituto de Pesca, Núcleo de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento do Litoral Sul (IP-NPDLS), Cananéia, São Paulo, Brazil, jmendonca@pesca.sp.gov.br; recreational (São Paulo, Paraná)kPrograma Costa Atlântica, Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, Pietro  pietro_moro@moroassessoria.com; recreational (São Paulo)lUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Departamento de Ciências do Mar, Baixada Santista, Santos, São Paulo, Brazil, limbatus@gmail.com; recreational (São Paulo)mUniversidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Laboratório de Biologia Pesqueira, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil, georgeolavo@uol.com.br; commercial (Bahia)nUniversidade do Vale do Itajaí (UNIVALI), Itajaí, Santa Catarina, Brazil,  pezzuto@univali.br; commercial (Santa Catarina)oUFS/DEPAQ, raynarafs@hotmail.com; commercial (Maranhão, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro)pInstituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão de Recursos Pesqueiros  do Litoral Sudeste e Sul (ICMBio/CEPSUL), Itajaí, anta Catarina, Brazil,  roberta.santos@icmbio.gov.br; commercial (Paraná, Santa Catarina)qUFS/DEPAQ, isaacmordaz@hotmail.com; commercial (Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul),   subsistence (all states)rIBAMA, Divisão de Controle, Monitoramento e Fiscalização Ambiental (DICAFI-Pesca), Natal,   Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, ja_vasconcelos@ig.com.br; commercial (Rio Grande do Norte)sUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Biologia, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil  mvianna@biologia.ufrj.br; commercial (Rio de Janeiro)tSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada  e.divovich@fisheries.ubc.ca; discards (all states)1 Cite as: Freire, KMF, Aragão, JAN, Araújo, ARR, Ávila-da-Silva, AO, Bispo, MCS, Canziani, GV, Carneiro, MH, Gonçalves, FDS, Keunecke, KA, Mendonça, JT, Moro, PS, Motta, FS, Olavo, G, Pezzuto, PR, Santana, RF, Santos, RA, Trindade-Santos, I, Vasconcelos, JA, Vianna, M and Divovich, E. (2015) Reconstruction of catch statistics for Brazilian marine waters (1950-2010). pp. 3-30. In: Freire, KMF and Pauly, D (eds). Fisheries catch reconstructions for Brazil’s mainland and oceanic islands. Fisheries Centre Research Reports vol.23(4). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727]. 4aBstractCatch data are the most basic information to be collected for managing fisheries everywhere. However, in many regions around the globe, including Brazil, this information is not available in a quality that is satisfactory. The objective of the initiative presented in this paper was to compile a country-wide database of marine commercial catch data in its original form (landings only) and a reconstructed version (which includes artisanal, industrial, recreational, and subsistence landings, as well as major discards), as well as to analyze historical trends. The basis for the country-wide database of marine catch statistics compiled here were the national official bulletins published in Brazil for the period 1950 to 2010. They represent an update of previous databases compiled for 1980-2000 and later for 1950-2004. These databases were revised and extended to include the whole period from 1950 to 2010 and all 17 coastal states in Brazil, from Amapá to Rio Grande do Sul. Estimates for recreational and subsistence catches and discards were added. Our analysis indicates that total catches for Brazil may be almost 2 times the baseline reported for Brazil. Besides the previously known low taxonomic resolution of catch statistics in Brazil, taxonomic losses were observed when local data were incorporated into the national bulletins and later in the FAO database (FishStatJ). Regional analyses indicate that the highest catches are associated with the southern region, except when there is a peak in sardine catches. However, this result may be biased as those values may include catches off the southeastern region that end up being landed in the south. The same is true for other regions in Brazil. Sardine and demersal fishes comprise the largest portion of the catches. This reconstruction is preliminary and should be revised by local experts to improve the local database and hence the national and global databases.introductionCatch data are the most basic information to be collected in order to manage fisheries. However, in many regions around the globe this information is not available in a quality that is satisfactory. The same is true even for economies in transition such as Brazil. In 1953, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) released a report where the reasons for the deficiency of the collection system of catch statistics in Brazil were pointed out: time lag of over six months between the period when catch data was sent by state or region and arrival in Rio de Janeiro where data were processed, catch data not species-specific, and different weight measurements presented together, among others (FAO 1953). In fact, during that period, the national bulletins available for Brazil reported only total catch, with no detail about species or groups caught.Pauly (2013) discusses the danger of some discourses stressing that lower catches do not mean fewer fish (Hilborn and Branch 2013). Pauly (2013) suggests that this discourse can lead to the erroneous message that there is no need to collect catch information. In Brazil, for example, the collection system of catch statistics has collapsed. Currently, there is no national standardized collection system in place, with the situation being as such for a long time. Several institutions were in charge of collecting catch statistics throughout the period studied here. Freire and Oliveira (2007) compiled historical catch series for the period 1950-2004, based on a previous effort by Freire (2003). However, the authors were not able to establish a reasonable connection between common and scientific names for the species caught. From 1990 to 2007, the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Resources (IBAMA) was in charge of collecting catch statistics. After 2007, this responsibility was transferred to SEAP/PR (Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries from the Presidency of the Republic, created in 2003), which evolved into the Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministry (MPA) in 2009, when methodological changes were discussed in order to improve the older system. That led to a break in the data collection process, and catch statistics have not yet become standardized nor implemented nation-wide. Thus, the most recent information Figure 1.  Map of Brazil mainland and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).Brazil - Freire et al. 5available on landing statistics for Brazil are based only on estimation models and refers to years 2008-2011, with no detail provided about catches by species for each state.In 1995, a National System of Information on Fisheries and Aquaculture (Sistema Nacional de Informações da Pesca e Aquicultura – SINPESQ) was created and should be maintained by the Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics (IBGE). The objectives of the system were to collect, compile, analyze, exchange, and disseminate information about the national fishing sector. This system currently comprises many modules, some of which are active (e.g., boat satellite tracking system, PREPS, since 2006 and general fisheries registry, RPG, developed between 2008 and 2011) and others inactive (notably the landings and production data tool; http://sinpesq.mpa.gov.br). It was conceived as an on-line, web-service oriented system to be fed with data. Instead, the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture have been making available written reports for the period 2005-2011 ( http://www.mpa.gov.br/index.php/informacoes-e-estatisticas/estatistica-da-pesca-e-aquicultura).Out of the 17 coastal states, only the states of Santa Catarina and São Paulo have online systems of catch statistics. However, the first deals only with industrial fisheries and the second reports data for both artisanal and industrial fleets combined (Ávila-da-Silva et al. 1999; Mendonça and Miranda 2008; UNIVALI/CTTMar 2013). Thus, the objective of the initiative described in this paper was to compile a national database of marine commercial catch data in its original form (only landings) and a reconstructed version (which also includes estimates of unreported artisanal, industrial, recreational, and subsistence catches, and major discards) to make them available online and to analyze historical trends. We hope this study will trigger the interest of other scientists to review and update the database for the states where they have been working on.material and methodsThe basis for the country-wide database of marine catch statistics compiled here were the national official bulletins published in Brazil for the period 1950 to 2010. They represent an update of previous databases compiled by Freire (2003) for 1980-2000 and Freire and Oliveira (2007) for 1950-2004. These databases were revised and extended to include the whole period between 1950 and 2010 and all 17 coastal states in Brazil, from Amapá to Rio Grande do Sul (Figure 1). Estimates for unreported recreational and subsistence catches, and discards were added.The original database was based only on the sources listed in Table 1. The nature of data available was very heterogeneous throughout the period: total landings (with no taxonomic details) for 1950-1955, landings by group (fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, reptiles, and mammals) for 1956-1961, landings by main species for 1962-1977, landings by species and by fleet – artisanal and industrial – (1978-1989), repeated mean values for 1990-1994, landings by species and by fleet (1995-2007), and back to total landings in 2008-2010 (Table 2). We used a ‘bottom-up’ strategy to rebuild commercial catches. This strategy consisted of starting the reconstruction of catches based on data from national bulletins and estimated missing values for each species in the beginning, middle and/or end of the time series, excluding categories such as “mistura”, “caíco”, “outros peixes”, and “outras espécies” (all representing miscellaneous fishes). Whenever the sum of reconstructed catches for all species by state did not reach or surpass original catches, we topped up with catches associated to miscellaneous fishes.For the purposes of the Sea Around Us database, adjustments of the reported landings data for the years 1950-1961, 1965, and 2008-2010 were made. We assumed for these adjustments that the catches from the recreational and subsistence sectors, as well as all discards, are entirely unreported. Thus, adjustments were only made to the industrial and artisanal sectors, i.e. the commercial catches, in terms of input, i.e., whether the catches are deemed reported or unreported.Table 1.   Sources used to compile marine landings for Brazilian commercial fisheries (artisanal and industrial) from 1950 to 2010.Year Source Type1950-52 IBGE (1955) PDF11953-55 IBGE (1956) PDF1 1956-57 IBGE (1959) PDF1 1958-60 IBGE (1961) PDF1 1961 IBGE (1962) PDF11962 MA/SEP (1965b) Paper1963 MA/SEP (1965a) Paper1964 MA/SEP (1965b) Paper1965 No bulletin found —1966 MA/SEP (1967) Paper1967 MA/ETEA (1968) Paper1968 MA/ETEA (1969) Paper1969 MA/ETEA (1971) Paper1970 MA/EE (1971) Paper1971 SUDEPE/IBGE (1973) Paper1972 SUDEPE/IBGE (1975) Paper1973 SUDEPE/IBGE (1976a) Paper1974 SUDEPE/IBGE (1976b) Paper1975 SUDEPE/IBGE (1977) Paper1976 SUDEPE/IBGE (1979a) Paper1977 SUDEPE/IBGE (1979b) Paper1978 SUDEPE (1980a) Paper1979 SUDEPE (1980b) Paper1980 IBGE (1983a) Paper1981 IBGE (1983b, 1983c) Paper1982 IBGE (1983d, 1984a) Paper1983 IBGE (1984b, 1985a) Paper1984 IBGE (1985b, 1985c) Paper1985 IBGE (1986, 1987a) Paper1986 IBGE (1987b, 1988a) Paper1987 IBGE (1988b, 1988c) Paper1988 IBGE (1989a, 1989b) Paper1989 IBGE (1990, 1991) Paper1990 CEPENE (1995a) Paper1991 CEPENE (1995b) Paper1992 CEPENE (1995c) Paper1993 CEPENE (1995d) Paper1994 CEPENE (1995e) Paper1995 CEPENE (1997a) Paper1996 CEPENE (1997b) Paper1997 CEPENE (1998) Paper1998 CEPENE (1999) Paper1999 CEPENE (2000) Paper2000 CEPENE (2001) PDF (reduced version) and Excel2001 IBAMA (2003) PDF22002 IBAMA (2004a) PDF22003 IBAMA (2004b) PDF22004 IBAMA (2005) PDF22005 IBAMA (2007a) PDF22006 IBAMA (2008) PDF22007 IBAMA (2007b) PDF22008 MPA (undated) PDF32009 MPA (undated) PDF32010 MPA (2012) PDF31 http://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/d_detalhes.php?id=7202 www.ibama.gov.br/documentos-recursos-pesqueiros/estatistica-pesqueira3  www.mpa.gov.br/index.php/informacoes-e-estatisticas/estatistica-da-pesca-e-aquicultura 6For the years 1950-1958, zero to very small catches were reported in the national data sources. However, as there are FAO data for this period, and since national statistics and FAO data were almost identical in the first few years of mutual availability (i.e., 1959-1961), we decided to accept the FAO data as the reported tonnage for the beginning of the time period.However, the reconstructed commercial landings for those years were less than the FAO data. Thus, we accepted all of the commercial catches reconstructed for this period (1950-1958) as reported. Hence, during this period, there are no unreported landings for the artisanal and industrial sector. In the year 1965, there was a sudden and unexplained drop in reported landings which rebounded immediately in the next year. We deemed this abrupt one-year drop to be a data reporting error, and therefore interpolated reported landings between 1964 and 1966 to derive a new reported catch amount for 1965.For the years 2008-2010, the ratio between the reported FAO landings and the reconstructed catches in 2007 was maintained and the new reported landings were calculated. The total reconstructed catch amount was not changed.Thus, when referring to the baseline reported landings, it is the combination of the data from the national/local bulletins and the amount assigned from the FAO data which are accepted as the reported landings data in this study. Commercial landingsCommercial landings include those originating from both large-scale (industrial) and small-scale (artisanal) fleets. The boundary between these two fleets is blurry and traditionally 20 GT (gross tonnage) was considered as a cut-off point in Brazil. Landings were reported for each of these two fleet types from 1978 onwards. Thus, landings for previous years were split among them based on the proportion observed for 1978-1980 for each species. We also considered, based on the literature, information on the beginning of industrial operation for each species or group of species in each state. Most artisanal fisheries were reconstructed until 1950 unless we found any reference stating otherwise.Landings have been reported in official national bulletins by common name. The correspondence between common and scientific names was established preferentially based on local references. Otherwise, we used information from an updated version of the national database of common names available for Brazilian marine fishes (Freire and Pauly 2005) and from the list of names provided by Freire and Carvalho Filho (2009). Our team included experts from most of the coastal states in an attempt to improve this correspondence. Unfortunately, some invited local experts were unable to contribute on time for this initiative and were not included here. With the help of local experts, local references or even interviews with fishers or data collectors, we were able to split landings reported for each common name among all species associated with that name. Whenever this was not possible, landings were attributed to a genus or a family. Based on more recent detailed landings data (species-specific), we managed to split earlier catches for “pescada” (weakfishes) or “vermelhos” (lutjanids), e.g., among species. However, this was not possible for all generic names or all states.Table 2.   Type of data used in the catch reconstruction for Brazilian marine waters for the period 1950-2010 (national and local bulletins, and other sources as also indicated in the database).Years AP PA MA PI CE RN PB PE AL SE BA ES RJ SP PR SC RS1950-55TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB TotalB1956-61GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB GroupB1962-75SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB SpRB1976-77SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB SpHB1978-79SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB SpB1980-89SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM1990-94SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp SpMRp1995-2007SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM SpM2008 None None None None SpM SpM None None None None None None SpM SpM None SpMI SpM2009 None None None None None SpM None None None None None None SpM SpM None SpMI SpM2010 None None None None None SpMI None None None SpM None None SpM SpM None SpMI SpMTotalB (both) = only total landings for the state provided (both marine and freshwater together, not separated into artisanal and industrial);GroupB (both) = landings per group (fishes, crustaceans, molluscs, mammals, chelonians) (both marine and freshwater together, not separated into artisanal and industrial);SpRB (reduced/both) = landings only for a reduced number of main species (both marine and freshwater in the same table; not separated into artisanal and industrial);SpHB (higher/both) = landings per species for a higher number of species, representing 75-80% of total landings (both marine and freshwater in the same table; not separated into artisanal and industrial);SpB (both) = landings per species for a higher number of species (both marine and freshwater in the same table; separated into artisanal and industrial);SpM (marine) = landings per species for a higher number of marine species (separated into artisanal and industrial);SpMRp (marine/repetition): there was no system of data collection in Brazil during this period (except for a few main species for which there were working groups) and a mean for the previous four years was calculated for each of all other species and printed in the national bulletin (separated into artisanal and industrial);SpMI (marine/industrial): landings per species for a higher number of marine species (only for industrial fleet);None = there was no collection system in that state for those years and the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MPA) published bulletins where a general estimation procedure was used to estimate total landings for each state, but no landing data per species was estimated. However, we were able to compile detailed data from local initiatives, including some supported by MPA.Brazil - Freire et al. 7In the 1980s, two bulletins were released annually (with the exception of 1980). In these bulletins, there were records with zero landings (0), but with a monetary values associated with each entry. In those cases, each zero landings entry was replaced by 0.5 t. Thus, the following criteria were adopted in order to guarantee that even small landings show up in the reconstructed database:0 and – (in two bulletins): replaced by 0.5 t;0 and 0 (in two bulletins): replaced by 1 t;10 and 0 (in two bulletins): 10 was retained.For those years when only landings for major species were reported, we estimated landings for the other species based on their proportion in relation to total landings for the closest three years (and these were later subtracted from miscellaneous fishes). Whenever landings were missing for one or more years in the middle of the historical catches, they were estimated based on linear trends.Values for the period 1990-1994 in the national bulletins were repeated and represent the average for the previous four years (1986-1989; CEPENE 1995a), except for some more important species that used to be studied by Permanent Study Groups (GPEs – Grupos Permanentes de Estudos): sardine, lobster, southern red snapper, etc. Those repeated values were replaced by estimated values using linear trends that also considered posterior values (1995 onwards). For 1995, two bulletins were released: one in March/1997 and other in May/1997. In the first bulletin, artisanal and industrial landings were combined in some cases and attributed to the wrong category in other cases. Landings were properly split between artisanal and industrial fleets in the second bulletin. Thus, we used the second bulletin here. For more recent years (2008-2010), due to the absence of catch data by species for each state, we used different data sources to complete the time series. For the state of Ceará, José Augusto Aragão provided a database for 2008 (artisanal and industrial). For Rio Grande do Norte, José Airton Vasconcelos contributed with a catch database for 2008-2009 (artisanal and industrial) and for 2010 (only industrial). For Sergipe, Mário Thomé de Souza (Universidade Federal de Sergipe/PMPDP) provided an unpublished manuscript with catch data for 2010. For the state of Rio Grande do Sul, there were local bulletins with recorded catch data from 1997 to 2010 (IBAMA/CEPERG 2011). For the remaining states, linear trends (when evident), average means or repeated values were used depending on each case.As two co-authors are responsible for the collection system of catch data for the state of São Paulo, a different procedure was possible. Landing information was available for the years 1944 (Vieira et al. 1945), 1959-1965 (Braga et al. 1966), and 1969-2010 (ProPesq institutional database; Ávila-da-Silva et al. 1999). All fishery-related information available after 1959 was obtained through dockside interviews with fishers, using census, and through records from fishing industries. There has been no interruption in the data collection system in the state of São Paulo since 1969. Information gathered is forwarded to the federal government for the composition of the national fisheries statistics. Landing reconstruction for the period with missing values (1950-1958 and 1966-1968) was performed by species applying LOESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) models or linear cubic spline interpolation on the available time series. Landings for 1950-1958 were estimated considering data for 1944 and 1959-1965, while landings for 1966-1968 were estimated based on 1959-1965 data and from 1969 onwards. Categorization into artisanal and industrial fleets was done considering fishing fleets and species caught.For the state of Rio de Janeiro, most of the data previously estimated by Freire and Oliveira (2007) were used, but some corrections/inclusions were made. Landings data for each species for the period 2008-2010 were reconstructed through information provided in spreadsheets by municipality of coastal towns such as Angra dos Reis and Cabo Frio (unpublished data), spreadsheets and reports produced by the Fishing Institute of the state of Rio de Janeiro (FIPERJ/MPA/UFRJ undated; FIPERJ/Prefeitura Municipal de Cabo Frio, undated) and of São Paulo (PMAP/Instituto de Pesca de São Paulo, undated) and spreadsheets from monitoring programs of some oil and gas activities (Petrobrás, undated). For missing values of some species in the middle of the time series, linear interpolation was used as for other states.Recreational catchesBrazil has no system of data collection for recreational catches. The reconstruction included catches from competitive events, based on an updated and extended version of the database compiled by Freire (2005). The second component of the reconstruction refers to daily recreational activities. We used data on human population size available in Table 1.4 from IBGE (2010) and fitted a Verhulst logistic equation in the format provided by Miranda and Lima (2010) to estimate the population each year. For each state, we used information from local studies that provided the percentage of recreational fishers interviewed that had a fishing license to extrapolate the total number of recreational fishers based on the number of licenses issued in 2009. For those states were such a ratio was not available, we considered a national mean value of 13.5% (Freire et al. 2012). To adjust the number of recreational fishers, we considered only the proportion of fishers fishing in marine waters (estuarine, coastal, and offshore). This information was collected in a questionnaire answered online in 2009, which is required to obtain the license. Finally, we estimated total catch multiplying the number of fishers by the number of days fishing and by the mean daily catch for each fisher. The latter information came from local studies, when available, or from neighboring states: Bahia (K.M.F. Freire, unpublished data), Espírito Santo (Chiappani 2006), Rio de Janeiro (Couto 2011), São Paulo and Paraná (Atlantic & Fishing Project), Santa Catarina (Schork et al. 2010) and Rio Grande do Sul (Peres and Klippel 2005). 8The start of the time series was originally defined as the year when the first fishing club was established in each state (Freire et al. 2014a). Here, we followed the same procedure, but additionally assumed that in 1950 at least 20% of the catches observed in the year of establishment of the fishing club were caught by recreational fishers. Catches were then linearly interpolated in between those years. For those states where clubs were established very early (1950-1955), the same linear trend was used to estimate catches for the first five-six years (to avoid unrealistic sharp increase in catches).For the sates of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Paraná, the procedure was more complex as there was detailed information for different sectors. Thus, we used the proportion among A, B and C license categories (as described in Freire et al. 2012), where category A includes only coastal, shore-based fishers, and B and C categories operating from boats. Category C includes spearfishing. Catches were estimated separately for these categories (A and B/C) considering different number of fishing days per year and CPUE (g/fisher∙day) and finally they were added to represent total recreational catch for each state.Subsistence catchesThe estimate of subsistence catches was obtained through the following two equations:Total consumption (fresh and marine) = number of registered fishers * fecundity rate (+2) * consumption per capitaand;Subsistence catch (marine) = total consumption * proportion of non-commercial ‘fish’ acquisitionwhere (+2) represents a fisher and his wife/partner.The number of officially registered fishers by coastal state was obtained from statistical yearbooks (IBGE, 1955-1982), IBAMA (2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2007a), SEAP/IBAMA/PROZEE (2005), and MPA (2012, undated). In order to estimate the number of persons by family, the fecundity rate by region and decade was used (Table 3, IBGE 2010a). A per capita consumption rate (kg∙person-1∙year-1) by state was used, based on the ‘fish’ consumption typical of each region (Anon. 1963; Wiefels et al. 2005; Silva and Dias 2010; Sartori and Amancio 2012). ‘Fish’ includes fishes, crustaceans and molluscs.The Household Budget Survey (Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares–POF) conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) gathered data about the average per capita monetary and non-monetary acquisition of food in Brazil (IBGE 1967, 2004, 2010b). This survey provided information on how the population acquires food (including fishes) and also its average consumption, highlighting the profile of living conditions of the Brazilian population by region from the analysis of their household budgets. The POF survey was conducted in urban and rural areas including coastal regions and consumption of both marine and freshwater fishes were available separately (IBGE 2010b). Thus, we estimated subsistence catches by Brazilian State using the percentage of marine fish obtained by fishers through non-monetary acquisition. The non-monetary acquisition is that made without payment, being obtained through donation, removal from the business or own production (IBGE 2010b). Anchor points and a linear trend were used to estimate missing catches for the period of this study (1950-2010).The taxonomic breakdown of subsistence catches was obtained by applying the reported proportions of each marine fish species (or group of species) (IBGE 2010b) over the estimated subsistence catches obtained. Reported common names were then associated with the lowest taxon possible.DiscardsThe methodology for calculating discards was done separately for the artisanal and industrial sectors due to varying gear and discarding practices employed.Industrial sectorIn order to estimate discards for the industrial sector, we first allocated landings to gear type. Data on gear are available for Rio Grande do Sul from 1975 to 1994 in Haimovici et al. (1998) and from 1997 to 2010 in CEPERG (2011). Here, we assume this breakdown by gear is representative of the entire industrial sector because:1. The fisheries and gears used in the southeastern and the southern regions are “quite similar” (FAO 2014); and2. For the 1950-2010 time period, the southern and southeastern regions account for 93% of all industrial landings (and the southern region alone accounts for 53%).Table 3.   Official reported fecundity rate by decade and region used as anchor points to estimate the average number of persons in Brazilian fisher families.Total fecundity rate1950 1960 1970 1980 1991 2000 2010Brazil 6.2 6.3 5.8 4.4 2.9 2.4 1.9North 8.0 8.6 8.2 6.5 4.2 3.2 2.5Northeast 7.5 7.4 7.5 6.1 3.8 2.7 2.1Southeast 5.5 6.3 4.6 3.5 2.4 2.1 1.7South 5.7 5.9 5.4 3.6 2.5 2.2 1.8Brazil - Freire et al. 9Historically, in Rio Grande do Sul, the major industrial gears used since 1950 were trawlers (otter and pair) and purse seine. In the mid-1970s, the pelagic longline was introduced and the industrial fleet began using handline to target white grouper on the upper slope of the continental shelf. In later years, handline was replaced by vertical longline and bottom longline. Around 1990, there was a significant shift in the gear distribution as new gear types entered the industrial fleet. These new gears were the double-rig trawl, bottom gillnet, and pole and line gears (Haimovici et al. 1998).For the time period between 1950 and 1974, we used landings by gear type from 1975 to 1979 (the earliest gear-based landings available). However, we excluded pelagic longline and demersal ‘line’ gears (handline, vertical longline, and bottom longline), as these gears were introduced in the mid-1970s. Thus, gear-based landings were adjusted to reflect this difference (Table 4). For the time period from 1975 to 1994, landing data from Haimovici et al. (1998) were used. Data from CEPERG (2011) were used for the year 2010 and earlier volumes for the years 1997–2009. We excluded landings from trap gears (targeting deep sea red crab) because there were only landings from 1988 to 1992 and this amount was very small. We applied the gear breakdown percentages for each year to total landings, e.g., the sum of reported and unreported industrial landings. Discard rates for the relevant gears were compiled from various sources (Table 5). These rates were then applied to the gear-specific total catch as reconstructed previously.To disaggregate the estimated discards among relevant taxa, we used data from four research trawlers (two otter and two pair trawlers) fishing off Rio Grande do Sul in 1978 and 1979 (Haimovici and Palacios 1981), but pooled the data from the four trawlers to yield an average taxonomic composition (Table 6). For the state of Sergipe, the estimation of discards was based on Decken (1986) and only for the industrial fleet while operating in that state (until 1994).Artisanal sectorArtisanal discards were estimated based on a year-long study of artisanal discards per gear in Paraná (southern region of Brazil). The local ‘canoes’ in the study were made either from single carved tree trunk or molded fiberglass, and averaged 10 m long with a small engine (Carniel and Krul 2012). Artisanal boats in the northern region were also described as “small, wooden boats, motor-powered or sail-propelled” (Isaac 1998). Although differences between the regions exist, we assumed that this study was representative for all of Brazil. Future investigations should improve this assumption and consider local differences. We believe this study is relatively conservative, as the ‘canoes’ are considered the “least technical and least powerful fishing effort on the inner shelf” (Carniel and Krul 2012).The most common gear employed is driftnetting and shrimp fishing. Discards while driftnetting averaged 5 kg∙boat-1∙day-1, whereas shrimp fishing produced an average of 100 kg∙boat-1∙day-1 (Carniel and Krul 2012). Additionally, it was stated that in the sample area, shrimp fishing accounted for 64% of the total discards (Carniel and Krul 2012). We adjusted this proportion to the variation in discard rates of each gear, and derived the proportion of boats engaged in driftnetting (92%) and shrimp fishing (8%). We applied this breakdown to the total number of artisanal boats in Brazil.Table 5.   Discard rate by industrial gears for the south and southeastern regions of Brazil.Gear Discard per total catch (%)3Discard per landings, as applied (%)4 SourceOtter trawl 38.0 61.0 Haimovici and Mendonça (1996)5Pair trawl 38.0 61.0 Haimovici and Mendonça (1996)5Double-rig trawl 38.0 62.0 Haimovici and Mendonça (1996)5Seine 1.0 1.0 Kelleher (2005)6Gillnet 44.0 77.0 Kelleher (2005)7 Longline1 15.0 18.0 Kelleher (2005)8 Live bait 1.0 1.0 Kelleher (2005)6Line2 5.3 6.0 Kelleher (2005)9 1Pelagic; 2Includes handline, vertical longline, and bottom longline; 3Discards as a percentage of total catch, not landings; 4Discards as a percentage of landings; rate applied to landings; 5Discard rate was obtained by averaging two discard rates for double-rig trawl with comparable landings: 52.3% for flatfish-directed and 23.9% for shrimp-directed; 6Due to lack of data, Kelleher assumed 1% as a conservative estimate; 7Discard rate for multi-gear (gillnet and hook) for the South of Brazil from Haimovici (1996); 8Due to lack of data on longline discard rate for Brazil, rates for Uruguay (9.1%) and Argentina (20.5%) were averaged; 9Discard rate came from data on the North (artisanal lines and demersal lines, gillnet, and traps) based on Isaac and Braga (1999).Table 6.   Derived taxonomic composition of industrial discards for south and southeastern Brazil based on Haimovici and Palacios (1981).Scientific name Common name Discard (%)Cynoscion guatucupa Striped weakfish 10Umbrina canosai Argentine croaker 23Macrodon atricauda1 Southern king weakfish 2Prionotus spp. Searobins 2Paralonchurus brasiliensis Banded croaker 3Trichiurus lepturus Largehead hairtail 10Marine fishes nei Marine fishes 4Batoidea Skates and rays 23Mustelus schmitti Narrownose smooth-hound 8Mustelus spp. Smoothhounds 8Squalus spp. Dogfishes 8Macrodon ancylodon in the original source.Table 4.   Industrial gear breakdown (%) by time period for the south and southeastern regions of Brazil.Time period Otter trawlPair trawlDouble-rig trawl Seine Gillnet Longline Live bait1 Line21950–1974 28.0 58.9 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01975–1989 23.0 65.6 0.0 7.3 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.41990–2010 4.1 30.6 8.0 7.1 34.6 1.6 13.7 0.31 Rod and live bait gear targeting skipjack; 2 Line gear includes bottom longline, vertical longline, and handline used on the upper slope of the continental shelf by the industrial fleet 10Data on the number of boats in Brazil were generally available by region. In the southern region, which includes the states of Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul, the artisanal sector was comprised of 23,000 small and medium capacity vessels (FAO 2001). For all states north of Rio de Janeiro, in addition to a very small portion of the northern coast of Rio de Janeiro state, Diegues et al. (2006) reported the number of artisanal boats at 37,812. The only gap in boat data was for the states of São Paulo and the majority of Rio de Janeiro. For this area, we took the proportion of artisanal catches in 2001 for Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo (i.e., 26,215 t) to all other coastal states (i.e., 258,590 t), which was just over 10%. We used catches in 2001 because all of the sources on boat data were dated around 2001. We lowered this estimate to 9% in order to account for the small portion of coast already considered, resulting in an estimate of 5,473 artisanal boats in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, and thus 66,285 artisanal boats for all of Brazil. We assumed that artisanal fishing takes place on 200 days per year.As stated earlier, we assumed that 92% of these boats are engaged in driftnetting and the other 8% in shrimp fishing. We applied the discard rate of 100 kg∙boat-1∙day-1 for shrimp fishing boats and 5 kg∙boat-1∙day-1 for driftnet boats (Carniel and Krul 2012). Thus, the total discards for artisanal fishing in 2001 came to 169,095 t. Total artisanal catches in 2001 were 284,805 t, which gave us a discard rate of approximately 59% of landings. We assumed this rate was constant for all other years. Additionally, annual discards were disaggregated by state using artisanal catch.The taxonomic disaggregation of artisanal discards varies by region. For the northern and northeastern regions, we used a study on by-catch composition for the state of Maranhão (Araújo Júnior et al. 2005). Sixteen species were recorded in the by-catch. Although the weights by species were not given, the numbers of individuals along with average length were available. Using the length-weight relationships available in FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2014), we derived an average weight for each taxon. The proportions of taxa discarded by weight were then derived (Table 7). Some changes in the scientific names were proposed to accommodate variations among states.For the southern and southeastern regions, we used a study on discarded fish in the artisanal shrimp fishery of São Paulo (Coelho et al. 1986a). As in the previous study, the number of fish and average length of fish were given, and were converted as above. Only the 15 major taxa were taken from this study (Table 8).Ornamental (aquarium) fisheryNo catch data originating from ornamental fisheries were included in the reconstructed database. Most of the Brazilian aquarium catches originate from inland waters, even though there has been an increasing interest in marine fishes from the 2000s onwards (Gasparini et al. 2005).results and discussionCorrespondence between common and scientific namesTwo levels of loss in taxonomic resolution along the data reporting chain were observed: from the state level to the national level, and from the national to the international level (FishStat/FAO). One example of this loss could be observed for Elasmobranchii in the state of Rio Grande do Sul where in 2003 four species reported in the local bulletin IBAMA/CEPERG (2004) were eliminated from the national landing bulletins and added to the category “cações” (sharks): “cação-gato”, “cação-moro”, cação-vaca”, and “machote”. On the other hand, 10 tonnes originally Table 8.   Taxonomic composition of artisanal discards in south and southeastern Brazil (based on Coelho et al. 1986b).Species name Common name Discards (%)Paralonchurus brasiliensis Banded croaker 17Isopisthus parvipinnis Bigtooth corvina 6Stellifer brasiliensis Drums or croakers 6Stellifer rastrifer Stardrums 18Menticirrhus spp. Kingcroakers 3Micropogonias furnieri Whitemouth croaker 2Macrodon atricauda1 Southern king weakfish 2Nebris microps Smalleye croaker 3Cynoscion virescens Green weakfish 7Ariidae Sea catfishes 13Pellona harroweri American coastal pellona 4Selene setapinnis Atlantic moonfish 3Symphurus spp. Duskycheek tonguefish 7Porichthys porosissimus Porichthys porosissimus 4Trichiurus lepturus Largehead hairtail 6Macrodon ancylodon in the original source.Table 7.   Taxonomic composition of artisanal discards in northern and northeastern Brazil (based on Araújo Júnior et al. 2005).Scientific name Common name Discards (%)Clupeidae Sardine 24.00Siluriformes Catfish 9.00Ariidae Sea catfishes 2.60Mugil spp. Mullets 4.00Anableps anableps Largescale foureyes 1.00Belonidae Needlefishes 0.03Carangidae Jacks and pompanos 0.10Genyatremus luteus Torroto grunt 0.40Macrodon ancylodon King weakfish 21.00Micropogonias furnieri Whitemouth croaker 28.00Sciaenidae Drums or croakers 0.10Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 0.20Symphurus spp. Duskycheek tonguefish 1.00Achirus spp. Soles 1.00Tetraodontidae Puffers 8.00Brazil - Freire et al. 11reported for “cação-moro” (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the state bulletin were attributed to “cação-azul” (Prionace glauca) in the national bulletin (IBAMA 2004b). Another example was observed for mullets in the state of Sergipe. The state bulletin reported that 12.7 t of “curimã” (Mugil liza) and 63.5 t of “tainha” (Mugil spp.) in 2001 (CEPENE 2002). However, the national bulletin reported 76.0 t for “tainha” only (Mugil spp.), resulting in a taxonomic loss. For some taxonomic groups such as sharks, these problems are prominent in a regional scale. For instance, 24 common names were attributed to six biological shark species in the southern Bahia (Previero et al. 2013).The detailed analysis of catch records indicated that there were also change in names throughout the period studied: “agulhão-azul” changed to “agulhão-negro” (Makaira nigricans), “coró” to “roncador” (Conodon nobilis), “paru” to “saberé” and back to “paru” (Chaetodipterus faber), etc. This was a pattern observed for most states. Besides, some names are associated to different species depending on the state. One of the most important cases is Ocyurus chrysurus. It represents one of the most important fish resources in the state of Espírito Santo, where is known as “cioba”. However, this name is used for Lutjanus analis in all other states in Brazil. In some cases, catches reported as “cioba” may include Lutjanus jocu together with L. analis (K.M.F. Freire, personal observation in the state of Rio Grande do Norte). Another interesting case is “roncador” and “corcoroca”, which were used as synonymous in the 1980s in Santa Catarina (IBGE 1985a). However, these names represent two different species according to the analysis of more recent bulletins for that state (UNIVALI, 2011): Conodon nobilis and Haemulon aurolineatum, respectively. The problems associated with correspondence between common and scientific names had been already pointed out in the 1950s and was later assessed by Freire and Pauly (2005).In Rio de Janeiro, we noticed that landings for “sororoca”, “serra” and “sarda” are confusing. Rocha & Costa (1999) established the following correspondence: Sarda sarda = “serra”, Scomberomorus brasiliensis = “sororoca” or “sarda”, and Scomberomorus regalis = “sororoca”. But the complimentary character of the historical data in fact indicates that “sororoca” and “serra” should be the same species (Scomberomorus brasiliensis with some inclusions of S. regalis) and “sarda” would be a different species (Sarda sarda). “Xerelete” and “garacimbora” correspond to different species in different states. We decided to use, for Rio de Janeiro, “xerelete” as Caranx latus, according to Vianna (2009), as it was a name also used for São Paulo. Thus, garacimbora and its variations (garaximbora, graçainha, guaracimbora) were associated to Caranx crysos. However, this tentative correspondence should be revisited.Problems with common names in the landing statistics do not occur only with fishes, but with crustaceans and mollusks as well. One of the most common problem with crustaceans in observed for shrimps, as names such as “camarão pequeno” (small), “médio” (medium) and “grande” (large) are used, or even worse, only “camarões” (shrimps). We tried to establish the correspondence of catches with each species based on local references, consulting local experts or using Dias-Neto (2011). For mollusks, we noticed that Lucina pectinata (“lambreta”) does not even show up in the ASFIS/FAO list, even though it is caught in the state of Bahia and more recently in the state of Sergipe. The genus Lucina was included in the ASFIS/FAO list, but no common name was associated with it. Thus, catches for that species cannot be included in the FishStat/FAO database as it uses only common names.In order to better compare the national and the international database, we decided to analyze in detail data reported in FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007b), the latest national bulletin with detailed information of catches by species for each state (Table 9). A total of 135 species (or group of species) are reported in FishStatJ against 160 in the national bulletin (IBAMA 2007b). Thus, this represents the second type of taxonomic loss in the process of reporting catch statistics in Brazil (and probably in other countries as well). Catches for “biquara” (Haemulon plumieri) and “cambuba” (Haemulon flavolineatum) were added and reported as “Grunts, sweetlips nei” in FishStatJ. Catches reported for “cioba” in IBAMA (2007b), representing Lutjanus analis and Ocyurus chrysurus were reported as “Snappers, jobfishes nei (Lutjanidae)” in FishStatJ. This is an unnecessary loss of taxonomic resolution as in most of Brazil (with the exception of the state of Espírito Santo) “cioba” refers to Lutjanus analis, which is not included in FishStatJ. Additionally, catches may also be attributed to the wrong FAO common name. For example, catches for “abrótea” should be reported in FishStatJ as Urophycis nei, but it was reported as Brazilian codling (U. brasiliensis) even though other species are also caught in Brazilian waters, such as U. cirrata, according to IBAMA (2007b), and possibly referring to U. mystacea, according to this study. Additionally, divergence in total landings reported for both databases are observed. See for example the case of blue marlin and Atlantic white marlin, where catches reported in IBAMA (2007b) are smaller. Detailed catches for shrimps and mollusks were lost in the global database. For some important resources such as lobsters, errors were also detectedAnalysis of commercial catchesFor those states where we had access to published or unpublished local databases (such as Rio Grande do Norte, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul), we noticed that local databases report landings in kilograms and national bulletins round landings to the closest tonne or half tonne. Data in FishStatJ are rounded to the closest tonne.One important feature of the time series of catch statistics for Brazil is the interruption of the collection system in the earlier 1990s. Thus, as previously mentioned, values representing an arithmetic mean of catches for each species in 1986-1989 were repeated for 1990-1994, except for some species studied by Permanent Working Groups. These repeated values were replaced here by values estimated using linear trends considering values for later years. In other cases, there were local data available for that period and repeated values were replaced. In addition, two bulletins were published in 1995. The first one was released in March 1997 and values for artisanal and industrial fisheries were added or exchanged. The volume later released (in May 1997) contained separated reasonable values for artisanal and industrial fisheries. The second important feature is the interruption of the data collection system from 2008 onwards and estimates are based only on models (MPA 2012, undated). 12Table 9. Comparison between common names and associated catches (tonnes) reported in FishStatJ/FAO database and IBAMA (2007b) for 2007. The order of common names as cited in IBAMA (2007b) may be slightly altered to place associated names together such as “albacora” and “atum” (true tunas nei). Differences between FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007b) are listed in bold. Asterisk indicates catch in number and do not add to total catch in tonnes.Commn name – ASFIS/FishStatJCommon name - IBAMAScientific nameASFISScientific name - IBAMACommentsCatchFishStatJCatch IBAMABrazilian codlingAbróteaUrophycis brasiliensisUrophycis brasiliensisU. cirrataShould be Urophycis nei but was reported as Brazilian codling (U. brasiliensis) in FishStatJ. This is incorrect as at least one other species is also caught (U. mystacea). The occurrence of U. cirrata in Brazil, although reported in our database, is not widely accepted.6,5796,579Ballyhoo halfbeakAgulhaHemiramphus brasiliensisHyporhamphus unifasciatusHemiramphus brasiliensisShould be Hemiramphidae (Halfbeaks nei in FishStatJ) and not ballyhoo halfbeak (Hemiramphus brasiliensis).2,0812,080.5Marlins, sailfishes,etc. neiAgulhãoIstiophoridaeTetrapturus albidusTetrapturus pfluegeriMakaira nigricansIstiophorus albicansMay include catches for Belonidae, if originating from artisanal fishery.Total catches for all billfish species in FishStatJ (461.0 t) are smaller than in IBAMA, 2007 (760.5 t).3429Atlantic white marlinAgulhão-brancoTetrapturus albidusTetrapturus albidusShould be Kajikia albida.70142.5Blue marlinAgulhão-negroMakaira nigricansMakaira nigricansNone.261101.5Atlantic sailfishAgulhão-velaIstiophorus albicansIstiophorus albicansConsider replacing by Istiophorus platypterus according to Eschmeyer (CofF vers. May. 2014), following Collette et al. (2006).12387.5Longbill spearfish─Tetrapturus pfluegeri─This species is referred separately as “agulhão verde”, but there was no catch value reported for this species. Thus, it is not known where this value was obtained from.4──AlbacoraAtum─Thunnus obesusThunnus alalungaThunnus albacoresThunnus atlanticusCorrespondence of catches between FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007) should be checked.Total catches for all tuna species in FishStatJ (7,830 t) are smaller than in IBAMA, 2007 (10,529.5 t).─603.5734.5(1,338.0)Bigeye tunaAlbacora-bandolimThunnus obesusThunnus obesusReported only as “Atum-cachorra” in the list of correspondence between common and scientific names in IBAMA (2007b).1,5951,596.5AlbacoreAlbacora-brancaThunnus alalungaThunnus alalungaDifference in catches may be attributed to splitting catches reported under the generic name “Albacora” or “Atum”.534591Yellowfin tunaAlbacora-lageThunnus albacaresThunnus albacaresDifference in catches may be attributed to splitting catches reported under the generic name “Albacora” or “Atum”.5,4686,702Blackfin tunaAlbacorinhaThunnus atlanticusThunnus atlanticusDifference in catches may be attributed to splitting catches reported under the generic name “Albacora” or “Atum”.233302Tuna-like fishes nei─Scombroidei─Check correspondence.22─−Bonito−Auxis thazardKatsuwonus pelamisEuthynnus alletteratusCatches should be reported for each species separately.−1,696Frigate and bullet tunasBonito cachorroAuxis thazardA. rocheiAuxis thazardNational bulletin should report as Auxis spp.2031,212Skipjack tunaBonito listradoKatsuwonus pelamisKatsuwonus pelamisDifference in catches should be investigated.24,19124,390Little tunny(=Atl.black skipj)Bonito pintadoEuthynnus alletteratusEuthynnus alletteratusNone397396.5Amberjacks neiArabaiana, Olho-de-boiSeriola spp.Seriola lalandiSeriola dumeriliSeriola fasciataElagatis bipinnulata“Olho-de-boi” should be Greater amberjack and “arabaiana” may include Elagatis bipinnulata together with Seriola spp.904729.5174.0(903.5)Yellowtail amberjackOlhete, Arabaiana, Olho-de-boiSeriola lalandiSeriola lalandiSeriola dumeriliThese catches should be added to “Amberjacks nei”. However, some effort should be put into separating them from Elagatis bipinnulata.279278.5Jacks, crevalles neiAracimboraGaracimboraGuaraximboraXaréuXerelete, xareleteCaranx spp.Caranx latusCaranx latusCaranx latusCaranx hipposCaranx latusDifference in catches should be checked.Taxonomic details are lost from national to global databases but they should be kept.Data for “guaraximbora” may have been entered twice in FishStatJ as it corresponds to the difference between FishStatJ and IBAMA.6,97174.098.5132.52,391.54,142.0(6,838.5)Brazil - Freire et al. 13Table 9 continued. Comparison between common names and associated catches (tonnes) reported in FishStatJ/FAO database and IBAMA (2007b) for 2007. The order of common names as cited in IBAMA (2007b) may be slightly altered to place associated names together such as “albacora” and “atum” (true tunas nei). Differences between FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007b) are listed in bold. Asterisk indicates catch in number and do not add to total catch in tonnes.Commn name – ASFIS/FishStatJCommon name - IBAMAScientific nameASFISScientific name - IBAMACommentsCatchFishStatJCatch IBAMACarangids neiCanguiraGuaiviraTimbiraGalo, galo-de-penacho, peixe galoCarangidae─ Oligoplites spp.Oligoplites spp.Selene spp.“Guaivira” and “timbira” should be associated to Leatherjackets nei.“Galo” should be in a separate category for Selene spp., but there is no name in FishStatJ.1,203459.51,104.5739.52,529.0(4,832.5)Atlantic moonfishGalo de profundidadeSelene setapinnis─Should be Zenopsis conchifer (Silvery John dory in ASFIS) as it was reported only for Santa Catarina (UNIVALI/CCTMar 2008).2323Blue runnerGarajubaCaranx crysosCaranx crysosNone.1,3841,383.5Bigeye scadGarapauSelar crumenophthalmusSelar crumenophthalmusMay also include Chloroscombrus chrysurus.262262Rough scadXixarro, chicharroTrachurus lathamiTrachurus lathamiMay include other carangids: Decapterus spp., Selar crumenophthalmus.2,2912,291Pompanos neiPampoTrachinotus spp.Trachinotus spp.None.152152Lane snapperAriacóLutjanus synagrisLutjanus synagrisNone.2,0362,036Rays, stingrays, mantas NeiArraiaRajiformesNoneSeveral species reported and detailed information lost in the national and global database.5,2795,279Brazilian groupers neiBadejo, sirigadoSirigadoMycteroperca spp.Mycteroperca spp.Do not include two data entries: “badejo” and “sirigado”.1,7811,238.5542.5(1,781.0)Groupers neiCherneMeroEpinephelus spp.Epinephelus spp.,  E. flavolimbatus,  Polyprion americanus,Epinephelus itajaraNational bulletin should differentiate between “cherne” (Epinephelus spp.) and “cherne poveiro” (Polyprion americanus).P. americanus is listed as wreckfish in ASFIS/FAO, but there is no catch associated to this common name in FishStatJ.Epinephelus flavolimbatus changed to Hyporthodus flavolimbatus.833479.0353.5(832.5)Sea catfishes neiBagreBandeiradoCambeuaCangatáGurijubaJurupirangaAriidaeAriidaeProbably includes more common names.Taxonomic details should not be lost:Bagre = AriidaeBandeirado = Bagre spp.Cambeua = Notarius grandicassis (Thomas sea catfish)Cangatá = Aspistor quadriscutis (Bressou sea catfish)Gurijuba = Sciades parkeriJurupiranga = Amphiarius rugispinis (Softhead sea catfish)Uritinga = Sciades proops28,7817,445.54,193.01,098.03,730.06,344.5294.05,676.0(28,781.0)Puffers neiBaiacuTetraodontidaeLagocephalus laevigatusTetraodontidae409409Tilefishes neiBatataBranchiostegidaeCaulolatilus chrysopsLopholatilus villariiBranchiostegidae in ASFIS, but this should be Malacanthidae. However, this family is not in the ASFIS list. It includes two species: Lopholatilus villarii and Caulolatilus chrysops.924923.5CobiaBeijupiráRachycentron canadumRachycentron canadumNone.635634.5Barracudas neiBicudaSphyraena spp.Sphyraena tomeThe national bulletin should use Sphyraena spp. as in FishStatJ.375375Grunts, sweetlips neiBiquaraCambubaCorcorocaSapurunaXiraGolosaPeixe-pedraHaemulidaeHaemulon plumieriH. flavolineatumHaemulon spp., Pomadasys spp., Osthopristis ruber─ ─ Genyatremus luteusGenyatremus luteusEven though IBAMA (2007) reports the species Haemulon plumieri as “biquara”, it may include other species. Haemulidae is the best option if taxonomic details are not provided.Genyatremus luteus = “golosa” or “peixe-pedra”, and it should be reported as Torroto grunt in FishStatJ.3,7921,286.520.5259.5208.54.00.52,012.5(3,792.0) 14Table 9 continued. Comparison between common names and associated catches (tonnes) reported in FishStatJ/FAO database and IBAMA (2007b) for 2007. The order of common names as cited in IBAMA (2007b) may be slightly altered to place associated names together such as “albacora” and “atum” (true tunas nei). Differences between FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007b) are listed in bold. Asterisk indicates catch in number and do not add to total catch in tonnes.Commn name – ASFIS/FishStatJCommon name - IBAMAScientific nameASFISScientific name - IBAMACommentsCatchFishStatJCatch IBAMAParrotfishes neiBudiãoScaridaeSparisoma spp.National bulletin should change to Scaridae.135135Atlantic searobinsCabraPrionotus spp.Prionotus spp.None.5,2465,246Sharks, rays, skates, etc. neiCaçãoTubarãoElasmobranchiiLamnidae, Carcharhinidae, Triakidae, Odontaspididae, Sphyrnidae, Alopiidae, SqualidaeNational bulletin should provide catches by species. Taxonomic resolution should not be lost in the global database; thus, Various sharks nei should be used, which corresponds to Selachimorpha (Pleurotremata).7,8627,698.04,256.0(11,954.0)Bigeye thresher─Alopias superciliosus─Interesting case of resolution loss in the national bulletin and resolution recuperated in the global database.69─Blue shark─Prionace glauca─Interesting case of resolution loss in the national bulletin and resolution recuperated in the global database.2,318─Requiem sharks nei─Carcharhinidae─Interesting case of resolution loss in the national bulletin and resolution recuperated in the global database.1,414─Scalloped hammerhead─Sphyrna lewini─Interesting case of resolution loss in the national bulletin and resolution recuperated in the global database.Other species are also caught, so it should be changed to Sphyrna spp. (Hammerhead sharks nei).120─Shortfin mako─Isurus oxyrinchus─Interesting case of resolution loss in the national bulletin and resolution recuperated in the global database.157─Tiger shark─Galeocerdo cuvier─Interesting case of resolution loss in the national bulletin and resolution recuperated in the global database.6─Oceanic whitetip shark─Carcharhinus longimanus─None.14─TarponCamurupimPirapemaMegalops atlanticusTarpon atlanticus─National bulletin should report as Megalops atlanticus.636342.0293.5(635.5)Snappers, jobfishes neiCaranha (vermelho)CarapitangaCiobaDentãoVermelhoLutjanidaeLutjanus spp.,  Rhomboplites aurorubens─ Lutjanus analis and Ocyurus chrysurusLutjanus jocu─Carapitanga is not listed in IBAMA (2007); cioba = Ocyurus chrysurus only in Espírito Santo and Lutjanus analis in all other states; dentão = Lutjanus jocu. These specific details should not be lost in the global database.7,875154.0297.53,025.51,168.03,229.5(7,874.5)Irish mojarraCarapebaDiapterus auratusDiapterus auratus, Eugerres brasilianus, Eucinostomus argenteusShould be “Mojarras, etc. nei” in the global database (Gerreidae).2,0742,074Argentine croakerCastanhaUmbrina canosaiUmbrina canosaiMay include U. coroides in some states.11,16411,163.5Largehead hairtailCatanaEspadaTrichiurus lepturus─ Trichiurus lepturus“Catana” should be in the list of common names in IBAMA (2007b). Only “Espada” was included.3,390313,359(3,390)King mackerelWahooCavalaScomberomorus cavallaAcanthocybium solandriScomberomorus cavalla, Acanthocybium solandriNot sure how catches for “cavala” in IBAMA (2007b) were split between two species (wahoo and king mackerel) in FishStatJ. Besides, they do not add to 3,706 t reported.33 76(109)3,706Serra Spanish mackerelSerraSororocaScomberomorus brasiliensis─ Scomberomorus brasiliensisIncludes a smaller proportion of S. regalis (Cero).Difference between FishStatJ and IBAMA should be better investigated.5637,887445(8,832)Atlantic bonitoSarda (serra)Sarda sardaScomberomorus maculatus, Sarda sardaNational bulletin should correct to Scomberomorus brasiliensis, S. regalis and Sarda sarda, and provide catches separately for each species.334334Chub mackerelCavalinhaScomber japonicusScomber japonicusShould be Scomber colias.8,2628,262Brazil - Freire et al. 15Table 9 continued. Comparison between common names and associated catches (tonnes) reported in FishStatJ/FAO database and IBAMA (2007b) for 2007. The order of common names as cited in IBAMA (2007b) may be slightly altered to place associated names together such as “albacora” and “atum” (true tunas nei). Differences between FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007b) are listed in bold. Asterisk indicates catch in number and do not add to total catch in tonnes.Commn name – ASFIS/FishStatJCommon name - IBAMAScientific nameASFISScientific name - IBAMACommentsCatchFishStatJCatch IBAMARed grouperGaroupaEpinephelus morioEpinephelus spp.Includes other species besides E. morio. Thus, Groupers nei should be used.863862.5Argentine congerCusk-eels, brotulas neiCongroCongro-rosaConger orbignyanusOphidiidae─ Genypterus brasiliensisCould be Conger orbignianus, Genypterus brasiliensis or Ophichthus spp. More detail should be provided in national bulletin and taxonomic detail improved in FishStatJ, using Genypterus brasiliensis for “congro rosa”.12 62612 626Barred gruntCoróRoncadorConodon nobilisConodon nobilisConodon nobilisNone.16151.0109.5(160.5)Whitemouth croakerCorvinaCururucaMicropogonias furnieriMicropogonias furnieri─None.44,37444,053.5320.0(44,373.5)Common dolphinfishDouradoCoryphaena hippurusCoryphaena hippurusIncludes a small proportion of Coryphaena equisetis (Pompano dolphinfish), but these two species are never reported separately in landing ports.8,8738,872.5Guyana dolphin─Sotalia guianensis─Not reported in the national bulletin (IBAMA, 2007).114*─BluefishEnchovaPomatomus saltatrixPomatomus saltatrixNone.3,9263,926─Enguia──Not located in FishStatJ or in the taxonomic list provided in IMABA (2007b).─35SwordfishEspadarteXiphias gladiusXiphias gladiusUnknown reasons for difference in catches.4,2434,201.5Jamaica weakfishGoeteCynoscion jamaicensisCynoscion jamaicensisShould be analyzed carefully as it may be Macrodon ancylodon in northeastern Brazil. Thus, correct correspondence should be established before national compilation.2,7762,776Yellowtail snapperGuaiúbaOcyurus chrysurusOcyurus chrysurusNone.3,7173,717Bastard halibuts neiLinguadoParalichthys spp.ParalichthyidaeBothidaeAchiridaeShould be changed to Pleuronectiformes (Flatfishes nei) in FishStatJ.2,5662,566Argentine hakeMerluzaMerluccius hubbsi─Even though the correspondence is correct, one should consider recent catches reported for Macruronus magellanicus (merluza de cola) and Dissostichus eleginoides (merluza negra) in southern and southeastern Brazil, respectively.2,0752,074.5MorayMororóMuraenidae─Should be Gymnothorax spp., but there is no common name in ASFIS.─51.5Argentinian sandperchNamoradoPseudopercis semifasciataPseudopercis spp.Two species occur in Brazil: P. semifasciata and P. numida. It should be Pseudopercis spp. (but there is no common name in ASFIS for it). Catches for northeastern Brazil should be better investigated.687687.5Bigeyes neiOlho de cãoPriacanthus spp.Priacanthus spp.According to Froese & Pauly (2014), there is only one species in Brazil: Priacanthus arenatus. However, there is some possibility that Heteropriacanthus cruentatus is also caught. This should be better investigated.398398Shorthead drumOvevaLarimus brevicepsLarimus brevicepsNone.254254Bocon toadfishPacamãoAmphicthys cryptocentrusAmphicthys cryptocentrusShould be corrected to Amphichthys cryptocentrus. It may include Batrachoides surinamensis. In this case, it should be changed to Batrachoididae (Toadfishes, etc. nei) until proper identification of both species and separate catch reporting.311310.5Atlantic bumperPalombetaPilombetaChloroscombrus chysurusChloroscombrus chysurus─Catches reported as “pilombeta” (Engraulidae) originating from Sergipe are also included with “palometa” (Carangidae). However, it should not as it may include Anchovia clupeoides, Anchoviella lepidentostole, Anchoviella vaillanti, and Lycengraulis grossidens. As this is a resource locally important for Sergipe, it should be reported separately. However, as it includes four species (not easy to identify on site), their catches should be added to Anchovies, etc. nei.2,8682,759.5108.0(2,867.5) 16Table 9 continued. Comparison between common names and associated catches (tonnes) reported in FishStatJ/FAO database and IBAMA (2007b) for 2007. The order of common names as cited in IBAMA (2007b) may be slightly altered to place associated names together such as “albacora” and “atum” (true tunas nei). Differences between FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007b) are listed in bold. Asterisk indicates catch in number and do not add to total catch in tonnes.Commn name – ASFIS/FishStatJCommon name - IBAMAScientific nameASFISScientific name - IBAMACommentsCatchFishStatJCatch IBAMAKingcroakers neiPapa-terra, betaraMenticirrhus spp.Menticirrhus spp.Only two species occur in Brazil: Menticirrhus littoralis and M. americanus.1,9481,948─Papuda──Was not included in the taxonomic list of IBAMA (2007b). We were not able to associate with any scientific name, even though there are catches reported for the states of Pernambuco and Bahia (0.5 to 51.5 t∙year-1).──Southern red snapperPargo, pargo verdadeiroLutjanus purpureusLutjanus purpureusNone.3,6943,694Red porgyPargo-rosaPagrus pagrusPagrus pagrusMay include Lutjanus vivanus or Pagrus pagrus, depending on the state. This should be clarified when obtaining and reporting data locally.2,0512,050.5Spadefishes neiParú, enchada, sabaraEphippidaeChaetodipterus faberCould include also Pomacanthus paru (Pomacanthidae). To be investigated on site (easy distinction).198198Silversides(=Sand smelts) neiPeixe-reiAtherinidaeAtherinella brasiliensis, Odontesthes argentinensisIncludes Odontesthes argentinensis, Atherinella brasiliensis (Atherinopsidae) and possibly Elagatis bipinnulata. Data should be properly reported and checked before national compilation.  10.5Blackfin goosefishPeixe-sapo, diabo, pescador, rapeLophius gastrophysusLophius gastrophysusNone.2,5082,508Flyingfishes neiPeixe-voador, voador holandêsExocoetidaeCheilopogon cyanopterus, Hirundichthys affinisMay include ‘falso voador’ (Dactylopterus volitans). This should be investigated locally.1,2561,255.5─Voador──Should be included in Flyingfishes nei.─37Triggerfishes, durgons neiPeroá, cangulo, peixe porcoBalistidaeBalistes capriscus, Aluterus monocerosAluterus monoceros belongs to the family Monacanthidae. Thus, the name used in FishStatJ should consider this. Besides, Balistes vetula is also caught in Brazilian waters and has been replacing B. capriscus in landings off Espírito Santo after its commercial extinction (Freitas-Netto and Madeira di Beneditto 2010).3,7873,787Weakfishes neiPescadaPescadinha-góCynoscion spp.Cynoscion spp.,  Macrodon spp.─Catches for each genus should be reported separately and more detail for catches of Cynoscion could be provided based on local data. Pescadinha-gó is caught in northern Brazil, where it is associated to Macrodon ancylodon. Thus, its catches should be added to King weakfish.19,2397,987.511,252.0(19,239.5)Acoupa weakfishPescada-amarelaCynoscion acoupaCynoscion acoupaNone.20,41120,411Smooth weakfishPescada-brancaCynoscion leiarchusCynoscion leiarchusMay include three other species besides C. leiarchus: C. guatucuba,  C. jamaicensis, and C. virescens.692692Green weakfishPescada-cambuçu, pescada-cururuca Cynoscion virescensCynoscion virescens“Pescada cambuçu” may include Macrodon spp.331330.5Stripped weakfishPescada-olhudaCynoscion guatucupaCynoscion guatucupaNote some bulletins are still using C. striatus, which was considered nomen dubium by Figueiredo (1992).3,0503,049.5King weakfishPescadinha-realMacrodon ancylodonMacrodon ancylodonShould consider M. atricauda for southeastern/southern Brazil and M. ancylodon otherwise (Carvalho-Filho et al. 2010).3,6513,651Sea chubs neiPirajicaKyphosidaeKyphosus spp.Should be changed to Kyphosus sea chubs nei in FishStatJ.4444TripletailPrejerebaLobotes surinamensisLobotes surinamensisNone.1413.5Snooks(=Robalos) neiRobaloCentropomus spp.Centropomus spp.None.3,9473,946.5Goatfishes, red mullets neiSaramoneteTrilhaMullidaePseudupeneus maculatusCatches are associated to three species: Mulloidichthys martinicus, Mullus argentinae, and Pseudupeneus maculatus. Thus, national bulletin should properly attribute catches to the correct species based on the state catches originate from.1,388322.51,065.5(1,388.0)Atlantic thread herringSardinha-lage, sardinha-chata, sardinha-bandeiraOpisthonema oglinumOpisthonema oglinumNone.13,25213,252Brazil - Freire et al. 17Table 9 continued. Comparison between common names and associated catches (tonnes) reported in FishStatJ/FAO database and IBAMA (2007b) for 2007. The order of common names as cited in IBAMA (2007b) may be slightly altered to place associated names together such as “albacora” and “atum” (true tunas nei). Differences between FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007b) are listed in bold. Asterisk indicates catch in number and do not add to total catch in tonnes.Commn name – ASFIS/FishStatJCommon name - IBAMAScientific nameASFISScientific name - IBAMACommentsCatchFishStatJCatch IBAMABrazilian sardinellaSardinha verdadeira, marombaSardinella brasiliensisSardinella brasiliensisNone.55,94055,939.5Scaled sardinesSardinha cascudaHarengula spp.─None.226226Anchovies, etc. neiManjubaEngraulidaeEngraulidaeEngraulidaeNone.4,3744,374Clupeoids neiArenqueSardinhaClupeoidei─Detailed catches should be provided by species.18,19048.518,141.5(18,190.0)Brazilian menhadenSavelhaBrevoortia aureaBrevoortia spp.Catches are associated to Brevoortia aurea (Brazilian menhaden) and B. pectinata (Argentine menhaden). Besides, it may include Harengula spp. Thus, Brazilian menhaden should be replaced by Menhaden (Brevoortia spp.), however, no such category exists in FishStatJ.1,0781,077.5Mullets neiTainha, saúna, curimã, cacetão, tainhotaMugilidaeMugil spp.There is no common name associated to Mugil spp. in ASFIS, but it should be included to accommodate catches associated to “tainha”. Each local name is associated to different species and the proper correspondence should be established in each state.21,86421,864Brazilian flatheadTira-viraPercophis brasiliensisPercophis brasiliensisNone.941940.5Bigtooth corvinaTortinhaIsopisthus parvipinnisIsopisthus parvipinnisNone.1616Marine fishes neiUricicaCabeçudoOutros peixes─ ─ Osteichthyes─ ─ ─Taxonomic resolution lost. More effort should be put to increase resolution.Uricica should be included in Sea catfishes nei.Cabeçudo = Stellifer spp. (no name in ASFIS).60,8231,20023138,587.5Marine crabs neiCaranguejo-uçáBrachyuraUcides cordatusShould be reported in FishStatJ as Swamp ghost crab (according to ASFIS). It may consider a more adequate name for the species “mangrove crab” (Palomares and Pauly 2014).6,8186,818Southwest Atlantic red crabCaranguejo-de-profundidade, caranguejo-real, caranguejo-vermelhoChaceon notialisChaceon ramosaeChaceon notialisShould be reported in FishStatJ as Chaceon geryons nei (Chaceon spp.) as two species are caught.10.5Dana swimcrabSiriCallinectes danaeCallinectes spp.Should be reported as “Callinectes swimcrabs nei” in FishStatJ (Callinectes spp.) as it includes several species.1,4611,461Penaeid shrimps neiCamarãoCamarão-barba-ruça, camarão-serrinha, ferrinhoCamarão brancoCamarão-santanaPenaeidaePenaeidaeArtemesia longinarisLitopenaeus schmittiPleoticus muelleriSpecies should be separated, as taxonomic resolution was lost:Camarão-barba-ruça = Artemesia longinaris should be reported as Argentine stiletto shrimp in FishStatJ.Camarão branco = Litopenaeus schmitti = Southern white shrimpCamarão-santana = Pleoticus muelleri = Argentine red shrimp12,2443,861.53,467.04,099.5816.0(12,244.0)Redspotted shrimpCamarão-rosaPenaeus brasiliensisFarfantepenaeus brasiliensisFarfantepenaeus paulensisFarfantepenaeus subtilisShould be “Penaeus shrimps nei” (Penaeus spp.). AFSIS does not consider Farfantepenaeus as a valid genus.8,2388,237.5Atlantic seabobCamarão-sete-barbasXiphopenaeus kroyeriXiphopenaeus kroyeriNone.15,06015,060Caribbean spiny lobsterLagostaPanulirus argusPanulirus argus,  P. laevicauda, P. echinatusTaxonomic resolution should be kept considering three species (“lagosta-vermelha”, “lagosta-verde”, and “lagosta-pintada”).6,4796,478.5Marine crustaceans neiAratuGuaiamumLagostimOutros crustáceos─ ─ ─ ─Goniopsis cruentataCardisoma guanhumimMetanephrops rubellus─Note that purple mangrove crab = Goniopsis cruentata in SealifeBase but to Goniopsis pelii in ASFIS. G. pelii may be a synonym for G. cruentata.It should be changed to Cardisoma guanhumi = Giant land crab.Taxonomic resolution lost for “lagostim”. Effort should be put to clarify, as it may also include Scyllarides brasiliensis.48457.589.5156.5180.5(484.0) 18Table 9 continued. Comparison between common names and associated catches (tonnes) reported in FishStatJ/FAO database and IBAMA (2007b) for 2007. The order of common names as cited in IBAMA (2007b) may be slightly altered to place associated names together such as “albacora” and “atum” (true tunas nei). Differences between FishStatJ and IBAMA (2007b) are listed in bold. Asterisk indicates catch in number and do not add to total catch in tonnes.Commn name – ASFIS/FishStatJCommon name - IBAMAScientific nameASFISScientific name - IBAMACommentsCatchFishStatJCatch IBAMACommon squids neiCalamar-argentinoLulaLoligo spp.OmmastrephidaeLoliginidaeMore taxonomic detail needed and change in FishStatJ is required.2,1603441,816(2,160)Octopuses, etc. neiPolvoOctopodidaeOctopus spp.Eledone spp.None.2,1952,195Cupped oysters neiOstraCrassostrea spp.Crassostrea spp.None.800800Triangular tivelaMaçunimTivela mactroidesTivela mactroidesNone.1,8201,819.5Sea mussels neiBerbigãoSarnambiSururuMytilidaeAnomalocardia brasiliensisMytilus falcata,  Mytella spp.“Berbigão” and “sarnambi” = West Indian pointed venus (Veneridae) = Anomalocardia brasiliana“Sururu” = Mytella charruana and Mytella guyanensis (Mytilidae)1,34858.0 0.51,289.5(1,348.0)Marine molluscs neiMexilhãoVieiraOutros moluscosMolluscaPerna pernaEuvola ziczac─Mexilhão = Perna perna = South American rock musselVieira = Euvola ziczac = Zigzag scallop5,3895,361.51 25.5(5,388.0)Total---None.539,966.5539,967.0Brazil - Freire et al. 19Another feature of the national bulletins is data reporting for the states of Rio de Janeiro and Guanabara separately until 1975. These two states were united in 1975, but in the 1976 bulletin, data were presented twice under the state of Rio de Janeiro. One of them was considered as originating from Guanabara and both data were added and reported for Rio de Janeiro in our database. It is also important to point out that São Paulo was considered as part of the southern region until 1968 and changed to southeastern Brazil from 1969 onwards. It is worth to consider this change when analyzing historical trends among regions. IBGE is responsible for defining the regional division of Brazil. In 1950, Brazil was divided into north, northeast, east, center-west, and south (the latter including the state of São Paulo). In 1970, São Paulo was considered part of the southeastern region. The current regional division (north, northeast, center-west, southeast, and south) with all their states was established in 1990.It is mentioned in IBGE (1976, 1977) that shrimp and its by-catch caught by foreign fleets from Barbados, United States of America, Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago based on fishing agreements were not included in those bulletins. These catches are not included in this version of our database either. Catches included in those bulletins only accounted for 75-80% of the total landings (main species). We hope that our procedure of estimation of missing values have been able to raise these percentages to 100%. A source of underestimation of catches is the usage of weight of eviscerated fishes and of crustaceans without the cephalothorax. No attempt was made here to correct this source of underestimation, although FAO data are generally corrected to whole wet weight.Some of the most important detailed observations about data reported for some groups will be discussed in the next sections. This will not be an exhaustive analysis but rather intended to point out some discrepancies to make the reader aware of their existence. Thus, they should compare national bulletins with local bulletins whenever possible.Fisheries for “mero” (Epinephelus itajara) were banned in 2002 in Brazilian waters (Legal instrument: Portaria IBAMA N. 121, September 20, 2002). However, in all regions of Brazil, there are states where there are still catches officially reported for “mero” (0.5 to 1,130 t per year according to the state). Either this represents one more case of ill-defined relation between common name and scientific name, or threatened species continue to be openly exploited. Gerhardinger et al. (2006) had already called attention to the fact that non-consideration of local names in the legal instrument does not allow for its proper implementation in some regions.A similar case was observed for billfishes. IN SEAP N. 12 (14 July 2005) obliges fishers to return to the sea all white and blue marlin (Kajikia albida and Makaira nigricans) that are still alive after being caught, and their commercialization is prohibited. However, for the years 2006 and 2007, we noticed that 0.5-69 t of Atlantic white marlin were reported annually for the states of Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro and Paraná, and 1.5 to 103.5 t of blue marlin in the first three states. This may represent only landings of dead specimens or non-compliance to a legal instrument. Catches for sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) may contain a small proportion of Tetrapturus pfluegeri (K.M.F. Freire, personal observation).Some examples of over-reporting were observed in the national bulletins. In the state of Rio Grande do Sul, for example, 1,841.5 t of “bonito-listrado” were reported for the industrial fleet in 2007 by IBAMA (2007b), but only 0.28 t were reported as “bonito” (which includes Auxis thazard, Euthynnus alleteratus, Katsuwonus pelamis) in the state bulletin (IBAMA/CEPERG 2008). “Bonito-listrado” was not even mentioned separately. In this volume it was also mentioned that there was no record of live bait fishery for “bonitos” in Rio Grande do Sul in 2007. Additionally, some boats could be landing in the state of Santa Catarina. Catches for shrimps reported in Valentini et al. (1991) for the state of Rio de Janeiro are much smaller than officially reported. In some years, catches reported for Rio de Janeiro alone in the national bulletins were close to the total catch for all southeastern-southern regions in Valentini et al. (1991). Also artisanal (1978) and industrial (1979) catches for shrimps were mixed, resulting in unrealistic high values. Thus, we decided to keep the data reported in the Valentini et al. (1991) data.Problems with landings originating from fresh and salt water were also observed. The first bulletins presented data from both water bodies together until the early 1970s. From 1978 onwards, they were properly separated (Freire and Oliveira 2007). Mangrove crab (Ucides cordatus) was reported in some years as originating from fresh water and from salt water in others in all states. Here we considered all records as marine catches (Palomares and Pauly 2014). For the state of Rio Grande do Sul, in some years catches for marine guitarfishes (Rhinobatidae) were reported together with freshwater species (Antero-Silva 1990), but it was not possible to correct this problem in this version of the database.The start of lobster fisheries in Brazil is not known precisely. According to Fonteles-Filho (1992), these fisheries began in 1955 (place not mentioned). According to Santos & Freitas (2002), it was in 1950 in the state of Pernambuco. However, lobster was already cited in Schubart (1944) as one of the species caught off Pernambuco and by Oliveira (1946) as consumed in the state of Rio de Janeiro. In 1955, a lobster fishery would have been introduced in the state of Ceará and, in 1961, in the states of Rio Grande do Norte and Espírito Santo. In the 1970s, a lobster fishery started in Piauí, Maranhão, Pará, Amapá, and Bahia. Finally, in the 1980s, it reached the state of Alagoas. Nowadays lobster fisheries are also found in the state of Rio de Janeiro (Tubino et al. 2007). In our database, we considered the beginning in 1950. Main species caught are Panulirus argus and P. laevicauda, but smaller catches are observed for Panulirus echinatus and Scillarides brasiliensis. The 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103)YearFigure 2.  Catches originating from Brazilian recreational marine fisheries (daily activities and competitive events). 20highest catches are for Panulirus argus, but with the overexploitation of this resource, catches of P. laevicauda are increasing, as well as for P. echinatus and S. brasiliensis. However, in FishStat/Brazil there are only records for Caribbean spiny lobster (P. argus) and Tropical spiny lobsters nei (Panulirus spp.).We would like to point out that problems are not restricted to minor landings. Goniopsis cruentata (“aratu”) is the sixth most important resource exploited in marine waters off the state of Sergipe (northeastern Brazil), with 115 t landed in 2010 and 139 t in 2011 (Souza et al. 2012; Souza et al. 2013). Additionally, landings are reported from all states between Rio Grande do Norte and Bahia (with the exception of Paraíba). However, landings for this species are not reported in FishStatJ and the species name is not even listed in ASFIS/FAO (2013 or 2014 versions).Finally, we observed that FishStatJ includes catches for Guyana dolphin, Sotalia guianensis (in number). A total of 114 individuals were caught in 2007 (Table 9), followed by 22, 22, and 60 in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. These catches are not reported in IBAMA (2007) even though there was footage obtained by IBAMA and broadcast on July 16, 2007, showing 83 carcasses of this species that were probably used as bait in shark fisheries (Secchi, 2012). However, as the Sea Around Us does not consider catches of marine mammals, reptiles or marine plants, we did not include these data in our database.Recreational catchesTotal estimated catches indicated an increase throughout the period analyzed (Figure 2). Freire (2005) indicated that results of competitive events are lost and earlier results are probably missing. Other sources of error include absence of information on the proportion of license holders in relation to total number of anglers. For many states, a national estimate had to be used (Freire et al. 2012). The same occurred with estimates of daily catch per recreational fisher, as values for neighbor states were used when local data were unavailable. Catches were higher for the southern region, which are dominated by the state of Santa Catarina. The estimates of CPUE may be overestimated and results should be revisited when more local data become available. Finally, for competitive events, there is no national database with catches originating from those events. Thus, there are many missing values that have been only recently reconstructed in other small projects (see, e.g., Freire et al. 2014b). However, for most of the states, this reconstruction is not complete at this point and only results readily available were used.The national trend was defined mostly by values estimated for southern Brazil (Figure 3). This trend was mainly defined by catches estimated for the state of Santa Catarina where local data available indicated high catch rates for recreational fishers of category B (boat-based) (Schork et al. 2010). Catches for the north region were the lowest, even though it is known that many fishing events are promoted in the state of Pará (Frédou et al. 2008). However, for that region it is expected that most recreational fisheries are practiced in fresh waters. No detail on catch composition was provided, as this information is not available yet for most states, with some exceptions, such as select regions in the states of Bahia, São Paulo, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul (Peres and Klippel 2005; Nascimento 2008; Schork et al. 2010; Barcellini et al. 2013).02461950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )Year02004006008001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103)YearDiscardsIndustrial landings03006009001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearNorthSoutheastSouthNortheastFigure 4.  Subsistence catches from “nonmonetary marine fish acquisition” (marine fish catches for food purposes) based on the household budget survey for the Brazilian waters from 1950 to 2010.Figure 5.  Discards and catches in the industrial sector of Brazilian fisheries.Figure 3.  Catches originating from Brazilian recreational marine fisheries by region (daily activities and competitive events).Brazil - Freire et al. 21Subsistence catchesThe overall estimated marine subsistence catches, based on the “nonmonetary marine ‘fish’ acquisition” provided by the Household Budget Survey, reached about 5,000 t in 2010 (Figure 4). The number of registered fishers rose from 11,000 in 1950 to 72,000 in 2010 and the state that presented the higher number of fishers was Pará (in northern Brazil) with about 31%, while Pernambuco (in northeastern Brazil) accounted for less than 2%. The fish consumption rate (kg·capita·year-1) by geographic region also varied considerably: north (38.1), northeast (14.6), southeast (5.4) and south (3.1). The average number of persons by family in fishing communities ranged from 4 to 9 for the study period, which has a direct influence on subsistence fish consumption (including fresh and marine fishes), along with social and economic changes. The most representative ‘fish’ families consumed were: Sciaenidae (28% of total estimated catches), followed by Mugilidae (27%), Clupeidae (10%) and Ariidae (5%) (Table 10). Elasmobranchs and shrimps also had some participation in the subsistence consumption of marine fish (1% and 12%, respectively). The remaining 17% encompassed different marine fish families.discardsIndustrial discards were estimated at 26,000 t·year-1 in the early 1950s, increasing nearly tenfold throughout the next few decades to peak in the mid-1980s at approximately 250,000 t·year-1 (Figure 5). Thereafter, industrial discards declined to 110,000 t in 1990 and for the next two decades averaged approximately 130,000 t·year-1. This decline was largely driven by a shift in the use of industrial gear types, away from pair- and otter-trawls towards an increase in gillnets (Figure 6). The vast majority of discards were from the south and southeastern regions, namely Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo (Figure 7). The average discard rate from 1950 to 2010 was 55% of industrial landings.In 1950, artisanal discards amounted to around 42,000 t (Figure 8), increasing throughout the next few decades to peak in 1985 of 172,000 t. Discards dropped in the 1990s, averaging 120,000 t·year-1, but then increased in the 2000s to nearly 170,000 t·year-1. Artisanal discards occurred primarily in the northeastern region (Figure 9). The average discard rate from 1950 to 2010 was 59% of artisanal landings.Total discards averaged 57% of industrial and artisanal landings. In 1950, around 69,000 t were discarded (Figure 10). Discards increased to over 400,000 t·year-1 in the mid-1980s, and then dropped to nearly half this level in the early 1990s. Since then, discards have slowly increased again, reaching almost 310,000 t of discards in 2010.01002003001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearSeine, Live Bait, Line and LonglineDouble-rig TrawlGillnetPair TrawlOtter Trawl01002003001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103)YearSouthNortheastSoutheast NorthTable 10. Proportion of the taxonomic breakdown used to estimate catches by species (or group of species) reported as subsistence catches in each region. The Household Budget Survey (POF) reported these values in kg·person-1·year-1 (non-monetary acquisition for both urban and rural areas), which were here calculated as a proportion within each region (Based on IBGE 2010b).Item North Northeast Southeast SouthAnchova fresca (fresh bluefish)  ─ ─  ─ 0.023Bacalhau (codling) ─ 0.009 0.008 ─Bagre fresco (fresh marine catfish) 0.060 0.018 ─ ─Cação fresco (fresh shark) ─ 0.056 ─ 0.134Camarão fresco (fresh shrimp) 0.152 0.023 0.041 ─Corvina fresca (fresh whitemouth croaker) 0.007 0.051 0.063 0.046Merluza em filé congelado (frozen hake fillet) ─ 0.004 0.008 ─Merluza em filé fresco (fresh hake fillet) ─ ─ 0.086 ─Parati fresco (fresh mullet) 0.026 ─ ─ ─Pescada fresca (fresh weakfish) 0.286 0.140 ─ 0.090Pescadinha fresca (fresh king weakfish) 0.006 0.027 0.008 ─Sardinha em conserva (preserved sardine) 0.006 0.023 0.219 0.046Sardinha fresca (fresh sardine) 0.108 0.037 0.041 0.090Tainha fresca (fresh mullet) 0.293 0.145 ─ 0.468Outros pescados em filé fresco (other fresh fish fillet) ─ 0.013 0.019 0.012Outros pescados frescos (other fresh fish) 0.047 0.455 0.508 0.068Outros pescados salgados (other salted fish) 0.007  ─ ─ 0.023Figure 6.  Discards in the Brazilian industrial sector by fishing gear.Figure 7.  Discards in the Brazilian industrial sector by region. 22As seen by the gear breakdown of discards in the industrial sector (Figure 6), the shift in gear in 1990 corresponded to a significant drop in discards. There is a parallel trend in landings, where industrial catch dropped 42% from 1989 to 1990. This resulted from the collapse of the main Brazilian industrial fishery (including sardine), which was followed by targeting previously unexploited species with new gears or expanding existing fisheries. Indeed, many commonly targeted species that were heavily fished by pair and otter trawlers in the 1970s and 1980s are currently heavily exploited (Haimovici 1998; FAO 2011).We believe that our discard estimates on trawling activities are very conservative. According to Conolly (1992), “361,000 tonnes per year of accompanying fauna are incidentally by-caught in trawling activities in Brazil, of which over 80% are discarded”. This totals 288,800 tonnes in annual discards. Our calculations suggest that approximately 198,000 tonnes were discarded annually by trawlers from 1950 to 1992, the year of publication of Conolly (1992). The estimate given in 1992 is about 46% higher than what is estimated in the present study.Additionally, the discard rate used for industrial shrimp trawling activities (23.9% of total catch by the double rig trawl gear) is very low compared to other studies done on shrimp trawling. This discard rate corresponds to 31.4% of reported landings. Comparatively, discard studies done in southeastern Brazil directed at pink shrimp list discard rates at 3130% of landings (Keunecke et al. 2007). Discard rates in northern Brazil are also high, with trawling directed at southern brown shrimp producing discards in the order of 500% of landings (Isaac 1998). These preliminary estimates should be revised by local experts with the inclusion of more local information. Important references such as Santos (1996), Tischer & Santos (2001), and Vianna & Almeida (2005) were not included here.Reconstructed total catches (commercial, recreational, subsistence and discards)Reconstructed total catches, aggregated to national level (but omitting Brazil’s oceanic islands), averaged to 192,000 t·year-1 in the early 1950s, peaked at 1,181,000 t in 1984, at the height of the industrial fishery for Brazilian ‘sardine’ (Sardinella brasiliensis), and returned to lower levels after this fishery collapsed, averaging 873,000 t·year-1 in the late 2000s (Figure 11a). The reconstructed catches were 1.8 times the reported landings baseline determined for Brazil, and dominated by demersal fishes and sardine from the southeastern and southern regions (Figure 11b).conclusionIt is crucial for Brazil to resume its data collection system for all Brazilian fisheries, considering all local initiatives that continue working in some states of Brazil. Landings data are fundamental to effective fisheries policy and management. In addition, the inclusion of other components of fisheries (recreational, subsistence, and discards), based on local data, is very important to properly access the total impact of fisheries on Brazilian marine ecosystems. The first step was taken in this study, which, however, must be viewed as preliminary. The data should be revised by local experts to improve the local database and hence the national database. Making this resulting database openly available online is a fundamental condition for transparent and accountable public resource use. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 106)YearDiscardsLandings (Industrial and Artisanal)0501001502001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearNortheastSoutheastNorthSouth01002003004005001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103)YearArtisanal landingsDiscardsFigure 10.  Discards and catches in the industrial and artisanal Brazilian fisheries.Figure 9.  Discards in the artisanal sector by Brazilian region.Figure 8.  Discards and catches in the artisanal sector of Brazilian fisheries.Brazil - Freire et al. 23acknowledgementsWe would like to thank Felipe Emmanuel for scanning national bulletins to be shared among the authors involved in the process of catch reconstruction. The Sea Around Us and Daniel Pauly provided scholarship and fellowships to proceed with the catch reconstruction. CNPq provided a scholarship for an undergraduate student (through the Science without Borders) to spend one year in the Fisheries Centre/University of British Columbia. Michel Machado from the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture provided information on licenses for recreational fishers Esther Divovich acknowledges the Sea Around Us, a collaboration supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation.reFerencesAnon. (1963) Consumo de pescado no nordeste. Boletim de Estudos de Pesca 3(5): 1-11.Antero-Silva JN (1990) Perfil pesqueiro da frota artesanal do RGS de 1945 a 1989. IBAMA/CEPERG, Rio Grande. 51 p.Araújo Júnior ES, Pinheiro Júnior JR and Leal de Castro AC (2005) Ictiofauna acompanhante da pesca do camarão branco, Penaeus (Litopenaeus) schmitti Burkenroad (1936) no estuário do Rio Salgado, Alcântara-MA. Boletim do Laboratório de Hidrobiologia 18(1): 19-24.Ávila-da-Silva AO, Carneiro MH and Fagundes L (1999) Sistema gerenciador de banco de dados de controle estatístico de produção pesqueira marítima ProPesq. In, 17-21/01/1999. 824-832 p.Barcellini VC, Motta FS, Martins AM and Moro PS (2013) Recreational anglers and fishing guides from an estuarine protected area in southeastern Brazil: Socioeconomic characteristics and views on fisheries management. Ocean & Coastal Management 76: 23-29.Braga AS, Vellini LL, Neiva GS and G.N. T (1966) Notas preliminares sobre a pesca marítima da região Centro Sul do Brasil. VII Reunião Nacional de Técnicos em Pesquisas sôbre a Pesca Marítima. Santos, São Paulo. 175 p.Carniel VL and Krul R (2012) Utilisation of discards from small-scale fisheries by seabirds in coastal waters of Paraná State, Brazil. Seabird 25: 29-38.Carvalho-Filho A, Santos S and Sampaio I (2010) Macrodon atricauda (Günther, 1880) (Perciformes: Sciaenidae), a valid species from the southwestern Atlantic, with comments on its conservation. Zootaxa 2519: 48-58.CEPENE (1995a) Estatística da pesca–1990. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 89 p. (t x106)IndustrialIndustrial discardsArtisanalReported landingsArtisanal discardsa) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )Yearb)Othersother ClupeidaeAriidaeScombridaeCrustaceansElasmobranchiiSardinella brasiliensisSciaenidaeFigure 11.  Total reconstructed marine catches of Brazil (1950-2010), a) by sector, including commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries, with discards show separately, and the reported landings overlaid as a line graph (note that recreational and subsistence fisheries are too small to be visible); and b) by taxonomic group. ‘Others’ represents approximately 300 minor taxonomic categories. 24CEPENE (1995b) Estatística da pesca–1991. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 90 p.CEPENE (1995c) Estatística da pesca–1992. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 90 p.CEPENE (1995d) Estatística da pesca–1993. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 89 p.CEPENE (1995e) Estatística da pesca–1994. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 89 p.CEPENE (1997a) Estatística da pesca–1995. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, May 1997, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 110 p.CEPENE (1997b) Estatística da pesca–1996. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 120 p.CEPENE (1998) Estatística da pesca–1997. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 84 p.CEPENE (1999) Estatística da pesca–1998. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 110 p.CEPENE (2000) Estatística da pesca–1999. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 104 p.CEPENE (2001) Estatística da pesca–2000. Brasil–Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Centro de Pesquisa e Extensão Pesqueira do Nordeste/IBAMA, Tamandaré, Pernambuco. 104 p.CEPENE (2002) Boletim estatístico da pesca marítima e estuarina do nordeste do Brasil–2001. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Tamandaré. 140 p.Chiappani LHB (2006) Caracterização e avaliação da atividade de pesca amadora na praia de Camburi, Vitória ES., Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Departamento de Ecologia e Recursos Naturais, Vitória. 50 p.Coelho J, Puzzi A, Graça-Lopes Rd, Rodrigues E and Preto Jr O (1986a) Análise da rejeição de peixes na pesca artesanal dirigida ao camarão sete-barbas (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) no litoral do Estado de São Paulo. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 13(2): 51-61.Coelho JAP, Puzzi A, Graça-Lopes Rd, Rodrigues ES and Preto Jr O (1986b) Análise da rejeição de peixes na pesca artesanal dirigida ao camarão sete-barbas (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) no litoral do Estado de São Paulo. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca 13(2): 51-61.Conolly C (1992) By-catch activities in Brazil. Brazilian National Environment Research Center. International Conference on shrimp by-catch. Lake Good view, Florida, USA.Couto BR (2011) Caracterização da pesca amadora desenvolvida na área de proteção ambiental de Guapimirim, na Baía de Guanabara, RJ, Universidade Gama Filho, Curso de Ciências Biológicas, Rio de Janeiro. 55 p.de Oliveira LPH (1946) Estudos ecológicos dos crustáceos comestíveis ucá e guaiamú, Cardisoma guahumi Latreille e Ucides cordatus (L). Gecarcinidae, Brachyura. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 44(2): 295-322.Decken K (1986) O setor pesqueiro na economia do estado de Sergipe. Superintendência do Desenvolvimento da Pesca, Coordenadoria Regional em Sergipe, Aracaju. 28 p.Dias Neto J (2011) Proposta de Plano Nacional de Gestão para o uso sustentável de camarões marinhos do Brasil. IBAMA, Brasília. 242 p.Diegues AC, Vasconcellos M and Kalikoski DC (2006) Artisanal fisheries in Brazil. NUPAUB-USP, São Paulo.FAO (1953) As pescarias brasileiras. Divisão de Pescas, Roma. 61 p.FAO (2001) FAO Fishery Country Profile–Brazil.FAO (2011) General situation of world fish stocks. www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdfFAO (2014) The Federative Republic of Brazil Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Figueiredo JL (1992) Sobre a aplicação dos nomes Cynoscion striatus (Cuvier, 1829) e Cynoscion guatucupa (Cuvier, 1830) (Teleostei: Sciaenidae) Comunicações do Museu de Ciências de PUCRS 5(8): 117-121.FIPERJ/MPA/UFRJ (undated) Monitoramento da pesca industrial no Rio de Janeiro–Capacitação Pesquisa e Gestão. FIPERJ/MPA/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro.FIPERJ/Prefeitura Municipal de Cabo Frio (undated) Produção industrial de pescado de Cabo Frio (em kg) dos anos de 2008 e 2009. FIPERJ, Coordenadoria de Pesca Marítma/Prefeitura Municipal de Cabo Frio, Coordenadoria de Indústria e Comércio-Diretoria de Aquicultura e Pesca., Rio de Janeiro.Fonteles-Filho AA (1992) Population dynamics of spiny lobsters (Crustacea: Palinuridae) in northeast Brazil. Ciência e Cultura 44(2/3): 192-196.Frédou T, Figueiredo Filho LD, Torres DG, Ferreira PRC, Souza EG and Lopes KS (2008) Diagnóstico, tendência, potencial, e políticas públicas para o desenvolvimento da pesca esportiva. Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém. 137 p.Freire KMF (2003) A database of landing data on Brazilian marine fisheries from 1980 to 2000. pp.181-189. In: Zeller D, Booth S, Mohammed E and Pauly D. From Mexico to Brazil: Central Atlantic fisheries catch trends and ecosystem models. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 11(6), University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Freire KMF (2005) Recreational fisheries of northeastern Brazil: inferences from data provided by anglers. pp. 377-394 In Kruse GH, Gallucci VF, Hay DE, Perry RI, Peterman RM, Shirley TC, Spencer PD, Wilson B and Woodby D (eds.), Fisheries assessment and management in data-limited situations. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks.Brazil - Freire et al. 25Freire KMF, Aragão JAN, Araújo ARR, Ávila-da-Silva AO, Bispo MCS, Canziani GV, Carneiro MH, Gonçalves FDS, Keunecke KA, Mendonça JT, Moro PS, Motta FS, Olavo G, Pezzuto PR, Santana RF, dos Santos RA, Trindade-Santos I, Vasconcelos JA, Vianna M and Divovich E (2014a) Revisiting Brazilian catch data for Brazilian marine waters (1950-2010). Fisheries Centre Working Paper #2014-23, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 41 p.Freire KMF, Bispo MCS and Luz RMCA (2014b) Competitive marine fishery in the state of Sergipe. Acta Pesca 2(1): 59-72.Freire KMF and Carvalho Filho A (2009) Richness of common names of Brazilian reef fishes. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 4(2): 96-145.Freire KMF, Machado ML and Crepaldi D (2012) Overview of inland recreational fisheries in Brazil. Fisheries 37(11): 484-494.Freire KMF and Oliveira TLS (2007) Reconstructing catches of marine commercial fisheries for Brazil. pp. 61-68. In: Zeller D and Pauly D.  Reconstruction of Marine Fisheries Catches for Key Countries and Regions (1950-2005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15(2), University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Freire KMF and Pauly D (2005) Richness of common names of Brazilian marine fishes and its effect on catch statistics. Journal of Ethnobiology 25(2): 279-296.Freitas-Netto R and Madeira di Beneditto AP (2010) Growth, mortality and exploitation rates of the Queen Triggerfish Balistes vetula (Tetraodontiformes: Balistidae) in the Brazilian east coast. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 51: 93-99.Gasparini JL, Floeter SR, Ferreira CEL and Sazima I (2005) Marine ornamental trade in Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(12): 2883-2899.Gerhardinger LC, Marenzi RC, Hostim-Silva M and Medeiros RP (2006) Conhecimento ecológico local de pescadores da Baía Babitonga,Santa Catarina, Brasil: peixes da família Serranidae e alterações no ambiente marinho. Acta Scientarium. Biological Sciences 28(3): 253-261.Haimovici M (1998) Present state and perspectives for the southern Brazil shelf demersal fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5(4): 277-289.Haimovici M, Castello JP and Vooren CM (1998) Pescarias. pp. pg. 205–218 In Ecoscientia (ed.), Os ecossistemas costeiro e Marinho do extremo sul do Brasil.Haimovici M and Mendonça JT (1996) Descartes da fauna acompanhante na pesca de arrasto de tangones dirigida a linguados e camarões na plataforma continental do sul do Brasil.Haimovici M and Palacios RM (1981) Observações sobre a seleção a bordo e rejeição na pesca de arrasto de fundo no Rio Grande do Sul. pp. 401-411 In Anais do congresso Brasileiro de engengaria de pesca 11.Hilborn R and Branch T(2013) Counterpoint to “Pauly (2013). Does catch reflect abundance?”. Nature 494: 303-305.IBAMA (2003) Estatística da Pesca. 2001. Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Tamandaré–PE. 97 p.IBAMA (2004a) Estatística da Pesca. 2002. Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Tamandaré–PE. 97 p.IBAMA (2004b) Estatística da Pesca. 2003. Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brasília–DF. 98 p.IBAMA (2005) Estatística da Pesca. 2004. Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brasília–DF. 98 p.IBAMA (2007a) Estatística da Pesca. 2005. Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brasília. 108 p.IBAMA (2007b) Estatística da Pesca. 2007. Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brasília. 113 p.IBAMA (2008) Estatística da Pesca. 2006. Grandes regiões e unidades da federação. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Brasília. 180 p.IBAMA/CEPERG (2004) Desembarque de pescados no Rio Grande do Sul 2003. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão dos Recursos Pesqueiros Lagunares e Estuarinos, Rio Grande. 41 p.IBAMA/CEPERG (2008) D esembarque de pescados no Rio Grande do Sul. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão dos Recursos Pesqueiros Lagunares e Estuarinos, Projeto Estatística Pesqueira, Rio Grande. 45 p.IBAMA/CEPERG (2011) Desembarque de pescados no Rio Grande do Sul–2010. Centro de Pesquisas e Gestão dos Recursos Lagunares e Estuarinos, Rio Grande. 41 p.IBGE (1955) Anuário Estatístico do Brasil–1955. Anuário Estatístico do Brasil XVI: 83.IBGE (1956) Anuário Estatístico do Brasil–1956. Anuário Estatístico do Brasil XVII: 577.IBGE (1959) Anuário Estatístico do Brasil–1959. Anuário Estatístico do Brasil XX: 53-54.IBGE (1961) Anuário Estatístico do Brasil–1961. Anuário Estatístico do Brasil XXII: 70-71.IBGE (1962) Anuário Estatístico do Brasil–1962. Anuário Estatístico do Brasil XXIII: 52.IBGE (1967) Pesquisa de orçamentos familiares 1966/1967. Ministério do Trabalho e Previdência Social. Departamento Nacional de Salário, Divisão de Custo de Vida, Rio de Janeiro. 30 p.IBGE (1976) Anuário Estatístico do Brasil–1976. Anuário Estatístico do Brasil 37: 158-160.IBGE (1977) Anuário Estatístico do Brasil–1977. Anuário Estatístico do Brasil 38: 376-378.IBGE (1983a) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1980. Estatística da Pesca 1(1): 1-71.IBGE (1983b) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1981 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 2(1): 1-70. 26IBGE (1983c) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1981 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 2(2): 1-70.IBGE (1983d) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1982 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 3(1): 1-72.IBGE (1984a) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1982 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 3(2): 1-74.IBGE (1984b) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1983 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 4(1): 1-86.IBGE (1985a) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1983 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 4(2): 1-62.IBGE (1985b) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1984 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 5(1): 1-60.IBGE (1985c) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1984 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 5(2): 1-60.IBGE (1986) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1985 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 6(1): 1-70.IBGE (1987a) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1985 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 6(2): 1-70.IBGE (1987b) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1986 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 7(1): 1-80.IBGE (1988a) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1986 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 7(2): 1-82.IBGE (1988b) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1987 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 8(1): 1-82.IBGE (1988c) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1987 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 8(2): 1-84.IBGE (1989a) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1988 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 9(1): 1-87.IBGE (1989b) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1988 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 9(2): 1-86.IBGE (1990) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1989 (1o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 10(1): 1-70.IBGE (1991) Brasil–Grandes regiões–Unidades da Federação. 1989 (2o semestre). Estatística da Pesca 10(2): 1-58.IBGE (2004) Pesquisa de orçamentos familiares 2002/2003. Análise da disponibilidade domiciliar de alimentos e do estado nutricional no Brasil. Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, Rio de Janeiro. 76 p.IBGE (2010a) Censo demográfico 2010. Nupcialidade, fecundidade e migração.2012, Ministério do planejamento, orçamento e gestão, Rio de Janeiro. 346 p.IBGE (2010b) Pesquisa de orçamentos familiares 2008/2009. Aquisição alimentar domiciliar per capita. Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, Rio de Janeiro. 282 p.Isaac VJ (1998) By-Catch Utilization in Tropical Fisheries FAO/DFID Expert Consultation Beijing, China, 21-23 September 1998. Fisheries 21: 23.Isaac VJ and Braga TMP (1999) Rejeição de pescado nas pescarias da região norte do Brasil. Arquivos de Ciências do Mar 32: 39-54.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470: 1-134.Keunecke KA, Vianna M, Fonseca DB and DIncao F (2007) The pink-shrimp trawling bycatch in the northern coast of São Paulo, Brazil, with emphasis on crustaceans. Nauplius 15(2): 49-55.MA/EE (1971) Pesca–1970. Ministério da Agricultura, Escritório de Estatística, Rio de Janeiro. 19 p.MA/ETEA (1968) Pesca–1967. Produção extrativa. Publicação no. 5. Ministério da Agricultura, Equipe Técnica de Estatística Agropecuária, Rio de Janeiro. 34 p.MA/ETEA (1969) Pesca–1968. Produção extrativa. Publicação no. 19. Ministério da Agricultura, Equipe Técnica de Estatística Agropecuária, Rio de Janeiro. 34 p.MA/ETEA (1971) Pesca–1969. Ministério da Agricultura, Equipe Técnica de Estatística Agropecuária, Rio de Janeiro. 20 p.MA/SEP (1965a) Pesca–1963. Estrutura e produção. Ministério da Agricultura, Serviço de Estatística da Produção, Rio de Janeiro. 37 p.MA/SEP (1965b) Pesca–1964. Estrutura e produção. Ministério da Agricultura, Serviço de Estatística da Produção, Rio de Janeiro. 46 p.MA/SEP (1967) Pesca–1966. Estrutura e produção. Ministério da Agricultura, Serviço de Estatística da Produção, Rio de Janeiro. 34 p.Mendonça JT and Miranda LV (2008) Estatística pesqueira do litoral sul do estado de São Paulo: subsídios para gestão compartilhada. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 3(3): 152-173.Miranda LCM and Lima CAS (2010) On the logistic modeling and forecasting of evolutionary processes: application to human population dynamics. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77: 699-711.MPA (2012) Boletim estatístico da pesca e aquicultura. Brasil 2010. Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura, Brasília. 128 p.MPA (undated) Boletim estatístico da pesca e aquicultura. Brasil 2008-2009., Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura, Brasília. 99 p.Nascimento FP (2008) Aspectos biológicos e sócio-econômicos da pesca esportiva marinha em Ilhéus Bahia. Monografia de Conclusão de Curso thesis, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Ilhéus. 47 p.Pauly D (2013) Does catch reflect abundance? Yes, it is a crucial signal. Nature 494: 303-306.Peres MB and Klippel S (2005) A pesca amadora na costa da plataforma sul. pp. 200-212 In Vooren CM and Klippel S (eds.), Ações para a conservação de tubarões e raias no sul do Brasil. Igaré, Porto Alegre.Petrobrás (undated) Caracterização sócio-econômica da atividade pesqueira na Bacia de Campos no ano de 2008. Relatório de pesquisa (unpublished data).PMAP/Instituto de Pesca de São Paulo (undated) Produção pesqueira marinha desembarcada nos Municípios de Angra dos Reis e Paraty, Estado do Rio de Janeiro, nos anos de 2008-2011. PMAP/Instituto de Pesca de São Paulo.Previero M, Minte-Vera C and Moura RL (2013) Fisheries monitoring in Babel: fish ethnotaxonomy in a hotspot of common names. Neotropical Ichthyology 11(2): 467-476.Santos MCF (1996) Participação da fauna e flora acompanhantes da pesca de camarões em Tamandaré (PE) e foz do São Francisco (AL/SE). Trabalhos Oceanográficos da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco 24: 197-210.Brazil - Freire et al. 27Santos MCF and Freitas AETS (2002) Estudo sobre a lagosta sapata Scyllarides brasiliensis Rathbun, 1906 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Scyllaridae) no litoral dos estados de Pernambuco e Alagoas–Brasil. Boletim Técnico Científico do CEPENE 10(1).Sartori AGO and Amancio RD (2012) Pescado: importância nutricional e consumo no Brasil. Segurança alimentar e nutricional 19(2): 83-93.Schork G, Mottola LSM and Silva MH (2010) Diagnóstico da pesca amadora embarcada na região de São Francisco do Sul (SC). Revista CEPSUL–Biodiversidade e Conservação Marinha 1(1): 8-17.Schubart O (1944) A pesca nos estados de Pernambuco e Alagoas. Serviço de Informação Agrícola, Ministério da Agricultura, Rio de Janeiro. 61 p.SEAP/IBAMA/PROZEE (2005) Relatório técnico sobre o censo estrutural da pesca artesanal marítima e estuarina nos estados do Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Santa catarina e Rio Grande do Sul. Convênio SEAP/IBAMA/PROZEE Nº 110/2004, Itajaí. 151 p.Silva LMA and Dias MT (2010) A pesca artesanal no estado do Amapá: estado atual e desafios. Bol Téc Cient Cepnor 10(1): 43-53.Souza MJFT, Deda MS, Santos JP, Carvalho BLF, Araújo MLG, Garciov Filho EB, Félix DCF and Santos JC (2013) Estatística pesqueira da costa do estado de Sergipe e extremo norte da Bahia 2011. Editora UFS, São Cristóvão. 92 p.Souza MJFT, Júnior JFD, Silva FCB, Félix DCF and Santos JC (2012) Estatística pesqueira da costa do estado de Sergipe e extremo norte da Bahia 2010. Editora UFS, São Cristóvão. 88 p.SUDEPE (1980a) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1978. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE, Brasília. 84 p.SUDEPE (1980b) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1979. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE, Brasília. 141 p.SUDEPE/IBGE (1973) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1971. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE/IBGE, Rio de Janeiro. 21 p.SUDEPE/IBGE (1975) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1972. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE/IBGE, Brasília. 19 p.SUDEPE/IBGE (1976a) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1973. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE/IBGE, Rio de Janeiro. 22 p.SUDEPE/IBGE (1976b) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1974. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE/IBGE, Rio de Janeiro. 22 p.SUDEPE/IBGE (1977) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1975. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE/IBGE, Brasília. 22 p.SUDEPE/IBGE (1979a) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1976. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE/IBGE, Brasília. 105 p.SUDEPE/IBGE (1979b) Estatística da pesca. Produção–1977. Ministério da Agricultura/SUDEPE/IBGE, Brasília. 121 p.Tischer M and Santos MCF (2001) Algumas considerações sobre a ictiofauna acompanhante da pesca de camarões na foz do rio São Francisco (Alagoas/Sergipe–Brasil). Boletim Técnico Científico do CEPENE 9(1): 155-165.Tubino RdA, Monteiro-Neto C, Moraes LEdS and Paes ET (2007) Artisanal fisheries production in the coastal zone of Itaipu, Niterói, RJ, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 55(3): 187-197.UNIVALI/CCTMar (2008) Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina ano 2007: programa de apoio técnico e científico ao desenvolvimento da pesca no sudeste e sul do Brasil. Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Educação Superior de Ciências Tecnológicas, da Terra e do Mar, Itajaí. 71 p.UNIVALI/CTTMar (2013) Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina–Ano 2012. Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar, Itajaí, SC. Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Educação Superior de Ciências Tecnológicas, da Terra e do Mar, Itajaí. 66 p.Valentini H, DIncao F, Rodrigues LF, Rebelo Neto JE and Rahn E (1991) Análise da pesca do camarão rosa (Penaeus brasiliensis e Penaeus paulensis) nas regiões sudeste e sul do Brasil. Atlântica 13: 143-157.Vianna M (2009) Diagnóstico da cadeia produtiva da pesca marítima no Estado do Rio de Janeiro: relatório de pesquisa. FAERJ, SEBRAE-RJ, Rio de Janeiro. 200 p.Vianna M and Almeida T (2005) Bony fish bycatch in the southern Brazil pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis and F. paulensis) fishery. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 48(4): 611-623.Vieira BB, Carvalho JP, Silva AG, Braga AS, Ramos FA, Maia MM and Barker JMB (1945) Anuário da pesca marítima no Estado de São Paulo: 1944. Departamento da Produção Animal, Secretaria da Agricultura, Indústria e Comércio, São Paulo–SP. 122 p.Wiefels R, Pereira G, Escudero HM and Ayala M (2005) Present and future markets for fish and fish products from small scale fisheries in Latin America with special attention to the cases of Mexico, Peru and Brazil. INFOPESCA–FAO. 33 p. 28Appendix Table A1.   FAO landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector, with discards shown separately, for Brazil mainland, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Reconstructed total catch Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Recreational Discards1950 120,534 190,000 48,700 71,900 230 160 68,9001951 119,158 188,000 45,600 73,700 260 180 68,2001952 132,268 208,000 57,400 74,900 290 210 75,2001953 115,107 182,000 38,400 76,800 320 240 66,1001954 128,977 203,000 52,200 76,800 360 260 73,7001955 136,416 218,000 55,900 80,500 400 290 80,6001956 149,667 238,000 62,800 86,900 440 320 87,1001957 144,999 230,000 56,900 88,200 490 340 84,4001958 152,175 241,000 60,800 91,400 520 370 87,7001959 184,880 318,000 86,400 113,200 580 400 117,8001960 174,846 319,000 91,000 104,200 610 420 122,9001961 176,553 372,000 104,400 116,600 640 450 150,1001962 271,921 528,000 156,400 172,700 700 480 197,5001963 286,173 572,000 221,000 143,500 770 500 206,3001964 190,986 488,000 164,200 147,300 820 530 175,5001965 214,123 544,000 185,400 161,600 860 550 195,9001966 232,863 608,000 206,900 179,800 920 580 219,7001967 295,421 598,000 191,600 188,300 940 600 216,7001968 319,183 641,000 198,500 207,900 990 630 232,8001969 302,379 642,000 212,500 195,600 1,130 660 232,2001970 354,045 707,000 249,700 200,500 1,270 690 255,2001971 394,691 788,000 291,400 210,000 1,390 720 284,2001972 260,175 890,000 343,300 226,000 1,520 730 318,1001973 481,946 985,000 361,500 266,700 1,650 760 354,4001974 374,037 894,000 329,600 240,600 1,770 790 321,4001975 426,145 866,000 329,700 219,100 1,900 820 314,2001976 433,381 752,000 281,900 194,500 2,030 840 272,3001977 521,703 898,000 343,600 226,600 2,150 870 324,6001978 619,225 1,021,000 380,900 268,400 2,280 880 369,0001979 689,962 1,145,000 502,500 228,600 2,400 900 410,9001980 579,119 953,000 380,300 226,500 2,530 960 343,1001981 564,673 934,000 365,500 228,000 2,630 950 336,8001982 579,634 952,000 353,200 250,000 2,720 950 344,7001983 647,866 1,059,000 406,700 265,900 2,810 970 383,0001984 725,337 1,181,000 491,300 259,900 2,900 990 425,5001985 707,048 1,154,000 441,100 291,700 2,980 1,010 416,9001986 681,462 1,109,000 453,100 253,800 3,050 1,030 398,2001987 681,281 1,111,000 437,400 269,700 3,120 1,050 399,6001988 582,819 951,000 353,700 250,900 3,170 1,060 341,9001989 546,655 901,000 357,900 215,700 3,230 1,100 323,5001990 365,768 630,000 207,300 193,900 3,270 1,110 224,7001991 403,167 677,000 233,000 198,200 3,370 1,130 241,6001992 400,640 674,000 233,200 195,800 3,480 1,120 240,6001993 394,629 671,000 235,500 191,000 3,580 1,130 239,8001994 414,429 700,000 252,800 192,300 3,670 1,150 250,6001995 366,853 671,000 234,500 193,300 3,770 1,170 237,8001996 391,796 667,000 239,800 186,600 3,860 1,190 235,9001997 435,171 744,000 262,200 212,500 3,940 1,200 264,3001998 415,011 718,000 246,800 210,700 4,020 1,220 255,3001999 394,640 690,000 191,900 245,600 4,090 1,240 247,4002000 440,914 761,000 238,900 244,600 4,160 1,270 272,4002001 482,316 831,000 244,400 283,800 4,250 1,280 297,0002002 488,527 845,000 239,300 297,600 4,340 1,300 302,6002003 457,480 787,000 220,900 278,800 4,440 1,320 282,0002004 470,292 809,000 232,000 281,900 4,530 1,340 289,7002005 475,063 816,000 225,300 292,800 4,610 1,360 291,5002006 489,190 836,000 247,900 282,800 4,700 1,380 298,8002007 514,328 864,000 263,300 286,100 4,790 1,390 308,7002008 505,030 865,000 268,300 281,900 4,860 1,410 308,1002009 557,671 892,000 288,700 279,300 4,880 1,430 317,7002010 511,311 864,000 269,700 279,400 4,980 1,420 308,100Brazil - Freire et al. 29Appendix Table A2. Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by major taxonomic categories, for Brazil mainland, 1950-2010. Others represent approximately 300 additional taxonomic categories.Year Sciaenidae Sardinella brasiliensis Elasmobranchii Crustacea Scombridae Ariidae Other Clupeidae Others1950 59,800 15,900 14,700 15,000 3,370 15,300 9,230 56,6001951 62,200 15,500 14,000 14,700 3,220 15,100 8,200 54,8001952 69,000 15,100 17,000 15,000 3,270 16,100 9,170 63,3001953 58,000 14,200 12,600 15,400 3,160 17,400 9,270 51,8001954 69,500 13,400 15,800 15,200 2,980 16,200 10,390 59,9001955 72,100 15,400 17,900 16,500 3,580 16,500 9,400 66,3001956 79,400 19,900 19,200 16,200 4,330 16,700 10,280 71,4001957 72,600 17,300 17,900 19,300 4,710 17,500 10,020 70,9001958 77,100 15,500 18,600 19,400 5,930 16,900 11,550 75,9001959 111,100 17,600 26,500 19,900 7,750 22,300 12,430 100,8001960 107,600 21,400 30,800 24,500 7,010 16,900 12,460 98,4001961 117,500 28,100 39,500 32,300 7,590 21,400 14,550 111,2001962 167,100 46,500 47,400 45,200 9,800 37,100 21,420 153,1001963 165,400 68,800 59,400 40,000 8,820 25,100 16,980 187,5001964 137,900 47,500 43,900 41,700 8,140 27,400 15,680 166,2001965 161,600 57,300 50,900 49,600 7,630 29,500 17,860 169,9001966 191,700 72,100 57,800 59,200 7,280 35,600 20,530 163,8001967 174,200 87,800 55,000 55,800 11,740 31,000 22,240 160,5001968 193,700 83,900 57,700 65,700 10,850 31,300 24,410 173,3001969 177,200 104,700 61,500 67,200 9,340 32,000 25,510 164,5001970 199,200 89,600 71,000 62,700 11,100 33,500 20,550 219,7001971 225,200 124,100 81,600 72,500 10,680 37,600 24,620 211,5001972 242,300 163,700 90,900 80,200 11,460 37,900 31,470 231,7001973 296,700 160,400 107,800 69,200 13,130 42,400 36,110 259,1001974 282,100 115,800 99,400 69,500 13,290 32,900 34,080 247,0001975 257,300 161,200 99,300 52,700 17,040 33,100 29,750 215,4001976 240,600 79,900 80,300 54,900 11,330 30,400 22,610 231,6001977 259,600 151,900 98,500 63,000 13,890 32,500 31,090 247,4001978 273,800 194,900 107,400 64,800 27,400 35,700 37,640 279,8001979 269,800 237,900 130,600 79,400 26,360 33,000 37,880 330,5001980 234,300 215,100 105,300 72,000 29,250 35,000 37,530 224,9001981 234,500 181,500 104,000 75,700 46,050 34,400 33,880 223,9001982 235,700 176,700 106,000 80,600 54,710 36,900 35,320 225,7001983 263,600 249,200 114,600 75,300 43,920 38,200 38,430 236,0001984 283,000 243,600 128,800 89,800 102,980 34,100 40,070 258,2001985 283,000 218,600 122,200 97,500 80,070 35,900 41,170 275,2001986 259,900 250,300 120,400 80,200 73,680 31,400 43,460 249,8001987 267,200 266,000 119,100 82,700 41,430 32,500 44,030 258,0001988 233,900 168,600 101,300 86,500 47,750 32,000 38,410 242,4001989 218,000 155,600 102,300 75,600 41,580 29,900 34,060 244,4001990 166,000 31,900 68,000 71,600 37,050 27,900 26,830 201,0001991 174,000 63,500 72,000 68,900 40,730 27,700 30,700 199,7001992 172,500 63,600 70,900 66,600 46,040 27,300 31,240 195,8001993 188,200 51,100 70,800 64,500 44,000 26,500 33,100 192,7001994 186,900 81,900 72,700 62,400 47,070 26,200 37,720 185,5001995 182,200 59,500 66,000 65,000 45,280 24,300 40,630 187,6001996 167,800 95,300 64,200 58,700 52,460 23,900 33,700 171,2001997 182,000 116,500 70,200 66,600 57,480 26,200 31,260 193,8001998 182,900 85,200 69,000 64,400 55,580 29,100 37,300 194,6001999 191,900 27,000 59,600 54,000 64,360 38,200 43,550 211,8002000 219,200 19,000 71,700 61,800 63,190 44,100 44,940 237,6002001 250,300 49,500 71,300 51,600 57,120 50,500 44,160 256,2002002 262,000 32,900 72,100 52,800 61,290 46,100 46,430 271,7002003 243,700 32,000 68,700 56,500 56,110 38,500 46,600 245,3002004 238,500 60,500 68,900 55,900 58,700 42,300 45,980 238,7002005 240,400 47,700 68,500 62,100 59,030 39,200 44,360 254,3002006 251,700 59,800 70,200 53,400 59,110 39,900 45,600 256,0002007 254,800 64,200 72,500 52,900 59,490 39,100 52,510 268,7002008 243,500 85,300 72,100 59,000 65,030 38,900 52,800 248,0002009 246,100 116,200 75,600 53,700 65,200 39,300 46,860 249,1002010 248,100 104,700 72,300 51,700 48,510 38,800 47,630 251,900 30Oceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 31oceanic islands oF Brazil: catch reconstruction From 1950 to 20101Esther Divovich and Daniel PaulySea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canadae.divovich@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caaBstractThis catch reconstruction encompasses the waters within the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of three Brazilian oceanic island clusters: Fernando de Noronha (FN), Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago (SPSPA), and Trindade Island and Martim Vaz Archipelago (TMV). Two industrial multi-gear fleets operate within the waters of these islands, one targeting yellowfin tuna, wahoo, and flying fish in the waters of SPSPA, and the other targeting various reef species in the waters of TMV. Artisanal and subsistence catches were also estimated within the waters of Fernando de Noronha, in addition to bait usage and discards at sea for all fleets. Reported data were only present for some years for SPSPA, where total estimated removals were twice as high as reported data from 1950 to 2010. Total removals from all islands increased from approximately 220 t·year-1 in the 1950s to a peak of over 770 t in 2004, before slightly declining by 2010. Only 40% of this catch was reported. Actual catches within their EEZs are even higher if one considers effort exerted by domestic and foreign pelagic longlining, which is not considered in the present reconstruction. Oceanic islands are especially vulnerable to overfishing, and this, paired with Brazil’s inability to enforce the jurisdiction of these islands, have resulted in illegal fishing by foreign fleets, especially Asian fleets targeting pelagic species.introductionThe oceanic islands of Brazil consist of three major clusters remote from the Brazilian mainland, i.e., Fernando de Noronha Island (FN), Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago (SPSPA), and Trindade Island and Martim Vaz Archipelago (TMV). Although each island cluster has a distinct history and is surrounded by its own Exclusive Economic Zone (see Figure 1), the common factors that link them are a fragile ecosystem paired with their importance to various species which rely on these islands as sanctuary, feeding, and spawning ground (Viana et al. 2010). While the Brazilian large-marine ecosystem is considered to have a low productivity, areas with seamounts, including all three oceanic islands covered here, are considered ‘hot spots’ of biodiversity (Campos et al. 2006). Yet due to their isolation, any type of exploitation or alteration can easily lead to extinction and threaten insular reef fish, especially as is being done by targeting top predators, which has a “cascade effect on other species, including endemic species” (Pinheiro et al. 2010). In such fisheries, commercial exploitation can drive the fishery to extinction in just five to ten years (Pinheiro et al. 2010).Given this vulnerability, it is extremely important to obtain and study accurate catch statistics and monitor the biological status of species on the islands. Currently, commercial catches are not reported to FAO with the level of detail necessary to evaluate the total withdrawals from these waters. In this reconstruction, we estimated domestic commercial and artisanal catch, including bait usage and discards at sea using the same methodology as the catch reconstruction for the Brazilian mainland (Freire et al. 2014). Additionally, for the island of Fernando de Noronha, which unlike the other two islands has a small population of permanent residents, subsistence catches were calculated.Fernando de Noronha (FN), Arquipélago de Fernando de NoronhaThe Fernando de Noronha complex (03º50’S and 32º25’W) is composed of six islands, with the main island being Fernando de Noronha proper, comprising 91% of the archipelago, along with 14 remote islets (Castro 2010; Dominguez et al. 2013). It is located in the South Atlantic ocean, 350 km from Natal, Rio Grande do Norte (Castro 2010), and due to its closer proximity to the Brazilian mainland than the other oceanic islands, its history has been more intertwined with human development.Discovered in the early 1500s by navigator Amerigo Vespucci, FN was originally a trading post, later a prison, although its beauty and wildlife often attracted many naturalist and researchers, including Charles Darwin in the 19th century (Castro 2010). According to historian Marietta Borges, in the time of the prison, fishing activity was performed by prisoners who had the duty to return from the sea with fish, otherwise they would be punished (IOPE 2010). The prison was disbanded after World War II, when the island served as a strategic military outpost (Anon 1978), and shortly thereafter a population of approximately 1,000 established itself, subsisting on agriculture and fishing.1 Cite as: Divovich, E. and Pauly, D. (2015) Oceanic islands of Brazil: catch reconstruction from 1950 to 2010). pp. 31-48. In: Freire, KMF and Pauly, D (eds). Fisheries catch reconstructions for Brazil’s mainland and oceanic islands. Fisheries Centre Research Reports vol.23(4). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727]. 32In 1988, the archipelago was declared a National Park (Parnamar – FN), which consequently restricted fishing activities, which to this day can only engage in more offshore waters at depths beyond 50 m (Silva Jr 2003). This, along with its transition to a civil government, was the impetus for a dramatic increase in tourism (Souza and Vieira Filho 2011). Currently, Fernando de Noronha has a substantial community of residents and a constant presence of tourists, whereby tourism is the main economic activity, which has generated multiple transformations of island life, including changes to preexisting economic activities such as agriculture, livestock and fisheries (Souza and Vieira Filho 2011).Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago (SPSPA), Arquipélago de São Pedro e São PauloSaint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago is composed of six major islands, four smaller ones, and various rockheads located close to the equator at 00º55’N, 29º20’W, 533 nautical miles from Natal – RN and 985 miles from Guinea-Bissau, Africa (Viana et al. 2010). Due to its strategic location in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, it is a key component in the life cycle of various migratory species (fish, crustaceans, and birds) that use this region as a sanctuary for food, spawning grounds, and shelter (Viana et al. 2010). Of the 123 known taxa of fish, 70 are pelagic fish (the other 52 are reef fishes) – this abundance of predators such as tunas, billfish, and sharks is explained by the aggregations of flying fish who are the main prey for species like yellowfin tuna and wahoo (Viana et al. 2010). Indeed, the CPUE of yellowfin tuna was cited in the 1980s to be four times higher than that of adjacent ocean areas (Hazin 1993).Such factors undoubtedly attracted fishing, starting in the late 1950s by leased Japanese boats operating from the port of Recife, PE and once again briefly in the mid-1960s (Hazin et al. 1998). However, only in 1988 was more significant fishing effort exerted by national fishing boats based out of Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, mainly targeting species are yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandrii) and flying fish (Cypselurus cyanopterus) (Viana et al. 2010). This fleet employed numerous gears, including handline, longline, dipnets, and trolling where flying fish is commonly used as bait (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006). In 1998, the ‘Research Station of the Archipelago’ (ECASPSP) was established, which has since supported a small staff of fisheries researchers and other biologists (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006).Trindade Island and Martim Vaz Archipelago (TMV), Arquipélago de Trindade e Martim VazThe Island of Trindade (20º30’S and 29º20’W) and the Arquipélago Martim Vaz (20º28’S and 28º50’W) are the only emerged portions of extinct underwater volcanoes formed over three million years ago (Pinheiro et al. 2010; Serafini et al. 2010). Discovered in 1502 by Vasco de Gama, the islands were claimed by Portugal; however, with the independence of Brazil, they were transferred to Brazilian control. Approximately 1,160 km from the Brazilian state of Espírito Santo, the islands have their own distinct Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 miles, enforced mostly by a small but permanent Brazilian Navy base established in 1957.Besides the 32 military personnel stationed there, the islands remain isolated and uninhabited (Pinheiro et al. 2010). Nonetheless, the islands are fished from the mainland, and perhaps even overfished as evidenced by the relatively low density of large carnivorous fishes (Pereira-Filho et al. 2011). Figure 1.  Oceanic islands of Brazil with their respective Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).Oceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 33Like many other islands, the ecosystem is fragile due to few shallow areas and small reef area. Recent research found about 100 fish species in the reefs of Trindade, which is low compared to the Islands of Guarapari (the south coast of Espírito Santo), which has over 300 species. This is common for isolated tropical islands of the Atlantic Ocean (Gusmão et al. 2005) as are the high occurrence of endemic species; in this case there are six.methods1. Industrial fisheriesIn the two (mostly) uninhabited islands of TMV and SPSPA, there are Brazilian fleets that travel from the mainland to fish. The main fleet fishing in the waters of SPSPA is the multi-gear fleet based in Natal, state of Rio Grande do Norte, which is considered an industrial fleet. The waters of TMV are fished by an ‘artisanal’ fleet, based out of Vitoria, state of Espírito Santo, mainly targeting reef species. Although this fleet is considered artisanal by Brazil, the Sea Around Us considers this industrial, as artisanal catches are only those that are less than 50 km from inhabited shore or 200 m in depth. Since the islands are uninhabited, any fishing by non-inhabitants was considered industrial.1.1 TMV – Multi-gear line fleet (handline, bottom longline, and trolling) targeting reef speciesThe use of hook and line is one of the few gears that allows fishers to access areas of rugged oceanic topography such as coral reefs and rocky bottoms where fish can hide (Martins et al. 2005).Targeting reef fish was practiced by the Espírito Santo fleet for many decades, but did not extend to the waters of TMV until there was a decline in catch rates of large reef fish in the coastal water of Espírito Santo in the 1980s (Martins et al. 2005). During the 1980s, the Vitória fleet (ES) began to search for more abundant fishing grounds, and in “large movements” established the Trindade and Martim Vaz seamounts as their destination (Pinheiro et al. 2010). Thus, this is a clear sign of spatial expansion of fishing fleets driven by unsustainable fishing effort (Swartz et al. 2010).To estimate catch for the Vitória fleet in Trindade and Martin Vaz, we used the CPUE and effort data in (Martins et al. 2005) and made some adjustments to account for the specific CPUE, effort, and species distribution of Trindade and Martin Vaz in (Pinheiro et al. 2010). To calculate effort, which from here on will be represented as the number of trips per year, we obtained three anchor points from different periods of time from 1950 to 2010 and interpolated between them. From 1950 to 1980, we assumed that effort was zero, as the catch rates near to the coastal areas of Espírito Santo were still high and there were no cases of fishing cited within the waters of TMV by this fleet.From 1990 to 1997, the fleet had established its fishing destinations around the islands and there was an effort of 3.9 trips per year, calculated from Martins et al. (2005) by using the effort of the entire bottom longline and handline Vitória fleet targeting reef species in 1997 as the baseline. That year, there were 84 boats and an effort of 434 trips taken. Furthermore, the spatial location of these trips was mapped and only three trips out of the 336 trips sampled, were within the EEZ of Trindade and Martin Vaz. This corresponds to 0.9% of all trips by the Vitória fleet, and by extending this sample proportion to the entire fleet, we can deduce that in 1997 there were approximately 3.9 trips per year into the EEZ.After 1997, there is evidence of a dramatic increase in effort by the Vitória fleet due to the collapse of the coastal shrimp and Peroá (Balistes capriscus) populations, whereby these fishers shifted their efforts to target reef species. According to (Martins et al. 2005), between the late 1990s to 2002, the effort of the Vitória fleet as a whole increased by 50%. There is evidence, however, that effort within the waters of Trindade and Martim Vaz increased nearly fivefold.During a 2007 scientific expedition, (Pinheiro et al. 2010) reported that around Trindade, there was a “constant presence of fishing boats from Vitória”. The 1997 level of effort hardly fits this description, as four trips a year, at 20 days each means that there was a presence of one vessel only 22% of the year, rather than several vessels the entire year as described. For there to be a “constant presence” within the two month period of the expedition, there must be at least six trips within this time frame, which means that the entire 60 days there were about two boats present. Extending this to the entire year would yield 36 trips annually. In order to remain conservative and include the possibility that the two months of the survey were busier than most, we assumed that half of this amount, i.e., 18 trips were made in 2007. We also assumed that this effort stayed constant from 2007 to 2010. Since the effort for the entire Vitória fleet grew by at least 50% as stated, 18 trips a year is still quite small, amounting to less than 4% of all trips made by the Vitória fleets.We interpolated between zero effort from 1950 – 1980 to an effort of 3.9 trips per year from 1990 – 1997, the transition period representing when the Vitória fleet was steadily exploring new fishing areas. Thereafter we interpolate to 18 trips in 2007 – 2010.The CPUE of TMV was calculated by using the effort of the Vitória fleet targeting reef fish as a baseline, at 2.65 t per trip. However, the CPUE was undoubtedly higher, as fishers were leaving the Vitória coastal areas to find spots with higher catch rates. Specifically, a vessel bound for the Martim Vaz Islands Trinidad from Vitória had to travel five days at sea to arrive and five days to return, while trips lasted a maximum of 20 days at sea (Fundação Promar 2005). Using simple economics, in order for fishers to double their effort, losing 50% of the time on commuting, the CPUE for TMV must have been at least twice as high to offset their losses. Since the average CPUE for the Vitória fleet in 1997 was 2.65 t per trip, we assumed that the CPUE for the TMV islands was twice as high at 5.3 t per trip from 1950 to 2003. This is conservative, as it does not account for fuel cost. 34There is evidence that this CPUE has declined since then, but this has varied by species. Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perzii) and yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa) have been exploited for a number of years by bottom longline fleet in shallow waters around TMV; captains and crews confirmed that population of these species declined over time (Pinheiro et al. 2010). According to one of the boat captains who has been fishing there for 12 years, yellowfin grouper visibly declined: from 1997 to 2003 they caught on average 600 kg per trip, whereas in 2007, they only caught one to three specimens per trip. Taking this statement at face value, this implies that the CPUE decreased from 600 kg to 4 kg per trip in just four years, the latter of which was calculated by estimating the average weight of yellowfin grouper using the length-weight function in Fishbase (www.fishbase.org) and multiplying this by the average of two specimens per trip.We compared the 1997 CPUE of yellowfin grouper in at 0.6 t per trip to the overall CPUE of 5.3 t per trip, which yielded 11.3% contribution to the entire catch. We used this estimate as a baseline to estimate the contribution of other species, as no exact disaggregation was available, only a list of common species caught. Yellowfin grouper is caught using the handline hear, which is used both day and night when longlines soaking. This gear targets other serranids like misty grouper (Epinephelus mystacinus) and rock hind (Ephinephelus adscensionis), each of which were also assigned a contribution of 11.3% by weight. Likewise, the gear targets large carangids like black jack (Caranx lugubris), horse-eye jack (Caranx latus), rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata) and various Seriola species (Pinheiro et al. 2010). The sum contribution of the serranids, 34%, was also applied to large carangids, split equally between the four species.Bottom longline is also a common gear, at least two of which are deployed at the end of the afternoon in the shallow reef habitats of the islands a few meters from shoreline and retrieved the following morning. The bottom longline targets reef sharks, specifically Caribbean reef shark and nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum), which were each assumed to contribute 11.3% to catch. The remaining 9% of catch was evenly distributed among the three remaining taxonomic groups caught occasionally with hand line: bigeyes or catalufas (Priacanthidae), snake mackerels (Gempylidae) and moray eels (Muraenidae).To calculate CPUE for 2007, we assumed the same CPUE for all species as from 1950 – 2003, except for yellowfin grouper, as mentioned previously, and the Caribbean reef shark. The latter was reported to be overexploited, as the TMV insular complex is a nursery for Caribbean reef sharks and catches of juvenile species were common (Pinheiro et al. 2010). Therefore, we assumed that the CPUE of Caribbean reef shark decreased by 25% between 2003 and 2007, from a CPUE of 0.6 t per trip to 0.45 t per trip.The total CPUEs of all species was added in 2007, assuming that all species except yellowfin grouper and Caribbean reef shark had constant CPUEs over time, resulting in a total CPUE of 4.6 t per trip in 2007. We assumed that the CPUE declined linearly between 5.3 in 2003 to 4.6 in 2007, and then remained constant thereafter. Please refer to Table 1 for a summary of the CPUE values and species disaggregation.Bait usage in TMVThe use of live bait was common in the fisheries of all three islands. We estimated the bait usage per trip for the fleet fishing in the waters of TMV at approximately 429 kg·boat-1·trip-1, which was an average of the bait usage of the two most common gears used, bottom longline and hand line as sampled by (Martins et al. 2005) for the Vitoria fleet. Trolling was used to catch bait-like small scombrids (Scombridae) and other local reef fish such as coney (Cephalopholis fulva), squirrelfish (Holocentrus adscensionis), glasseye (Heteropriacanthus cruentatus) and spotted moray (Gymnothorax moringa) (Pinheiro et al. 2010). We multiplied the rate of bait catch per trip by the effort already calculated and assigned 20% of the catch to each of the five taxa.1.2 SPSPA – Multi-gear fleet targeting tunas and wahooThe present-day fishing operations off the waters of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago began in 1988 with vessels based Rio Grande do Norte (Hazin et al. 1998), and due to the high productivity of the island, a constant presence of boats has been there ever since. The catch is mostly comprised of yellowfin tuna, wahoo, and flying fish targeted with various gears such as handline, trolling, pelagic longline, dip net, and traps (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006; Viana et al. 2008; Viana et al. 2010). According to (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006), fishing near the islands is carried out year-round with at least one and at most four vessels operating on site.Except for the pelagic longline fleet, which is not considered in the present analysis, no literature is available on a domestic multi-gear fishery prior to 1988. However, personal communication with José Airton Vasconcelos, a member of IBAMA previously involved in the experimental fishery on the DIADOROM from 1977 to 1981, suggests otherwise. While the experimental fishery J.A. Vasconcelos was involved in was located mostly off the oceanic banks of Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte, the captain Manel Murrão of the Pernambuco-based vessel RIO NEGRO would regularly communicate with their team via radio about their trips to SPSPA. The reported fishing effort was one trip per month and the fishing methods were the same as is common in the present time period (J.A. Vasconcelos, pers. comm.). Furthermore, José Airton Vasconcelos provided catch data reported to the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Norte from 1995 to 2010 (Appendix Table A1). This implies that any catches prior to 1995 were unreported.Thus, to reconstruct catches, we generated a time series of CPUE and effort data using representative anchor points and multiplied these values for reconstructed catch. We then compared the reported data with reconstructed catch and made appropriate adjustments.Oceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 35CPUE (Catch Per Unit of Effort)Our CPUE for the earlier time period was obtained from the research vessel DIADORIM in 1977 and 1978 which spent some time near the islands of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago. The CPUE calculated for SPSPA was 60 kg·hour-1 by trolling, employed on average 6 hours per day, 74.1 kg·hour-1 for dipnet, employed on average 2.2 hours per day during the survey, and 74.8 kg·hour-1 by handline, with on average 2.9 hours fished per day for the survey (Oliveira et al. 1997). Cumulatively, the CPUE was 0.74 t·fishing day-1.For the later time period, we used the sample data from (Viana et al. 2010) where a total of 2171 t of fish were caught, 20% wahoo, 12% flying fish, 60% tunas, 4% sharks, and 4% other species. Furthermore, it was stated that the CPUE for wahoo was 115 kg·fishing day-1 and for yellowfin tuna it was 450 kg·fishing day-1 (Viana et al. 2010). We determined the sample effort in fishing days using catch and CPUE estimates for both wahoo and albacore tuna, which was 3,775 fishing days and 2894 fishing days, respectively. We averaged the two to obtain an estimate of 3335 fishing days for the entire time period, and divided the total sample catch by effort exerted to obtain a CPUE of 0.65 t·fishing day-1.We assumed that from 1950 to 1977, the CPUE was 0.74 t·boat-1·fishing day-1, interpolated to 0.65 t·boat-1·fishing day-1 in 1998, and then remained constant at this level until 2010.EffortAs stated previously, the reported fishing effort for fishery in the 1970s was one trip per month, which needed to be converted to days at sea to apply the appropriate CPUE. Due to the similarity in fishing methods during the earlier and later time periods (J.A. Vasconcelos, pers. comm.), we converted the number of trips to the equivalent number of days at sea using a representative value of 11 days at sea per trip. This was calculated by comparing two independent measures of CPUE for yellowfin tuna, each with varying units of effort. The first measurement was official catch reported to Rio Grande do Norte from 2006 to 2010, divided by the number of trips taken annually (Appendix 1). The second measurement was the CPUE in (Viana et al. 2010) for yellowfin tuna for the equivalent years, which was in terms of kg·boat-1·fishing day-1. We assumed these two measurements were equal and consequently obtained that one trip is, on average, equivalent to 11 days at sea.Thus, effort from 1977 to 1981 was 12 trips annually, or 132 days at sea. There is no clear way of knowing when the fishery truly began or ended, but in order to stay conservative we assumed these years are the peak years of the fishery. To account for the realistic scenario that fishing had gradually increased to this level (and conversely, waned after the peak of the fishery), we assumed half this effort for the years 1976 and 1982.Next, we estimated the effort for the present fishery as described by (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006), who reported that fishing was carried out year-round with at least one and at most four vessels operating on site (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006), or an annual average of 2.5 boats operational for 912.5 fishing days cumulative, assuming each boat operated year-round as was stated. To be conservative, we estimated effort as the midpoint between this average, and the minimum fishing effort of one boat operating there annually, or 365 fishing days. In summary, our estimate of fishing effort during the later time period (starting with 1998) was 639 fishing days. For the years prior, effort was interpolated from 0 in 1987 to 639 fishing days in 1998.Reconstructed catchEffort and CPUE were multiplied to obtain an estimated reconstructed catch. Since the CPUE and effort values were constant from 1998 to 2010 (due to the aggregation of CPUE and catch data over the sample years), the catch for the later time period was constant. We compared this to the reported data from 1995 – 2010 (Appendix Table A1), which was more variable, and hence felt it was appropriate to follow the trend line of the reported data. Total reconstructed catch estimated at 416 t·year-1 from 1998 to 2010, while reported landings in this same time period Table 1.  CPUE and relative proportion of catch by taxon for the Vitória multi-gear fleet.Species name Common name Gear Species group  Years 1950–2003 Years 2007–2010CPUE (t/trip)(%) CPUE (t/trip) (%)Carcharhinus perzii Caribbean reef shark Bottom longline Reef shark 0.60 11 0.450 10Ginglymostoma cirratum Nurse shark Bottom longline Reef shark 0.60 11 0.600 13Caranx lugubris Black jack Handline Large carangid 0.45 8 0.450 10Caranx Latus Horse-eye jack Handline Large carangid 0.45 8 0.450 10Elagatis bipinnulata Rainbow runner Handline Large carangid 0.45 8 0.450 10Seriola Amberjacks Handline Large carangid 0.45 8 0.450 10Epinephelus mystacinus Misty grouper Handline Serranid 0.60 11 0.600 13Mycteroperca venenosa Yellowfin grouper Handline Serranid 0.60 11 0.004 0.1Epinephelus adscensionis Rock hind Handline Serranid 0.60 11 0.600 12.9Priacanthidae Bigeyes or catalufas Handline - 0.17 3 0.170 4Gempylidae Snake mackerels Handline - 0.17 3 0.170 4Muraenidae Moray eels Handline - 0.17 3 0.170 4Total - - - 5.30 100.0 4.560 100.0 36averaged 261 t·year-1. The unreported component for this time period was approximately 60% of reported landings. We applied this percentage to all reported landings from 1995 to 2010 assuming the same species composition as the reported portion.Prior to this, we utilized the product of CPUE and effort data for the years 1976 to 1982, and then interpolated between zero catch in 1987, to the catch estimated in 1995 at 175 t. We utilized the species composition from the last two years of reported data for any catches from 1950 to 1994, i.e., we averaged the species compositions from 1995 and 1996.The only taxon that we did not include in the species distribution was the brown spiny lobster (Panulirus echinatus), which has a small contribution by weight to overall catch, yet is a very economically important species. Thus, we modeled the catch separately for this species.Brown spiny lobsterSpiny lobsters, which are one of the most highly valued resources in northeastern Brazil, have been heavily targeted and thus resulting in dramatic depletion due to illegal and predatory activities (Pinheiro et al. 2003). While most species of spiny lobster are well-studied and regulated by fisheries legislation, brown spiny lobster is the only species not considered in such management regulation, likely due to the fact that it prefers offshore rocky regions like Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago, and thus has not been heavily targeted until the other lobster species closer to the mainland were depleted. While traps were originally used to target this species in the 1980s, by the 2000s this method was replaced by diving, which had significantly higher yields.According to a sample of 15 research expeditions where traps were placed around SPSPA, 1494 lobsters were caught and sampled, each weighting an average of 200 g. We assumed that one research expedition was equivalent to two fishing days, or at least 1 day to set up traps and the following day to analyze and record findings. This results in a CPUE for traps of approximately 10 kg per fishing day. Since trap gear was known for yielding small catches, we assumed that CPUE for diving was twice as high, at 20 kg per fishing day. We modelled that traps were used until 1990, at which point the diving linearly replaced traps until 2003, when the only gear employed was diving. We also assumed that only 50% of the fishers, and thus 50% of the effort was directed at brown spiny lobster, especially since diving is a rather skilled endeavor.Bait usage in SPSPASince the gears that used live bait for fishing in SPSPA were pelagic longline, hand line, and trolling, we took the average of the bait usage for these three gears in (Martins et al. 2005) and arrived at 293 kg ·boat-1·trip-1. Since the effort for SPSPA was represented in terms of days at sea, we adjusted the bait catch by dividing the estimate by 11, which was the average number of days at sea per trip as calculated previously. Thus, the bait usage was estimated at approximately 15 kg·boat-1·fishing day-1. This was multiplied by the effort previously calculated. In SPSPSA, dipnets were used to capture flying fish, which are used as live bait (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006). Sometimes shark skin was cut in the shape of a fish for bait, but most accounts focus on flying fish as the most common bait used (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006).2. Artisanal fisheries2.1 Fernando de Noronha artisanal fisheryThe only artisanal fishery present is located on the island of Fernando de Noronha, which has a small-scale fishery active since 1950, where effort is exerted by artisanal fishers living on the island (Barros 1963; Lessa et al. 1998; Dominguez et al. 2013). In the early years of the fishery, after World War II, there was no strict control or oversight, so fishers freely brought fish to the beaches, often leading to the food poisoning of residents. This encouraged stricter measures, including beheading and gutting at sea along with storing fish in crushed ice (Barros 1963). By the mid-1950s and early 1960s, fishing took place along the entire coastline during the entire year by a solid base of artisanal fishers, working on four motorized boats (two with steel hulls and two with wood), ranging from 8 to 11.5 meters in length (Barros 1963). These fishers employed mostly hook and line gear, the most common of which were trolling and ‘deep line’ with line lengths between 5 to 100 fathoms and up to four hooks per line (Barros 1963; de Moura and Paiva 1965). On average, fishing took place eight to ten hours a day, starting in the early morning, employing between four to ten men on board, depending on the size of the boat (Barros 1963).While the artisanal fleet continued using the same fishing gear and navigation techniques from 1950 to 2010, effort exerted changed significantly over time. Although the population did not grow significantly prior to the establishment of the island as a National Park in 1988, the number of fishing boats, and thus fishing effort increased substantially. After 1988, however, fishing effort declined as the tourist industry expanded. While the number of boats remained high, fishers “were attracted by the income and began to work full or part-time in tourism, which gradually absorbed much of the labor force” (IOPE 2010). Thus, during this later period of time, fishing effort declined.Throughout the entire time period, fishing generally took place within a radius not exceeding 5 nautical miles from shore (Lessa et al. 1998), and congregating near the ‘parede’, or ‘wall’ where the depth dramatically drops off to 800 Oceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 37– 1200 meters and creates an upwelling leading to nutrient enrichment (Dominguez et al. 2013). After 1988, when the PNM was established, fishing was no longer allowed within 50 m of shore, although on occasion the PNM allows fishing inside its limits for species “of passage”, especially barracuda (Lessa et al. 1998).In order to estimate catches by this fleet, we took the product of CPUE and fishing effort from 1950 to 2010. Annual effort was represented as the sum of the efforts of all boats, with the effort of a boat equal to the number of fishing trips (Lessa et al. 1998). One trip was equivalent to one day of fishing averaging eight to ten hours at sea (Lessa et al. 1998; Dominguez et al. 2013), and the CPUE was denoted in kg of catch per trip per year.According to (Barros 1963), in the mid-1950s up until 1963 commercial catch was estimated between 150 to 200 t, derived from the fact that when the four boats of the fleet are in operation, they export to Recife about 3 to 4 tonnes weekly, for approximately 50 weeks per year. Additionally, Barros (1963) cites that on average, the CPUE was 700 kg·boat-1·day-1, i.e., 700 kg·boat-1·trip-1. We conservatively used the lower bound of 150 tonnes annually as our baseline and using the CPUE derived an average of 214 trips annually.For the years 1989 and 1990, Lessa et al. (1998) estimated a significantly lower CPUE at 62 kg per trip and 52.5 kg per trip, respectively, but also a significantly higher effort with 1281 and 859 trips taken in the respective years. Additionally, Lessa et al. (1998) stated that the CPUE in 1995 recorded by IBAMA was on average 55.5 kg per trip and the effort in the mid-1990s was shared between nine boats each taking an average of 5.5 trips monthly. Thus, we estimated an effort of 594 trips in 1995.Finally, during a six-month trip from April to September in 2013, Dominguez (2013) sampled 23.75 t of landings obtained by an effort of 250 trips, thus resulting in a CPUE of 95 kg per trip and an annual effort of 500 trips. We compiled all estimates of CPUE (Figure 2) and effort (Figure 3) and multiplied the quantities to obtain total catch. As a quick verification, we compared our results to some “scarce records” (Lessa et al. 1998) that were compiled from non-systematic catch statistics. The general trend marked that of the one calculated here, with catches peaking in the mid-1970s and declining thereafter. The only data point available in the 1970s was in 1974 where the catch was reported at 280 t. Our estimate resulted in a total of 286 t of catch in that year, which is remarkably similarly given an independent methodology.In order to disaggregate the catch by species, we used the composition of catch from each of the three studies and interpolated the proportions over time (see Table 2). From 1950 to 1963, we used the description from (Barros 1963) to assign species composition. Although (Lessa et al. 1998) for the years 1988 to 1990 had more specific data about species composition than (Barros 1963), we hesitated to use it for the earlier time period later studies took place after the establishment of the Arquipélago as a National Park, which in consequence restricted the fishing activity until this day to outside 50m from the coast (Silva Jr 2003; IOPE 2010). Indeed, of the thirteen major commercially significant species or species groups listed in (Barros 1963), four were not included in (Lessa et al. 1998) at all. Furthermore, of the ones included in (Lessa et al. 1998), approximately half had a minuscule contribution to overall catch.It was stated in (Barros 1963) that during a sample taken over seven days, the top catches were predominantly of red porgy pargo (Pagrus pagrus), barracudas (Sphyraenidae), and the group of species of tuna known by the Portuguese common name of ‘albacora’. For these three species or taxonomic groups, we estimated a contribution of 20% each to catch by weight. In order to be consistent with the species classifications for later time periods in (Lessa et al. 1998) and (Dominguez et al. 2013), we assumed that the main barracuda species referred to was the great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), and that the species referred to as ‘albacoras’ were the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus), and albacore (Thunnus alalunga), each of which contributed 5% by weight to catch. (Barros 1963) also mentioned 11 other species that were significant to the fishery, each of which we assumed contributed equally to the remaining 40% of catch, or 3.6% each. The species classification of jacks and groupers were further divided into more specific species so to have a comparable level of detail with (Lessa et al. 1998) and (Dominguez et al. 2013).01002003004005006007008001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010CPUE (kg/ trip)Year02004006008001000120014001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Effort (number of trips)YearFigure 2.  CPUE in kg per trip of the artisanal fishery in Fernando de Noronha.Figure 3.  Effort in number of trips of the artisanal fishery in Fernando de Noronha. 38For the time period 1988 – 1990, studied by (Lessa et al. 1998), the taxonomic composition by weight was based on the family of fish, with further clues in the text as to the particular contribution of each species. When there was no particular description in the text, all species for that family received an equal contribution to the percentage assigned for that taxonomic family. The majority of catch in (Lessa et al. 1998) was attributed to great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus), albacore (Thunnus alalunga), and black jack (Caranx lugubris). (Dominguez et al. 2013) also reported on the species composition of sampled catch by percentage and all but two of the 14 species listed were also in (Lessa et al. 1998). In order to have a comparable level of detail to that of (Lessa et al. 1998), we split the more general designation of Caranx species into horse-eye jack (Caranx latus) and blue runner (Caranx crysos). Further details can be seen in Table 2.Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) fisheryUp until 1988, we believe, octopus fishing was purely subsistence in nature, carried out by residents, as there was no mention of this fishery prior to the 2000s. With increased tourist activity after 1988, there was an intensified exploration of activities related with the marine environment such as recreational diving and boating, as well as the gradual migration and adaption of fishing vessels towards the tourist industry (Lessa et al. 1998; Leite et al. 2008; IOPE 2010). Since octopus was caught via diving and a majority of octopus fishers were also involved in the tourist industry, it follows that octopus fishing grew proportionally with the tourist industry.Table 2.  -Species composition of catch by the artisanal fleet in FN, by time period.Species name English common name Portuguese c. name 1950–1963(%; Barros 1963)1988–1990(%; Lessa et al 1998)2013(%: Dominguez 2013)Thunnus albacares Yellowfin tuna Albacora-laje 5.0 10.0 30.1Thunnus obesus Bigeye tuna Albacora-bandolim 5.0 5.8 -Thunnus alalunga Albacore Albacora-branca 5.0 10.0 -Thunnus atlanticus Blackfin tuna Albacorinha 5.0 10.0 -Acanthocybium solandri Wahoo Cavala-aipim, cavala 3.6 6.8 7.6Katsuwonus pelamis Skipjack tuna Bonito-rei 3.6 0.5 -Sphyraena barracuda Great barracuda Barracuda, bicuda 20.0 40.0 6.6Sphyraena picudilla Southern sennet Barracuda-corona - 2.0 -Caranx lugubris Black jack Xaréu-preto 1.8 5.0 16.1Caranx hippos Crevalle jack Xaréu-branco 1.8 0.2 0.3Caranx crysos Blue runner Xaralete - 0.2 2.2Caranx latus Horse-eye jack Xixarro-preto - 0.2 2.2Decapterus spp. Scads Xixarro-branco - 0.2 -Elagatis bipinnulata Rainbow runner Peixe-rei - 0.2 24.5Seriola dumerili Greater amberjack Arabaiana - 0.2 1.3Selene vomer Lookdown Galo-de-penacho - 0.2 -Alectis ciliaris African pompano Galo-de-alto - 0.2 -Trachinotus ovatus Pompano Pampo-garabebel - 0.2 -Coryphaena hippurus Common dolphinfish Dourado - 0.6 3.4Istiophorus albicans Atlantic sailfish Agulhão-Vela - 0.6 -Xiphias gladius Swordfish Agulhão-roliço - 0.6 -Lutjanus jocu Dog snapper Dentão - 0.6 2.0Lutjanus purpureus Southern red snapper Pargo 20.0 0.6 -Lutjanus analis Mutton snapper Cioba 3.6 0.6 -Hyporthodus niveatus Snowy grouper Serigado-cherne 1.8 0.0 -Mycteroperca bonaci Black grouper Serigado-badejo 1.8 0.0 -Anisotremus surinamensis Black margate Pirambu - 0.0 -Epinephelus morio Red grouper Garoupa 3.6 0.6 -Cephalopholis fulva Coney Piraúna - 0.6 0.1Melichthys niger Black triggerfish Cangulo-bandeira - 0.6 2.2Balistes vetula Queen triggerfish Cangulo-listrado - 0.6 -Holocentrus adscensionis Squirrelfish Mariquita - 0.6 -Lactophrys spp. Cowfishes Baiacu-caixão - 0.6 -Carcharhinus spp. Sharks Tubarão-sucuri, cacão 3.6 0.6 -Carangoides bartholomaei Yellow jack Guarajuba 3.6 - 0.5Makaira nigricans Blue marlin Marlin azul - - 0.7Epinephelus itajara Goliath grouper Mero 3.6 - -Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish Enchova 3.6 - -Clupeidae Herrings and shads and sardines and menhadensSardinha 3.6 - -Oceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 39However, the base of octopus fishers themselves changed little, as more than 80% of the octopus fishers interviewed in 2003 to 2005 learned to fish with their parents and have been involved with octopus fishing since childhood or adolescence (Leite et al. 2008), implying that it was a tradition carried down in the family. In 2004, an average octopus fisher has been fishing for 14 years, which is further evidence that these fishers had been fishing prior to the explosion of tourism.Between 2003 to 2005 (Leite et al. 2008) stated that there were 45 octopus fishers, mostly operating part-time, and that 80% of them, or 36, were the stable base of octopus ‘traditional’ fishers from 1988 to 2010. We assumed that the other 20% of fishers began fishing as a result of the increase in tourism, so that these ‘non-traditional’ fishers numbered 0 in 1987 and increased linearly to 9 in 2004 when the study was done and continued to increase following the same trend to 12 in 2010.From 2003 to 2005 an average fisher consumed 1.35 kg and sold 6.55 kg of octopus on a weekly basis (Leite et al. 2008). For subsistence activity, we will assume they are active all 52 weeks of the year, while for commercial activity it was stated in (Leite et al. 2008) that fishers were most active 32 weeks of the year. Subsistence was thus a product of the weekly consumption by 52 weeks by the total number of fishers from 1988 to 2010, both traditional and nontraditional.As for the 6.55 kg sold to restaurants, hotels, and local residents, we separated out the amount sold to local residents, as this was related with subsistence, while the amount sold to restaurants and hotels was related to the growth in tourism. This was done by first calculating the total amount sold in 2003 to 2005, using 2004 as a base year, which we estimated at 9.4 t annually (a product of 6.55 kg weekly by 45 fishermen for 32 weeks in a year). According to (Leite et al. 2008) the amount provided to hotels and restaurants from the small-scale local fishery was 11% of their yearly consumption, or 0.9 t, which was subtracted from the total of 9.4 t. Thus, in 2004, 8.5 t of octopus went to local residents for consumption.We varied these estimates over time from 1988 to 2010 by assuming that the total amount sold to restaurants and hotels increased linearly from 0 in 1987 to 0.9 t in 2004, and then we extrapolated the linear trend to 1.3 t in 2010. We inferred the amount sold to local residents as a proportion of the growth in resident population (see section on Consumption for resident population methodology). This was equivalent to 3.3 t in 1987, increasing linearly to the aforementioned 8.5 t in 2004, and culminating at 8.7 t in 2010.We believe these estimates are conservative, because even though the number of fishers is small, the total number of people involved in recreational fishing for octopus is high, as seen by the interviews conducted with non-fisher residents, 41.3% already fished octopus sometime in their life.Bait usage in FNIn 1978, one of the locals exclaimed, “throw a net, and come dragging 300, 400, 500 sardines!” (Anon 1978). Residents and fishers alike used ‘tarrafas’, a conical- shaped net cast out by hand, to target the abundant schools of sardines on beaches and in shallow waters. Sardines were the most common live bait used by fishers to target commercial species from 1950 to 2010 (Lessa et al. 1998; Dominguez et al. 2013).In order to calculate the number of sardines used as bait, we adjusted estimates of bait usage in (Martins et al. 2005) for various gears of the Espírito Santo (ES) fleet, to represent the bait usage for the Fernando de Noronha fleet. Since trolling and pargueira, or ‘deep line,’ were the predominant gears of the Fernando de Noronha fleet, (Lessa et al. 1998), we averaged the bait usage per trip for these gears as presented in (Martins et al. 2005) at 215 kg·boat-1·trip-1. In (Martins et al. 2005), the maximum days at sea per trip was 20, while for Fernando de Noronha the duration of one trip was equivalent to one day. Thus, we divided the estimated by 20, to obtain 11 kg·boat-1·trip-1, which was multiplied by the total effort previously calculated.Lastly, we considered that from 1950 to 1990, it was reported that 100% of the hooks used sardines as live bait (Barros 1963; Lessa et al. 1998), while a report in 2013 by (Dominguez et al. 2013) stated that live sardine was most commonly used while artificial bait was used for 7.2% of landings. Thus we adjusted the amount calculated accordingly, assumed that sardines were used 100% of the time from 1950–2000, and for the years after the proportion of bait used linearly decreased to 92.8% in 2013.3. DiscardsDiscards were applied to industrial and artisanal landings, except for the species of octopus and brown spiny lobster, as these species were generally caught by diving or traps, and thus would have little to no discards associated with them. For discard rates, we referred to the same proportions as those assumed by Freire et al. (2014), i.e., 5.3% of catch for the ‘line’ gear, which includes hand-line, vertical longline, and bottom longline gears, and 14.8% for pelagic longline gears. The discard rates and species proportions for each island follow.Saint Peter and Saint Paul ArchipelagoSince fishermen in SPSPA employ mostly handline and pelagic longline gears, we averaged the two discard rates for line gear, 5.3%, and pelagic longline, 14.8%, and obtained a rate of 10.1% of catch, or 11.2% of landings. This fishery mostly targets tuna, a highly prized fish, and there is evidence that almost all catches of tuna were juvenile (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006). Thus, we believe very little tuna was discarded. We also assumed there were no discards of spiny lobster. The remaining 23 species were assigned a contribution of discards proportional to landings. 40Fernando de NoronhaWhile describing the artisanal fishery, (Barros 1963) mentioned that small juvenile species, or ‘peixes miúdos,’ were “constantly hooked” on various hooks. Since it was implied that these fish were not commercially desirable, we assumed they were discarded. We assumed a discard rate of 5.3% of catch, or 5.6% of landings. The Portuguese common names of ten species were given, however only eight of them were identifiable: coney (Cephalopholis fulva), grunts (Haemulon), spotted goatfish (Pseudupeneus maculatus), squirrelfish (Holocentrus adscensionis), doctorfish (Acanthurus chirurgus), greater soapfish (Rypticus saponaceus), parrotfishes (Scaridae), and a species in the family of jacks and pompanos (Carangidae). The two unidentifiable species had the common names of ‘manteguinha’ and ‘lingua de negro’. We equally distributed the discards amongst these eight identifiable species.Trindade Island and Martim Vaz ArchipelagoFor this fishery, there is the least amount of certainty regarding discards, which are not mentioned. Also, the species composition was derived from interviews with fishers, who, likely mentioned only commercially desirable fish. Nonetheless, we assumed the discard rate for the line fishery, 5.6% of landings, and applied this rate to all landings. Since there was uncertainty as to the species composition, we assumed the same proportion of contribution to discards for all the species, including bait fish that must be alive, and thus any dead fish were likely discarded.Subsistence fisheriesAlthough there are several dozen military personel residing in TMV and researchers in SPSPA, catches from their consumption are likely not important enough to warrant study. FN on the other hand has had a population ranging from approximately 800 residents 1950 to 2,600 in 2010, and thus we have estimated consumption for this fishery.According to (Barros 1963), any estimations for catch were incomplete, as fishing was also done almost daily by inhabitants for personal consumption without ever reporting catch. Species specifically mentioned by (Barros 1963) that were fished for by inhabitants were ‘agulhões,’or needle fishes (Beloniformes), lobster (Decapoda), crab (Portunidae). It was also stated that octopus and squid (Loligo) were very common in the waters of Noronha, although he did not mention any fishing for them (Barros 1963). Additionally, an account by a tourist visiting Fernando de Noronha in 1978 mentions several cases of consumption and fishing by islanders, notably, sardines (Clupeidae), yellow jack (Carangoides bartholomaei), jacks and pompanos (Carangidae), octopus, and the aforementioned needle fishes and lobster (Barros 1963).To calculate subsistence fishing, we assumed that as a minimum, each person consumed one serving daily. A three ounce cooked serving of most fish or shellfish provides about one-third of the average daily recommended amount of protein (Seafood Health Facts 2012). The logical maximum bound to our estimates would be three portions of fish daily per person, but to make this leap we would have to assume that fish is the only source of protein. This is not unreasonable, as historically, the primary activites of the island were fishing and agriculture (IOPE 2010). However, since this cannot be verified, we will conservatively assume consumption of one serving a day per inhabitant.A three ounce serving is equivalent to 85g of edible fish. We assigned an equal split, in edible weight, between the seven species mentioned: lobster, crab, needle fishes, sardines, yellow jack, jacks and pompanos, and octopus. In order to convert to whole weight, we used estimates of edible weight as a percentage of whole weight, i.e., 44% of lobster, 31.5% of crab (Waterman 2001), 56% of species in the Carangidae family, 65% of sardines and needlefishes (Barros 1963; FAO 1989), and 100% of octopus is edible, as it is commonly eaten whole. Overall, this was equivalent to 159 g per serving of whole fish, which resulted in an annual per capita consumption of 58 kg. This is reasonable for an island society during the 1950s and 1960s when store-bought food was not common.For population figures from 1950 to 2010, we compiled several anchor points and interpolated linearly between them. According to (SAE 2014) in the 1960s the population was constant ranging from 1,200 to 1,300, in the 1970 census the population was 1244, and in the 1980 census it was 1,266. Population after this time period grew dramatically, from 1,342 in 1990 to 2,520 in 2003 (Leite et al. 2008). The final anchor point was a population of 2,605 in (Souza and Vieira Filho 2011), who states that this is the population during the time of writing (i.e., between 2009 – 2011). For the decade preceding 1960, we assumed that the population in 1945 was 625, as this was the year the prison was shut down and the island became a place hospitable for settlers. We assumed a linear growth from 625 residents in 1945 to 1250 residents in 1960.As seen by the fairly constant population up until 1988 and the insular nature of island environments, we assumed that consumption patterns did not change until 1988 with the establishment of the national park. Thus, for these early years we used the constant per capita consumption by specie and multiplied it by the population from 1950 to 1987.Once the National Park was established in 1988 and tourism exploded (Silva Jr 2003; Leite et al. 2008; Souza and Vieira Filho 2011), there were dramatic changes in fishing and consumption patterns. Firstly, the water 50 m around the entire island were considered restricted to fishing, meaning that inhabitants could not easily access these fishing waters to fish by themselves. Although subsistence consumption undoubtedly continued, we believe that nearly all the catch was absorbed into the catch already calculated for commercial fishing by the artisanal fishers. This is supported by a 2008 survey of fishers in Fernando de Noronha, which found that 52% of catch is sold directly to consumers (IOPE 2010). Thus, we assumed that after 1988, 52% of artisanal catches already calculated actually support the livelihoods of island residents and are therefore considered subsistence.Oceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 41resultsIndustrial fisheries (landings and bait)Catches (discards not included here) for the industrial fleet operating in the waters of TMV began in 1981 with 2 t of catch and increased to 90 t by 2010, bait accounting for approximately 8.6% of this. Catches from within the waters of SPSPA began in 1976 with an average catch of 86 t·year-1 until 1983 when the catches dropped to zero until rebounding in 1988. Thereafter, removals increased to 432 t in 1997 before slightly declining and then peaking at 564 t in 2004, subsequently dropping to 351 t in 2010 (Figure 4). For SPSPSA, bait accounted for about 4% of catch.Artisanal fisheries (landings and bait)Artisanal catches (discards not included here; Figure 5) were constant in the 1950s and early 1960s at 152 t·year-1 of catch, but as effort climbed, catches increased to 294 t in 1975, at which point increasing effort was offset by a decreasing CPUE and catches decreased to 146 t in 1987, the year before the National Park was built. Thereafter, catches declined dramatically, averaging 26 t·year-1 in the 1990s and 2000s. On average, baitfish was 11% of the annual catch, which was mostly due to later years when effort was still relatively high but catch was low.DiscardsDiscards for the artisanal fleet in Fernando de Noronha were stable at 9 t·year-1 from 1950 to the early 1960s, at which point they increased proportionally with catch to 16 t in 1975, and then declined to about 1.5 t·year-1 in the 1990s and 2000s (Figure 6). Industrial discards in the waters of TMV were low for the entire period, starting at 0.1 t in 1981 and increasing to about 5 t in 2010. Discards for the SPSPA fleet were the highest, averaging 10 t·year-1 from 1976 to 1982, zero for the years after until 1988 when discards climbed to 48 t in 1997 and thereafter oscillated around 49 t·year-1 in the 2000s.SubsistenceSubsistence catches grew proportionally with population for the years prior to 1988, increasing from 48 t in 1950 to approximately 73 t·year-1 from 1960 to 1988 (Figure 7). With the creation of the National park, subsistence consumption was bought directly from fishers, and thus catches changed proportional to artisanal activity, dropping to 26 t in 1995, and then increasing to 37 t by 2010. Coinciding with this drop in fish consumption, was a drastic change in the distribution of species consumed as catches of lobster, crab, sardines, and needlefishes dropped to zero in 1988 when residents were no longer legally allowed to fish from shore.01002003004005006007001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearSPSPA UnreportedTMV UnreportedSPSPA ReportedBait (TMV)Bait (SPSPA)0501001502002503003501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearBait (FN)FN Unreported010203040506070801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearSPSPATMVFNFigure 4.  Industrial catch and baitfish for Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago (SPSPA) and Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelago (TMV).Figure 5.  Artisanal catch and baitfish for Fernando de Noronha (FN).Figure 6.  Discards for of industrial and artisanal catch for SPSPA, TMV, and FN. 42Reconstructed total catch by sectorAltogether, removals increased from 209 t in 1950 to 492 t in 1977, declined to a minimum of 165 t in 1990, and then peaked twice in 1997 and 2004 with 555 t and 770 t of catch, respectively (Figure 8). Total removals decreased by 2010 to 550 t, most of which was caught in the waters of SPSPA.Reconstructed total catch by speciesCatch was composed of a total of 71 species, most of them varying from island to island due to their unique ecosystems. Barracuda, sardines, and tunas were common in the early years of the fisheries, which in the later years the most common species were flying fish, wahoo, and yellowfin tuna (Figure 9).discussionTotal catches for the industrial fleets operating in Trindade and Martim Vaz Archipelago and Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago began in 1976 and by the 2000s, were averaging 580 t·year-1. Currently there are no quotas for optimal catch or measurements for the health of fishery, although some inferences can be made. In the waters of TMV, five shark species are threatened, two of which, the blue shark and nurse shark are targeted by the Espírito Santo fleet in the TMV complex (Pinheiro et al. 2010). Likewise, in St Peter and St Paul Archipelago, historical records point that shark populations, notably the reef sharks are already extinct (Luiz and Edwards 2011). Indeed, due to SPSPA’s important role in the lifecycle of many species, extra caution must be taken while fishing, especially for species of silky shark for whom the Archipelago is a place to give birth (Oliveira et al. 1997). The targeting of yellowfin tuna also must be careful, as this is the primary target of fishing activities in SPSPSA, yet nearly all catch in the archipelago was shown to be immature (Vaske Jr. et al. 2006). The ‘cascade effect,’ previously mentioned, forewarns that the extinction of predatory species can cascade onto other species of lower trophic levels. As seen by the rapid decline of the yellowfin grouper in TMV waters, extinction or overexploitation can be very swift in such remote island ecosystems. As stocks fail closer to the mainland, and effort is increasingly exerted on new unexploited grounds, fishing pressure is only expected to increase.Fernando de Noronha is unique from the other islands in that fishing effort by the artisanal fleet has actually declined over time. Catches for Fernando de Noronha were 209 t in 1950, peaking in 1975 with 383 t, and stabilizing at 59 t·year-1 as tourism expanded in the 1990s and 2000s. This is especially peculiar given that the resident population over doubled as catches declines, and this does not even consider the waves of tourists that stay on the island. The decline in catches was largely a result of the artisanal fisher labor force being absorbed by tourism. Additionally, as the number of tourists expanded and demand for fish increased, the seasonal variation in the domestic supply of fish “forced owners of restaurants and hotels to import fish from Recife and Natal” (IOPE 2010). A striking example of this is octopus, of which only 11% of what is served in local restaurants and hotels in in the mid-2000s was from the island itself (Leite et al. 2008), even though they are extremely abundant around the islands (Barros 1963). While tourism has been lucrative in some ways, it has also had several negative repercussions for the residents of the islands. One example is the establishment of National Park, which caused residents to be unable to fish from shore. Thus, along with the decline in artisanal fisheries, this caused the consumption of fish by local residents to decrease substantially, as seen by the fact that approximately 30% of the residents have developed a metabolic syndrome due to poor diet and lack of exercise (Marinho 2014). Thus, the result of modernization has had both pros and cons for the residents of Fernando de Noronha (Souza and Vieira Filho 2011).01020304050607080901950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)Year01002003004005006007008009001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearSubsistenceDiscardsIndustrialArtisanalsupplied to FAO01002003004005006007008009001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearOther speciesWahooYellowfintunaFlying fishBarracudaOther tunaSardinesFigure 7.  Subsistence catch for Fernando de Noronha (FN).Figure 8.  Catch by sector for SPSPA, TMV, and FN.Figure 9.  Catch by taxon for SPSPA, TMV, and FN.Oceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 43The catches reconstructed in the present research are not all inclusive, as both national and foreign pelagic longline fleets operate in waters of all three islands, exerting substantial effort (Mazzoleni and Schwingel 2010). Furthermore, due to the limited to non-existent ability of Brazil to enforce its jurisdiction over its entire EEZ (Kalikoski and Vasconcellos 2006), particularly in SPSPA and TMV due to their distance from the mainland, illegal fishing activities are rampant, especially by foreign distant water fleets targeting pelagic species the 1990s; e.g., “vessels from Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan frequently called Brazilian ports in the northeastern region for services and it is suspected that such vessels were targeting tuna in Brazilian waters (Weidner and Hall 1993). The same pattern is seen in TMV, where all domestic pelagic longline boat captains interviewed in (Pinheiro et al. 2010) “reported the presence of large Asian vessels operating clandestinely in Brazilian water”.It is possible that the oceanic islands of Brazil are out on a limb; on the edges of what is considered to be ‘Brazil’, they are isolated and lack the surveillance necessary to keep foreign presence at bay. This is compounded by the inherently fragile ecosystems of oceanic islands in the Atlantic, which puts them more at risk to overfishing than other regions of the world.acknowledgementsWe acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. We also thank José Airton Vasconcelos for providing reported data and information on the early fishery of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago.reFerencesAnon (1978) Isto é Fernando de Noronha. 14. http://www.girafamania.com.br/americano/brasil_noronha1.htmBarros A (1963) A pesca no Territorio de Fernando Noronha. Bol. Est. Pesca 3(3): 13-15.Campos L, Lavrado H, Gamboa L and Souza K (2006) Western South Atlantic seamounts: A Brazilian perspective.Castro JWA (2010) Ilhas oceânicas da Trindade e Fernando de Noronha, Brasil: Uma visão da Geologia Ambiental. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada/Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 10(3): 303-319.de Moura SJC and Paiva MP (1965) Considerações sôbre a produção de pescado do Território de Fernando de Noronha. Estação de Biologia Marinha, Universidade do Ceará.Dominguez PSA, Ramires M, Barrella W and Macedo EC (2013) Preliminary study on fish unloading made by artisanal fishermen of the Archipelago of Fernando de Noronha (Brazil) in 2013. Unisanta BioScience 2(2): 50-54.FAO (1989) Yield and nutritional value of the commercially more important fish species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, Scotland, UK. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0219e/t0219e00.htmFreire KdMF, Aragão JAN, Araújo ARdR, Ávila-da-Silva AO, Bispo MCdS, Canziani GV, Carneiro MH, Gonçalves FDS, Keunecke KA, Mendonça JT, Moro PS, Motta FS, Olavo G, Pezzuto PR, Santana RF, Santos RAd, Trindade-Santos I, Vasconcelos JA, Vianna M and Divovich E (2014) Revisiting catch data off Brazilian marine waters (1950-2010). Fisheries Centre Working Paper #2014-23 University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 41 p.Fundação Promar (2005) Macrodiagnóstico da pesca marítima do estado do Espírito Santo. http://www.incaper.es.gov.br/?a=macrodiagnostico/macrodiagnosticoGusmão L, Chaves P, Hazin F and Souza J (2005) Nossas ilhas oceânicas. O Mar no Espaço Geográûco Brasileiro. Brasília, Ministério da Educação 8: 64-131.Hazin F (1993) Fisheries-oceanographical study on tunas, billfishes and sharks in southwestern equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Fisheries University of Tokoyo, Japan.Hazin FH, Zagaglia JR, Broadhurst M, Travassos P and Bezerra T (1998) Review of a small-scale pelagic longline fishery off northeastern Brazil. Marine Fisheries Review 60(3): 1-8.IOPE (2010) Diagnóstico socioeconômico da pesca artesanal na ilha de Fernando de Noronha. Diagnóstico socioeconômico da pesca artesanal do litoral de Pernambuco Vol. I, Instituto Oceanário de Pernambuco, Departamento de Pesca e Aqüicultura da UFRPE, Recife. 57-72 p.Kalikoski D and Vasconcellos M (2006) Evaluations of compliance of the Fisheries of Brazil with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/webfm_send/272Leite TS, Haimovici M and Oliveira JEL (2008) A pesca de polvos no Arquipélago de Fernando de Noronha, Brasil. ftp://ftp.sp.gov.br/ftppesca/34_2_271-280.pdfLessa RP, Sales L, Coimbra MR, Guedes D and Vaske Júnior T (1998) Análise dos desembarques da pesca de Fernando de Noronha. http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/1101/1/1998_art_rlessa.pdfLuiz OJ and Edwards AJ (2011) Extinction of a shark population in the Archipelago of Saint Paul’s Rocks (equatorial Atlantic) inferred from the historical record. Biological Conservation 144(12): 2873-2881.Marinho AC (2014) Pesquisa revela, 30% dos moradores da ilha estão com “Síndrome Metabólica”. Viver Noronha.Martins AS, Olavo G and Costa PAS (2005) A pesca de linha de alto mar realizada por frotas sediadas no Espírito Santo, Brasil. Pesca e potenciais de exploração de recursos vivos na região central da Zona Econômica Exclusiva brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional: 35-55. 44Mazzoleni R and Schwingel P (2010) Aspectos da biologia das espécies capturadas por espinhel pelágico na região sul das ilhas de Trindade e Martin Vaz no verão de 2001. Brazilian Journal of Aquatic Science and Technology 6(1): 51-57.Oliveira Gd, Evangelista JEV and Ferreira BP (1997) Considerações sobre a biologia ea pesca no Arquipélago dos Penedos de São Pedro e São Paulo. Bolm Técnico-Cient. CEPENE 5(1): 31-52.Pereira-Filho GH, Amado-Filho GM, Guimarães SM, Moura RL, Sumida PY, Abrantes DP, Bahia RG, Güth AZ, Jorge RR and Francini Filho RB (2011) Reef fish and benthic assemblages of the Trindade and Martin Vaz island group, Southwestern Atlantic. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 59(3): 201-212.Pinheiro A, Freire F and LINS-OLIVEIRA J (2003) Population biology of Panulirus echinatus Smith, 1869 (Decapoda: Palinuridae) from São Pedro e São Paulo archipelago, Northeastern Brazil. Nauplius 11(1): 27-35.Pinheiro HT, Martins AS and Gasparini JL (2010) Impact of commercial fishing on Trindade Island and Martin Vaz Archipelago, Brazil: characteristics, conservation status of the species involved and prospects for preservation. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 53(6): 1417-1423.SAE (2014) Fernando de Noronha. Sistema de Assistência de Estudante (SAE). http://beta.docstoc.com/docs/5168135/Fernando-de-Noronha---PDFSeafood Health Facts (2012) Seafood Nutrition Overview. Joint project: Oregon State University, Cornell University, University of Delaware, University of Rhode Island, University of California.Serafini TZ, França GBd and Andriguetto-Filho JM (2010) Ilhas oceânicas brasileiras: biodiversidade conhecida e sua relação com o histórico de uso e ocupação humana. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 10(3): 281-301.Silva Jr J (2003) Parque Nacional Marinho de Fernando de Noronha: uso público, importância econômica e proposta de manejo. 2º Simpósio de Áreas Protegidas-Conservação no Âmbito do Cone Sul.Souza GMRd and Vieira Filho NAQ (2011) Impactos socioculturais do turismo em comunidades insulares: um estudo de caso no arquipélago de Fernando de Noronha-PE. Revista Acadêmica Observatório de Inovação do Turismo (4): 5 a 5.Swartz W, Sala E, Tracey S, Watson R and Pauly D (2010) The spatial expansion and ecological footprint of fisheries (1950 to present). PLoS ONE 5(12): e15143.Vaske Jr. T, Lessa R, Ribeiro A, Nóbrega M, Pereira A and Andrade C (2006) A pesca comercial de peixes pelágicos no arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo. Brasil. Trop. Ocean 34: 31-41.Viana D, Hazin F, Nunes D, Carvalho F, Véras D and Travassos P (2008) The wahoo Acanthocybium solandri fishery in the vicinity of the Saint Peter and Saint Paul archipelago, Brazil, from 1998 to 2006. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 62(5): 1662-1670.Viana DF, Hazin F, Viana D and Nunes D (2010) Variação sazonal das capturas de barcos de pesca no entorno do Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo. X Jornada de ensino, pesquisa e extensão.Waterman J (2001) Measures, stowage rates and yields of fishery products. Torry Advisory Notes.Weidner D and Hall D (1993) Latin America. World Fishing Fleets: An Analysis of Distant-water Fishing Operations, Past-Present-FutureVol. 4. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.Oceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 45Appendix Table A1.   Total reported and reconstructed catch by sector for the oceanic islands of Brazil.Year Reported landings Total reconstructed catch Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Discards1950 - 209 - 152 48 91951 - 212 - 152 51 91952 - 214 - 152 53 91953 - 216 - 152 56 91954 - 219 - 152 58 91955 - 221 - 152 60 91956 - 224 - 152 63 91957 - 226 - 152 65 91958 - 229 - 152 68 91959 - 231 - 152 70 91960 - 233 - 152 73 91961 - 233 - 152 73 91962 - 233 - 152 73 91963 - 233 - 152 73 91964 - 258 - 175 73 101965 - 280 - 196 73 111966 - 300 - 215 73 121967 - 317 - 232 73 131968 - 333 - 247 73 141969 - 347 - 259 73 151970 - 358 - 270 72 151971 - 367 - 279 72 161972 - 374 - 286 72 161973 - 379 - 291 73 161974 - 383 - 293 73 161975 - 383 - 294 73 161976 - 439 51 293 73 221977 - 492 102 290 73 281978 - 486 101 284 73 271979 - 478 100 277 73 271980 - 467 100 268 73 261981 - 457 102 256 74 261982 - 391 54 243 74 191983 - 322 7 228 75 131984 - 307 9 210 75 121985 - 289 11 191 76 111986 - 269 13 169 76 101987 - 247 16 146 77 91988 - 176 41 65 63 71989 - 176 66 52 49 91990 - 165 92 31 31 111991 - 188 115 29 30 131992 - 211 138 28 29 161993 - 234 162 26 28 181994 - 257 185 24 27 211995 110 280 208 23 26 231996 128 316 239 23 27 271997 261 556 454 24 28 511998 240 531 431 24 29 471999 224 516 416 25 29 452000 178 447 354 25 30 382001 167 436 344 25 31 362002 290 664 548 26 32 582003 330 745 620 26 32 662004 339 768 640 26 33 682005 279 669 550 27 34 582006 303 717 593 27 34 622007 295 707 584 27 35 612008 284 689 566 28 36 592009 252 633 515 28 36 532010 205 551 441 28 37 45 46Appendix Table A2. Data reported to the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Norte for catches taken within the waters of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago (SPSPA).Species nameThunnus albacaresThunnus alalungaThunnus obesusIstiophorus albicansTetrapturus albidusMakaira nigricansXiphias gladiusAlopias superciliosusSphyrna lewiniCarcharhinus falciformisPrionace glaucaPortuguese c. nameAlbacora-lajeAlbacora-brancaAlbacora-bandolimAgulhão-velaAgulhão-brancoAgulhão-negroMeka; EspadarteCação-raposaCação-panamCação-branco*Cação-azulYear1995 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 8.1 0.11996 69.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 4.1 0.01997 145.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.01998 103.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.01999 134.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.02000 88.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.02001 62.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.4 5.0 0.0 3.7 9.8 7.72002 215.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 3.8 0.1 0.9 5.0 0.92003 223.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 2.5 0.1 2.1 9.8 5.62004 187.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.7 4.2 0.72005 137.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.2 2.0 7.8 3.12006 189.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 4.5 0.3 1.0 9.1 2.92007 199.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.6 6.0 1.62008 207.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.8 1.8 1.22009 179.5 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.5 3.1 0.92010 115.3 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.6* In original data source, stated that this refers to catch of ‘cação tuninha’ e ‘cação lombo preto’. We assumed these catches mostly referred to the former (silky shark), a very common taxon in this regionAppendix Table A2 continued. Data reported to the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Norte for catches taken within the waters of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago (SPSPA).Species nameIsurus oxyrinchusGaleocerdo cuvierCoryphaena hippurusAcanthocybium solandriCheilopogon cyanopterusMarine fishes not identifiedNumber of tripsPortuguese c. nameCação-cavala Cação-jaguaraDourado Cavala Voador Outros Year1995 0.1 0.0 0.2 13.5 64.5 7.41996 0.0 0.0 0.2 13.7 25.8 14.61997 0.0 0.0 1.8 36.3 43.7 19.51998 0.0 0.0 2.0 45.2 56.3 26.81999 0.0 0.0 0.5 43.9 30.7 9.32000 0.0 0.0 1.0 32.1 34.2 7.72001 0.7 0.0 0.4 29.0 42.3 3.92002 0.1 0.0 0.3 49.7 5.5 6.72003 0.4 0.1 1.1 49.4 20.4 14.22004 0.7 0.0 0.4 60.6 60.4 22.82005 0.4 0.1 2.1 42.3 62.3 16.62006 0.2 0.0 3.4 60.5 1.2 29.6 372007 0.3 0.0 3.5 48.2 3.1 28.5 362008 0.3 0.0 1.6 44.7 1.1 22.7 382009 0.3 0.0 2.0 45.0 0.5 14.7 352010 0.3 0.0 4.0 57.3 0.7 22.5 32* In original data source, stated that this refers to catch of ‘cação tuninha’ e ‘cação lombo preto’. We assumed these catches mostly referred to the former (silky shark), a very common taxon in this regionOceanic Islands of Brazil - Divovich and Pauly 47Appendix Table A3. Total reconstructed catch by taxon for the oceanic islands of Brazil.Year Thunnus albacares Other tunas Barracuda Acanthocybium solandri Cheilopogon cyanopterus Clupeidae Other species1950 8 23 30 5 0 13 1301951 8 23 30 5 0 14 1321952 8 23 30 5 0 14 1351953 8 23 30 5 0 14 1371954 8 23 30 5 0 15 1391955 8 23 30 5 0 15 1411956 8 23 30 5 0 15 1431957 8 23 30 5 0 15 1451958 8 23 30 5 0 16 1471959 8 23 30 5 0 16 1501960 8 23 30 5 0 16 1521961 8 23 30 5 0 16 1521962 8 23 30 5 0 16 1521963 8 23 30 5 0 16 1521964 9 27 36 6 0 17 1621965 10 31 42 7 0 18 1711966 12 34 48 8 0 19 1781967 13 38 54 9 0 20 1841968 15 42 59 10 0 20 1871969 16 45 64 11 0 21 1901970 17 48 69 12 0 21 1911971 18 50 74 13 0 21 1911972 19 53 78 13 0 21 1901973 20 55 82 14 0 21 1881974 21 56 85 14 0 22 1851975 21 58 88 15 0 22 1811976 38 59 90 22 25 22 1841977 55 59 91 28 49 22 1881978 55 59 91 28 49 22 1811979 55 59 91 28 49 22 1751980 54 58 90 28 48 21 1681981 54 56 88 27 48 21 1631982 37 54 85 20 24 21 1491983 19 51 81 13 0 22 1351984 18 48 76 12 0 22 1301985 17 44 70 11 0 22 1251986 15 39 63 10 0 22 1201987 13 34 55 9 0 22 1151988 18 28 45 10 11 13 501989 23 20 33 11 23 14 521990 27 12 19 12 34 9 521991 34 11 17 15 46 9 561992 42 10 16 18 57 8 611993 49 9 14 20 69 8 651994 57 8 13 23 80 7 701995 29 7 11 27 128 6 721996 116 7 11 30 64 6 831997 238 6 11 75 101 6 1181998 172 6 11 89 123 6 1251999 221 6 10 93 79 6 1012000 148 5 10 66 84 6 1272001 108 5 10 58 97 6 1522002 352 5 9 118 30 6 1432003 365 5 9 110 61 6 1892004 308 4 8 125 138 6 1782005 230 4 8 86 139 6 1962006 313 3 7 130 19 6 2392007 330 5 7 108 24 6 2282008 343 2 6 105 20 5 2072009 298 4 6 105 18 5 1972010 197 5 5 120 18 5 201 48


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items