4.5 Article

Use of ichthyofauna by artisanal fishermen at two protected areas along the coast of Northeast Brazil

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13002-015-0007-5

关键词

Artisanal fishing; Local ecological knowledge; Conservation

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Ciencia e Tecnologia do Estado de Pernambuco - FACEPE
  2. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Fishing is one of the oldest human activities and constitutes a source of income and livelihood for millions of people, particularly in coastal regions. This study aimed to characterize the types of fish use and test whether there is a relationship between uses of fish in the communities studied. Methods: This study was conducted during the months of January to October 2013, on the beaches of Tamandare and Batoque, both located in Northeast Brazil. Information was collected through interviews with 75 artisanal marine fishermen on the fishes they knew and their forms of use. Results: The fishermen interviewed were male, between 22 and 84 years old, and they had been fishing for over 10 years and had a low educational level. Fishermen from Tamandare mentioned 339 popular fish names, representing 222 taxa, while Batoque fishermen mentioned 305 popular fish names, representing 215 taxa. Six types of uses of fish were characterized: food, commercial, medicinal, handicrafts, spiritual-religious purposes and aquarium. It was found that there were multiple uses for fish and that there was a relationship between these different uses, reinforcing the importance that fish have on the culture and economic activities of fishing communities. Conclusions: Artisanal fishing should be understood as a cultural activity, because the different and multiple uses fish make up the dynamics of fishing communities. Just as in the areas of this study, some of these communities are included in protected areas and, therefore, fishermen must be involved in the development and implementation of management plans of these units.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据