Ethnobiology and Fisheries: Learning from the Past for the

Present
Author(s): Eréndira M. Quintana Morales, Dana Lepofsky, and Fikret Berkes
Source: Journal of Ethnobiology, 37(3):369-379.
Published By: Society of Ethnobiology
https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-37.3.369
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2993/0278-0771-37.3.369

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the

biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online
platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,
museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content
indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/
terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-
commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be
directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit
publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to
critical research.
Journal of Ethnobiology 37(3): 369–379 2017

ETHNOBIOLOGY AND FISHERIES: LEARNING FROM THE

PAST FOR THE PRESENT

Eréndira M. Quintana Morales1*, Dana Lepofsky2, and Fikret Berkes3

Introduction

For millennia, peoples around the world have relied on aquatic resources and
ecosystems to sustain themselves. For generations, their livelihoods and their
cultural identities have been intertwined with the rhythms and cycles of the seas
and rivers. Many of these communities developed complex systems of resource
management and use that encouraged social and ecological resilience. Their local
and traditional ecological knowledge, accumulated through daily interactions
with local environments and in the context of community social values, are the
foundation of these management systems.
Today, changing conditions, such as ocean warming and acidification, over-
fishing, industrialization, and pollution, coupled with changes in the social and
economic contexts in which fisheries are conducted, threaten traditional fisheries
and the cultures that have relied on them for generations (e.g., Newell and
Ommer 1999; Turner et al. 2013). In some cases, the social and cultural landscapes
have been so dramatically altered that these traditional fisheries are barely
remembered (e.g., Anderson 2007). However, in many regions, fishing
communities are fighting hard to retain their traditional right to fish sustainably
in healthy, productive aquatic ecosystems (e.g., Bavinck et al. 2017; Berkes 2015;
Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2015; Ommer and team 2007). For some, this includes
working with scientists to document their traditional practices as well as the
many environmental changes they observe in their aquatic ecosystems (e.g.,
Salomon et al. 2011).
At the same time, resource managers and social and natural scientists are
increasingly aware of the value of the knowledge encompassed within these
fishery systems and the dearth of documentation about them. While there is an
increasing number of valuable studies of fisheries in the fields of social sciences,
natural sciences, and resource management, collaborations among these
intellectual communities remain limited, as do true collaborations between
academic fisheries scientists and local and Indigenous fishery knowledge
holders. Educating fisheries students, Indigenous youth, and the general public

1
Department of Anthropology, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA.
2
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
3
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.
*Corresponding author (erendira.mqm@rice.edu)
370 QUINTANA MORALES et al. Vol. 37, No. 3

about the value of cross-disciplinary and cross-community research is key to the

future of fisheries conservation (e.g., Nabhan et al. 19991).
Fishers’ knowledge systems are documented through various means,
including archaeological remains, historical records, oral histories, and ethnog-
raphies; these in turn provide an understanding of fisheries at various temporal
and spatial scales. For example, archaeologists have traced the origins and
development of fishing in medieval Europe (e.g., Barrett and Orton 2016), the
Northwest Coast of North America (e.g., Campbell and Butler 2010; McKechnie
and Moss 2016; Moss and Cannon 2011), and the South Pacific islands (e.g., Jones
2009, 2016). Ethnographic works have provided global syntheses of fishing
practices (e.g., Acheson 1981; Hornell 1950) and documentation of communities
of fishing peoples (e.g., Anderson 2007; Astuti 1995; Deb 2015; McGoodwin 1990;
Schneider 2012). Other influential contributions provide cross-disciplinary
approaches that bridge past and present perspectives in the context of current
fishery issues (e.g., Berkes 2010; Erlandson and Rick 2010; Haggan et al. 2006;
Lutz and Neis 2008; Newell and Ommer 1999; Salomon et al. 2007; Wolverton and
Lyman 2012).
As a multidisciplinary field that recognizes the interconnections between
cultural and biological worlds, ethnobiology is uniquely able to encompass
various approaches for understanding past and present fishery knowledge
systems and their relevance in current conservation and restoration efforts (cf.
Fowler and Lepofsky 2011). Ethnobiologists often engage in community-driven
research projects that give voice to the knowledge and needs of local
communities. By bringing together western scientific knowledge and practice
with local and traditional knowledge, such projects are well situated to document
aspects of fisheries that are meaningful to western scientific and local
communities. In particular, documenting past and present traditional fishery
knowledge provides insights into how fishers respond to changing environmen-
tal and social conditions, and can therefore provide important lessons about
resilience and sustainability.

Connecting Past, Present, and Future Fisheries: Some Examples

The archaeological record, in combination with local and scientific ecological

knowledge and data, can be an effective means for understanding past fishery
systems, allowing for the development of ecological (Pauly 1995; Pinnegar and
Engelhard 2008) and cultural baselines. Such baselines are the starting place for
effective management strategies and reconciliation in regions where fisheries
have been impacted by over-fishing, habitat loss, climate change, and other post-
industrial consequences (e.g., McKechnie et al. 2014; Rick et al. 2016).
Using such diverse lines of evidence is especially important in developing
countries where systematically collected fisheries data are even more scarce (e.g.,
Pandolfi et al. 2003). Along the eastern African coast, for example, the
archaeological record of fishing extends back to at least the first millennium
CE (Quintana Morales and Prendergast, 2017). Although many of the regions’
2017 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 371

nearshore fish species have been captured for more than 1500 years, their
conservation status and vulnerability to local extinction is unknown. Recently, a
team of archaeologists, historical ecologists, and marine biologists used
quantitative analysis of multidisciplinary forms of fishery data to identify
shifting baselines and vulnerable coral reef fish species along the Kenyan coast
(Buckley et al. in review). A framework was developed to identify local declines
in fish populations over the last 1500 years and species at risk of local extinction.
The results indicated a disproportionate loss in two functional groups, piscivores
and macro-invertivores, and identified priority fish species to maximize
conservation outcomes. The integration of various forms of historical data,
including zooarchaeological remains and historical records, combined with
modern catch assessments and underwater surveys enabled researchers to
identify species threatened with local extinction that were previously undetected
by modern fishery data.
Current fishers’ knowledge, not only historical and Indigenous, can also
provide a highly local historical perspective on recent drastic transformations of a
fishery. For example, today the Gulf of Maine is famous for its lobster fishery
(Steneck et al. 2011); however, the fishery was not always dominated by lobster.
Until the 1930s and to some extent into the 1950s, the Gulf was dominated by cod
and other large ground fish that were predators of lobster. With the depletion of
cod, lobsters were released from predation pressure and gradually became so
abundant that, Steneck et al. (2011) argue, they have become highly susceptible to
disease outbreaks.
There has been no consensus on how to bring back cod to the Gulf of Maine,
in part because what caused cod disappearance is unclear. To understand the
mechanisms for cod decline, Ames (2004) used local knowledge of elder fishers to
reconstruct the pre-collapse stock. Ames mapped historical cod distributions,
spawning movements, and spawning areas in the Gulf of Maine, drawing from
fishery data from the periods prior to and after the decline of cod, as well as elder
fisher interviews. These data allowed him to reconstruct the decline of cod as a
slow erosion of subpopulations, from an initial loss of their spawning grounds
starting in the 1940s, to the gradual loss of coastal subpopulations, and finally
extending to offshore populations (Ames 2004).
These studies reflect an increasing global awareness among researchers of the
multi-dimensionality of fisheries social-ecological systems. As a result, commu-
nity-academic partnerships, focused on documenting and preserving the many
aspects of fisheries systems, are emerging. Two examples of such partnerships on
the Northwest Coast of North America are the Herring School2 and the Clam
Garden Network3. These initiatives bring together knowledge holders and
researchers from diverse First Nations and Native American, academic, and
resource managerial communities to understand the cultural and ecological
contexts of these two important cultural species (e.g., Augustine and Dearden
2014; Gauvreau et al. 2017; Groesbeck et al. 2014; Jackley et al. 2016; Keeling et al.
2017; Lepofsky et al. 2015). Documenting such integrated knowledge is crucial for
a range of current issues including local governance, rights and title, heritage,
identity, and ecological conservation.
372 QUINTANA MORALES et al. Vol. 37, No. 3

Increasingly, Indigenous knowledge and local management are playing a

crucial role in the development of marine protected areas (MPA) around the
world. Such MPAs are expected to increase substantially in the coming years and
decades, especially in countries in the developing world and in areas inhabited
by Indigenous peoples. The experience in Asia-Pacific and elsewhere indicate
that locally managed MPAs, and especially those drawing on local and
traditional knowledge, are already having an impact on policies on how to set
up protected areas that are effectively and equitably managed but also consider
the rights and needs of local and indigenous peoples (Berkes 2015). One example
of a successfully implemented Indigenous management system is the Māori-led
MPAs of Aotearoa, New Zealand. Māori environmental guardians (kaitiaki)
reported ongoing declines in coastal and inshore resources, especially since the
1970s. To combat the declines in Māori customary resources, such as abalone,
Māori invoked the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Settlement Act of 1992, which
requires the Government of New Zealand to develop, in partnership with Māori,
measures for management of Māori customary fisheries. This resulted in the
adoption of three traditionally derived management measures: taiāpure reserves,
māitaitai reserves, and temporary closures, which now cover a total area of about
700 sq km—about twice that of New Zealand government’s coastal MPAs
(Stephenson et al. 2014).
Another example of community-led MPAs is Ucunivanua village in Fiji, a
pilot site for what later became a Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA). People
in Ucunivanua noticed in the early 1990s that their marine resources were
declining. Working with the University of the South Pacific and using their
traditional system of tabu, villagers established a small restricted harvesting area
for the kaikoso clam, an important subsistence and commercial species. The age-
old concept of tapu embedded in the systems of land and sea tenure and
management of many Oceanic cultures, provides a foundation for management
throughout the region (Johannes 1981). In Fiji, the results were dramatic: the
kaikoso clam recovered and village incomes increased in about a decade (WRI
2005). Local conservation appears to work well for specific areas and species
(Johannes 1998). But an overall positive impact on fish populations and the
marine ecosystem is difficult to tease out and document because of multiple
factors involved (Evans et al. 2011; Jupiter et al. 2017).
The tabu system of marine conservation, and its contemporary adaptations,
work for several reasons. One reason is that the size and location of the restricted
areas are determined locally, and the community is often compensated by
support from the government through legislation that recognizes their traditional
use rights. Tabu areas are often small; the size is typically 10 to 15 percent of a
village’s fishing waters. Another important reason for the success of tabu-based
conservation areas is they differ from government MPAs where the government
makes the decision and where enforcement is not supported by cultural values at
local scales at which fishers and other community members directly interact
(Johannes 2002; WRI 2005). The success of these efforts demonstrates the efficacy
of revitalizing traditional systems of management, including their embedded
cultural and religious ethics for encoding conservation (cf. Anderson 1996).
2017 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 373

To the extent that landscapes and seascapes are not pristine ‘‘wilderness’’ but
are shaped by the activities of humans (Johnson and Hunn 2010; Rick and
Erlandson 2008), ecological restoration is ecocultural restoration. Hence, local and
traditional knowledge have a role to play in ecological restoration, especially in
those cases in which cultural renewal is an essential part of the restoration
process (e.g., Garibaldi 2009). The salmon habitat restoration project of the
Nisqually Tribe of western Washington State is a particularly good example of the
close connection between ecological restoration and cultural health. Early treaties
provided for exclusive tribal use of reservation lands located near prime fishing
areas at the mouths of salmon rivers. However, after canning technology gave
rise to a lucrative salmon fishing industry in the late 1800s, salmon stocks and the
Native share of the fishery declined sharply, and state officials blamed Natives
for the decline of the fish stocks (Cohen 1986). The project fostered a wave of
stewardship activity, protecting and restoring salmon habitat. Using advice from
Elders and their knowledge of habitat requirements of young salmon, the
Nisqually Tribe began restoring salmon habitat on the Nisqually River and delta.
They did this by buying back, piece-by-piece, areas that were coastal wetlands,
but had been drained and converted into farmland. Leading the restoration of the
Nisqually River and delta has been a multi-decade undertaking for a small tribal
group, so the Tribe partnered with multiple State and Federal agencies and
conservation groups throughout various phases of restoration. Ecological
restoration of the Nisqually River and delta, in turn, stimulated cultural
restoration, bringing back ceremonies and engaging youth in tribal programs
(Grossman 2010).

Fishery Papers in this Collection

The collection of papers in this special section highlights the diversity of

traditional fishery practices around the world and illustrates how fishing
practices and knowledge are integrated into the lives of far ranging communities,
past and present. The papers represent ecological contexts that range from the
Fijian archipelago, the Senegambian mangroves, the Amazonian rivers, and the
Circumpolar North. Authors trace fishing practices from the past, sometimes
thousands of years ago, and into the present by integrating diverse types of
information. They demonstrate how such investigations are strengthened by
incorporating oral histories and community narratives, archaeological and
ethnohistorical records, and modern fishery data, to build long-term records of
fisheries practices. All papers place traditional fishery knowledge and practice
within current social and ecological contexts and demonstrate that local and
traditional ecological knowledge is integral to any understanding of past and
present fisheries. These lessons are critical for the development of effective
conservation and management programs to sustain aquatic resources and fishers’
livelihoods across the world.
Prestes-Carneiro and Béarez document swamp-eel (Synbranchus spp.) fishing
in South America from pre-Columbian times to the present through a collection
374 QUINTANA MORALES et al. Vol. 37, No. 3

of archaeological and ethnohistorical records. They reveal how once widely

practiced swamp-eel fishing persisted over thousands of years, was transformed
during colonial influence, and eventually abandoned in the last century due to a
wide range of factors, including commercialization of fisheries and changing
tastes and cultural taboos surrounding swamp-eels. However, the legacy of this
long-esteemed fishing practice persists in the role of swamp-eels in the myths of
many Indigenous communities in the area.
Using archaeology to trace fishing practices during the transition between
pre- and post-emancipation periods in Martinique, Wallman and Grouard
demonstrate how fishing was a source of social identity and resilience for
plantation laborers at Habitation Crève Cœur. Their evidence illustrates the role
of fishing as a community-wide activity undertaken for self-provisioning by
enslaved laborers, which was expanded and transformed after emancipation.
This fishery has endured and continues to shape the cuisine of that region.
Kennedy’s article on the archaeology of Chinese immigrant fisheries in North
America contributes a case study on the use of traditional fishery knowledge and
practices in new environments by migrating peoples, a perspective on traditional
knowledge that is not often discussed. He discusses several examples of
traditional fishery knowledge, such as processing techniques, fishing technolo-
gies, and cultural preferences for specific types of fish that Chinese migrants
brought with them to California in the nineteenth century. He describes how
Chinese migrants undertook and transformed these traditional practices in a new
context, particularly by participating in local, regional, and global fish trading
networks.
Although fishing is often identified as a male-centered activity, Carney’s
work on women shellfish gatherers in the Senegambian mangroves demonstrates
the role of women in the direct procurement of aquatic resources and their
immense knowledge of local ecologies associated with these activities. Women’s
knowledge extends to other aspects of the fisheries, such as processing and
cooking the shellfish they collect. Furthermore, women’s fishery knowledge that
has sustained their communities for generations makes them key players in the
conservation of the mangrove ecosystems on which they rely today.
Oberndorfer and co-authors highlight the importance of plants to Circum-
polar peoples demonstrating the connections between plants, fishing, and people
in the Inuit Community of Makkovik. Drawing on Indigenous methodologies, a
local collective narrative and illustration trace the links between plants and
various fishing activities and demonstrate the power of collective knowledge to
connect people to their communities and their surrounding environments.
Oberndorfer and co-authors’ contribution illustrates the value of recognizing
fishing as a cultural practice embedded in the life of local communities.
Fishers acquire knowledge of fish behavior and ecology through their
sustained daily interaction with fish populations, which is not easily observed by
fisheries scientists and marine biologists. This is especially true of rare species
such as the critically endangered Atlantic goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara).
Zapelini and co-authors relied on the knowledge of 22 expert fishers to
investigate fishing, habitat use, and occurrence of goliath grouper in Abrolhos
Bank, Brazil. The collective knowledge of expert fishers revealed a decline in
2017 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 375

goliath grouper abundance across all habitats, primarily due to overfishing. It

also identified aggregation and nursery sites, providing information needed to
develop more effective management strategies to conserve the threatened goliath
grouper and sustain fishing livelihoods in Abrolhos Bank.
Thaman and co-authors provide an example of a successful partnership
between researchers and community members to assess, restore, and monitor the
biodiversity of local fishing grounds in Navakavu, Fiji. Community members led
the efforts to create a locally managed marine protected area and are involved in
monitoring the impact of these restoration and conservation efforts. Since initial
assessments in the 1990s, many shellfish species have reappeared and/or
increased their populations, indicating the positive impact of their work. This
collaborative effort between scientists and local community members provides a
good model for developing conservation programs in partnership with local
communities elsewhere. Overall, these papers highlight the important ways
fisheries are integral to the identities and lives of local communities, past and
present, and highlight the value of an active participation by local community
members in conservation and management efforts.

The Importance of Past and Present Fishers’ Knowledge for Future

Conservation and Management Practices

The examples discussed in this introduction along with the collective papers
of this special fisheries section highlight the critical role of past and present
fishers’ knowledge for restoring and conserving aquatic ecosystems worldwide
and sustaining the livelihoods of those who depend on these resources. Local and
traditional ecological knowledge has the potential to provide baselines for
ecological restoration, cultural restoration and reconnection, and policy-creation
based on fishers’ deeply rooted knowledge of aquatic environments and
localized fisheries. Many of our examples and papers in this special section
highlight Indigenous cases, but the main points apply to non-indigenous local
knowledge as well. For example, in the Gulf of Maine, Ames (2004) showed that
local knowledge in the living memory of old fishers could produce verifiable,
detailed maps of fishing areas, cod movements, and spawning grounds. Such
knowledge can provide a highly local historical perspective on drastic
transformations of a fishery, and can be critical for detecting local depletions
that can be missed or ignored by centralized government stock assessments.
Several examples in this introduction and special section (e.g., Prestes-
Carneiro and Béarez; Wallman and Gouard; Kennedy) demonstrate how
multidisciplinary approaches, such as those combining archaeological research
with ethnohistorical records and modern fishery data, have the power to extend
our knowledge of fishing practices back in time. These historical outlooks not
only contribute long-term historical baselines, but also provide a record of
fishers’ responses to changing social and environmental conditions that provide a
context for solving present challenges to fisheries. Conservation and manage-
ment policies and regulations based on local and traditional ecological
376 QUINTANA MORALES et al. Vol. 37, No. 3

knowledge, such as those integrating Indigenous resource management systems,

have more ‘‘teeth’’ because they are embedded in local cultures with their own
long-lived social and cultural contexts (Davidson-Hunt et al. 2012; Gavin et al.
2015; Lepofsky 2009; Nabhan et al. 2011; Wolverton et al. 2014).
Moreover, cross-disciplinary, community-based projects can enhance cultural
re-connections and bridge fishers’ practical knowledge and marine science to co-
produce knowledge that can address practical problems. Local, on-the-ground
ecological and cultural knowledge is essential for sustaining ecologically and
socio-culturally responsible fisheries. The use and adaptation of such knowledge
in fisheries resource management (Berkes 2012; Haggan et al. 2006) and in
conservation (Johannes 2002) are proving to be culturally and ecologically
appropriate. Rather than simply using such knowledge as a source of data for
management—rendered out of context (Johnson et al. 2016)—science and local/
traditional knowledge can be bridged (Reid et al. 2006) and used together to
address sustainability issues (Johnson et al. 2016). However, the appropriate use
of such knowledge depends on Indigenous peoples and other resource-
dependent communities controlling their lands and resources, as well as the
use of their own knowledge.

Notes
1
Additional examples available from http://www.hakaimagazine.com.
2
http://www.pacificherring.org.
3
http://www.clamgarden.com.

References Cited

Acheson, J. M. 1981. Anthropology of Fishing. Geographer / Le Géographe canadien. DOI:10.

Annual Review of Anthropology 10:275–316.
DOI:10.1146/annurev.an.10.100181.001423.
Ames, T. 2004. Putting Fishers’ Knowledge to
Work. In Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science
and Management, edited by N. Haggan, B.
Neis, and I. G. Baird, pp. 353–363. UNESCO,
Paris.
Anderson, E. N. 1996. Ecologies of the Heart:
Emotion, Belief, and the Environment. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Anderson, E. N. 2007. Floating World Lost.
University Press of the South, New Orleans.
Astuti, R. 1995. People of the Sea: Identity and
Descent Among the Vezo of Madagascar. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Augustine, S., and P. Dearden. 2014. Changing
Paradigms in Marine and Coastal Conserva-
tion: A Case Study of Clam Gardens in the
Southern Gulf Islands, Canada. The Canadian
1111/cag.12084.
Barrett, J. H., and D. C. Orton, eds. 2016. Cod and
Herring: The Archaeology and History of Medi-
eval Sea Fishing. Oxbow Books, Philadelphia.
Bavinck, M., F. Berkes, A. Charles, A. C. Esteves
Dias, N. Doubleday, P. Nayak, and M. Sow-
man. 2017. The Impact of Coastal Grabbing
on Community Conservation - A Global
Reconnaissance. Maritime Studies 16:8.
DOI:10.1186/s40152-017-0062-8.
Berkes, F. 2010. Shifting Perspectives on Re-
source Management: Resilience and the Re-
conceptualization of ‘Natural Resources’ and
‘Management’. Maritime Studies 9:11–38.
Berkes, F. 2012. Implementing Ecosystem-based
Management: Evolution or Revolution? Fish
and Fisheries 13:465–476.
Berkes, F. 2015. Coasts for People. Interdisciplinary
Approaches to Coastal and Marine Resource
2017 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
Management. Routledge, New York and Lon-
don.
Buckley, S. M., T. R. McClanahan, E. M.
Quintana Morales, V. Mwakha, J. Nyanapah,
L. Otwoma, and J. M. Pandolfi. Historical
Reconstruction of Species Occurrence to
Prioritize Conservation of Fish Species in
Diverse Marine Ecosystems. In review at
PlosOne.
Campbell, S. K., and V. L. Butler. 2010. Archae-
ological Evidence for Resilience of Pacific
Northwest Salmon Populations and the Soci-
oecological System over the Last 7,500 Years.
Ecology and Society 15:17. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/
iss1/art17/.
Cohen, F. 1986. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing
Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing
Rights. University of Washington Press, Seat-
tle.
Davidson-Hunt, I. J., K. L. Turner, A. T. P. Mead,
J. Cabrera-Lopez, R. Bolton, C. J. Idrobo, I.
Miretski, A. Morrison, and J. P. Robson. 2012.
Biocultural Design: A New Conceptual
Framework for Sustainable Development in
Rural Indigenous and Local Communities.
Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environ-
ment and Society 5:33–45.
Deb, A. K. 2015. ‘‘Something Sacred, Something
Secret’’: Traditional Ecological Knowledge of
the Artisanal Coastal Fishers of Bangladesh.
Journal of Ethnobiology 35:536–565.
Erlandson, J. M., and T. C. Rick. 2010. Archae-
ology Meets Marine Ecology: The Antiquity
of Maritime Cultures and Human Impacts on
Marine Fisheries and Ecosystems. Annual
Review of Marine Science 2:231–251. DOI:10.
1146/annurev.marine.010908.163749.
Evans, L., N. Cherrett, and D. Pemsl 2011.
Assessing the Impact of Fisheries Co-Man-
agement Interventions in Developing Coun-
tries. Journal of Environmental Management 92:
1838–1949.
Fowler, C. S., and D. Lepofsky. 2011. Traditional
Resource and Environmental Management.
In Ethnobiology, edited by E. N. Anderson, D.
Pearsall, E. Hunn, and N. Turner, pp. 285–
304. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New Jersey.
Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1002/9781118015872.ch17/summary.
Garibaldi, A. 2009. Moving from Model to
Application: Cultural Keystone Species and
Reclamation in Fort McKay, Alberta. Journal
of Ethnobiology 29:323–338.
Gauvreau, A. M., D. Lepofsky, M. Rutherford,
and M. Reid. 2017. ‘‘Everything Revolves
377
Around the Herring’’: The Heiltsuk-Herring
Relationship through Time. Ecology and Soci-
ety 22:10. URL: https://www.ecologyand
society.org/vol22/iss2/art10/.
Gavin, M. C., J. McCarter, A. Mead, F. Berkes, J.
R. Stepp, D. Peterson, and R. Tang. 2015.
Defining Biocultural Approaches to Conser-
vation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
30:140–145.
Groesbeck, A. S., K. Rowell, D. Lepofsky, and A.
K. Salomon. 2014. Ancient Clam Gardens
Increased Shellfish Production: Adaptive
Strategies from the Past Can Inform Food
Security Today. PLoS ONE 9(3). e91235.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0091235.
Grossman, Z. 2010. The Native Renaissance of
Washington’s Tribal Nations. American Asso-
ciation of Geographers Newsletter 45:1–11.
Haggan, N., B. Neis, and I. G. Baird, eds. 2006.
Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science and
Management. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
Hornell, J. 1950. Fishing in Many Waters. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jackley, J., L. Gardner, A. F. Djunaedi, and A. K.
Salomon. 2016. Ancient Clam Gardens, Tra-
ditional Management Portfolios, and the
Resilience of Coupled Human-Ocean Sys-
tems. Ecology and Society 21(4):20. [online]
URL: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08747-
210420.
Jentoft, S., and R. Chuenpagdee, eds. 2015.
Interactive Governance for Small-Scale Fisheries.
Springer, Dordrecht.
Johannes, R. E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing
and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micro-
nesia. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Johannes, R. E. 1998. Government-Supported,
Village-Based Management of Marine Re-
sources in Vanuatu. Ocean and Coastal Man-
agement 40:165–186.
Johannes, R. E. 2002. The Renaissance of
Community-Based Marine Resource Manage-
ment in Oceania. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 33:317–340.
Johnson, J. T., R. Howitt, G. Cajete, F. Berkes, R.
P. Louis, and A. Kliskey 2016. Weaving
Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to
Diversify Our Methods. Sustainability Science
11:1–11.
Johnson, L. M., and E. S. Hunn, eds. 2010.
Landscape Ethnoecology: Concepts of Biotic and
Physical Space. Berghahn Books, Oxford and
New York.
Jones, S. 2009. A Long-Term Perspective on
Biodiversity and Marine Resource Exploita-
378 QUINTANA MORALES et al.
tion in Fiji’s Lau Group 1. Pacific Science 63:
617–648.
Jones, S. R. 2016. Eating Identity: An Exploration
of Fijian Foodways in the Archaeological
Past. Journal of Indo-Pacific Archaeology 37:
64–71. DOI:10.7152/jipa.v37i0.15000.
Jupiter, S. D., G. Epstein, N. C. Ban, S.
Mangubhai, M. Fox, and M. Cox. 2017. A
Social-Ecological Systems Approach to As-
sessing Conservation and Fisheries Outcomes
in Fijian Locally Managed Marine Areas.
Society and Natural Resources. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.
1315654.
Keeling, B., M Hessing-Lewis, C. Housty, D. K.
Okamoto, E. J. Gregr, and A. K. Salomon.
2017. Factors Driving Spatial Variation in Egg
Survival of an Ecologically and Culturally
Important Forage Fish. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 00:1–14.
DOI:10.1002/aqc.2757.
Lepofsky, D. 2009. The Past, Present, and Future
of Traditional Resource and Environmental
Management. Journal of Ethnobiology 29: 161–
166.
Lepofsky, D., N. F. Smith, N. Cardinal, J. Harper,
M. Morris, E. White, R. Bouchard, D. Ken-
nedy, A. K. Salomon, M. Puckett, K. Rowell,
and E. McLay. 2015. Ancient Mariculture on
the Northwest Coast of North America.
American Antiquity 80:236–259.
Lutz, J. S., and B. Neis, eds. 2008. Making and
Moving Knowledge. McGill-Queen’s Universi-
ty Press, Montreal.
McGoodwin, J. R. 1990. Crisis in the World’s
Fisheries. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
CA.
McKechnie, I., D. Lepofsky, M. L. Moss, V. L.
Butler, T. J. Orchard, G. Coupland, F. Foster,
M. Caldwell, and K. Lertzman. 2014. Archae-
ological Data Provide Alternative Hypothe-
ses on Pacific Herring (Clupea Pallasii)
Distribution, Abundance, and Variability.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
111( 9):E807–E816. DOI :10.1073/ p nas.
1316072111.
McKechnie, I., and M. L. Moss. 2016. Meta-
Analysis in Zooarchaeology Expands Per-
spectives on Indigenous Fisheries of the
Northwest Coast of North America. Journal
of Archaeological Science: Reports 8:470–485.
DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.04.006.
Moss, M. L., and A. Cannon. 2011. The Archae-
ology of North Pacific Fisheries. University of
Alaska Press, Fairbanks.
Vol. 37, No. 3
Nabhan, G. P., K. Chambers, D. Tecklin, E.
Perramond, and T. E. Sheridan 2011. Ethno-
biology for a Diverse World Defining New
Disciplinary Trajectories: Mixing Political
Ecology with Ethnobiology. Journal of Ethno-
biology 31:1–3.
Nabhan, G., H. Govan, S. A. Eckert, and J. A.
Seminoff. 1999. Sea Turtle Workshop for the
Indigenous Ser Tribe. Marine Turtle Newsletter
86(14).
Newell, D., and R. E. Ommer. 1999. Fishing
Places, Fishing People: Traditions and Issues in
Canadian Small-Scale Fisheries. University of
Toronto Press, Toronto.
Ommer, R. E., and the Coasts Under Stress
Research Project team. 2007. Coasts Under
Stress: Restructuring and Social-Ecological
Health. McGill-Queen’s University Press,
Montreal.
Pandolfi, J. M., R. H. Bradbury, E. Sala, T. P.
Hughes, K. A. Bjorndal, R. G. Cooke, D.
McArdle, L. McClenachan, M. J. Newman, G.
Paredes, R. R. Warner., and J. B. Jackson. 2003.
Global Trajectories of the Long-Term Decline
of Coral Reef Ecosystems. Science 301(5635):
955–958. DOI:10.1126/science.1085706.
Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the Shifting
Baseline Syndrome of Fisheries. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 10:430. DOI:10.1016/
S0169-5347(00)89171-5.
Pinnegar, J. K., and G. H. Engelhard. 2008. The
’Shifting Baseline’ Phenomenon: A Global
Perspective. Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 18:1–16.
Quintana Morales, E. M., and M. E. Prendergast.
2017. Animals and Their Uses in the Swahili
World. In The Swahili World, edited by S.
Wynne-Jones and A. LaViolette. Routledge,
London. In press.
Reid, W. V., F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D.
Capistrano, eds. 2006. Bridging Scales and
Knowledge Systems: Linking Global Science and
Local Knowledge in Assessments. Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment and Island Press,
Washington DC.
Rick, T. C., and J. Erlandson, eds. 2008. Human
Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems: A Global
Perspective. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Rick, T. C., L. A. Reeder-Myers, C. A. Hofman,
D. Breitburg, R. Lockwood, G. Henkes, L.
Kellogg, D. Lowery, M. W. Luckenbach, R.
Mann, M. B. Ogburn, M. Southworth, J. Wah,
J. Wesson, and A. H. Hines. 2016. Millennial-
Scale Sustainability of the Chesapeake Bay
Native American Oyster Fishery. Proceedings
2017 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
of the National Academy of Sciences 113(23):
6568–6573. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1600019113.
Salomon, A., H. Huntington, and N. Tanape Sr.
2011. Imam Cimiucia. Our Changing Sea.
Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Univer-
sity of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Salomon, A. K., N. M. Tanape Sr., and H. P.
Huntington. 2007. Serial Depletion of Marine
Invertebrates Leads to the Decline of a
Strongly Interacting Grazer. Ecological Appli-
cations 17:1752–1770.
Schneider, K. 2012. Saltwater Sociality: An Eth-
nography of Pororan Island, Bougainville (Pap-
ua New Guinea). Berghahn Books, New York.
Steneck, R. S., T. P. Hughes, J. E. Cinner, J. E.
Cinner, W. N. Adger, S. N. Arnold, F. Berkes,
S. A. Boudreau, K. Brown, C. Folke, L.
Gunderson, P. Olsson, M. Scheffer, E. Ste-
phenson, B. Walker, J. Wilson, and B. Worm.
2011. Creation of a Gilded Trap by the High
379
Economic Value of the Maine Lobster Fishery.
Conservation Biology 25:904–912.
Stephenson, J., F. Berkes, N. J. Turner, and J.
Dick. 2014. Biocultural Conservation of Ma-
rine Ecosystems: Examples from New Zea-
land and Canada. Indian Journal of Traditional
Knowledge 13:257–265.
Turner, N. J., F. Berkes, J. Stephenson, and J. Dick.
2013. Blundering Intruders: Extraneous Im-
pacts on Two Indigenous Food Systems. Human
Ecology 41:563. DOI:10.1007/s10745-013-9591-y.
Wolverton, S., and R. L. Lyman, eds. 2012.
Conservation Biology and Applied Zooarchaeol-
ogy. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Wolverton, S., J. M. Nolan, and W. Ahmed. 2014.
Ethnobiology, Political Ecology, and Conser-
vation. Journal of Ethnobiology 34:125–152.
WRI. 2005. World Resources 2005. The Wealth of
the Poor – Managing Ecosystems to Fight
Poverty. World Resources Institute, Washington
DC.