Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

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

A look at the unknown: Potential impact of marine recreational fishing on

threatened species in the Southern Atlantic Ocean
Giuliano Menegale Martinazzo a, Eloísa Pinheiro Giareta b, Hugo Bornatowski c,
Vinicius Abilhoa a, b, Matheus Freitas a, d, *
a
Museu de História Natural Capão da Imbuia, Rua Professor Benedito Conceição, 407, 82810080, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
b
Programa de Pós-graduação em Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Avenida Cel. Francisco H. dos Santos, S/N, Jardim das Américas, Caixa Postal 19020, CEP
81531-980, Curitiba, PR, Brazil
c
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Sistemas Costeiros e Oceânicos (PGSISCO), Universidade Federal do Paraná, 83255-976, Pontal do Paraná, PR, Brazil
d
Instituto Meros do Brasil, Rua Benjamin Constant, 67. Centro, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Brazil is currently facing one of the worst environmental crises in history. The over-exploitation of natural re­
Anglers sources, unrestrained expansion of fisheries, and mostly ineffective conservation policies impose great difficulty
Recreational fishing in regulating and supervising fishing activities, whether commercial or recreational. Unreported and unregulated
Shark
recreational fisheries are largely carried out along the Brazilian coast; however, their potential for exploitation of
Social media
Facebook
fish stocks remain unknown. To obtain data regarding this popular and poorly known leisure activity, we
compiled information on catches posted by recreational anglers on a social media platform between 2008 and
2013. Photographic records of fish caught on the continental shelf off the southern Atlantic Ocean in Brazil were
downloaded and assessed, and species were identified and quantified (trophies and total captures) for each
fishing trip (day), including the number of anglers, totaling 788 fishing days, with an average of 4.2 anglers/day.
A total of 50 species were recorded: eight elasmobranchs and 42 teleosteans. Regarding conservation status, 25
species were categorized as threatened (25.5%) and one as data deficient (25.5%) at the global level according to
the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Notably, elasmobranchs, dolphinfishes, bluefishes, croakers,
triggerfishes, Atlantic bigeyes, and sharks showed high capture frequencies. Our results indicate the need for an
efficient system to monitor recreational fishing, as well as co-management plans discussed with all stakeholders
to control and reduce the worrying rate of capture of threatened species.

1. Introduction
Overfishing, when the rate of harvest is higher than the population’s
natural replenishment rate, is perhaps the most acknowledged anthro­
pogenic stress on marine systems (Jackson et al., 2001; Scheffer et al.,
2005; Worm et al., 2013; Boonstra and Österblom, 2014). Where data
exist, some monitored stocks are exploited beyond their resilience ca­
pacity, indicating that overfishing promotes large population declines
(Giglio et al., 2017; Roff et al., 2018; Pacoureau et al., 2021) and
changes in the trophic structures (Pauly et al., 1998; Andersen and
Pedersen, 2010; Bornatowski et al., 2018a), and drives species to
extinction in coastal ecosystems (Kyne et al., 2020). While commercial
harvesting has received much attention from researchers and fisheries
governance (e.g. Smith, 2002; Hilborn et al., 2003; Pauly et al., 2003;
Worm et al., 2013; Pauly and Zeller, 2016; Anderson et al., 2019), the
exploitation of small-scale and recreational fisheries has not yet been
extensively studied (e.g. Cooke and Cowx, 2004; Shester and Micheli,
2011; Jones et al., 2018; Lewin et al., 2019).
Although recreational fishing is widespread and carried out world­
wide (Freire et al., 2020), in many instances, the recreational catch is
unknown or underreported. In Brazil, despite the institutional instability
and the lack of an effective fisheries monitoring program, recreational
fisheries have been the target of research in inland waters (Freire et al.,
2012) and coastal environments (Freire et al., 2018; Freire and Rocha,
2021; Roos and Longo, 2021). Research has been based on alternative
approaches such as the analysis of data from fishing licenses (Freire
et al., 2016, 2020), shore-based fishing tournaments (Freire et al., 2017,
2020; Dal-Negro et al., 2021), and fishing guides (Freire, 2005;

* Corresponding author. Museu de História Natural Capão da Imbuia, Rua Professor Benedito Conceição, 407, 82810080, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
E-mail address: serranidae@gmail.com (M. Freitas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106044
Received 5 October 2021; Received in revised form 24 December 2021; Accepted 10 January 2022
0964-5691/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G.M. Martinazzo et al.
Barcellini et al., 2013; Motta et al., 2016). Irregular data collection and
absence of mandatory obligations for recreational fishers to report their
catches may considerably underestimate the actual fisheries catches and
efforts, and the uncertainty about recreational catch levels, indicating
that the rate of exploitation is unknown or uncertain when managing the
fishing pressure. Evidence of recreational fisheries collapsing natural
freshwater and marine systems is known (Post et al., 2002; Pauly and
Zeller 2016), with an important contribution to anthropogenic impacts
on fish stocks (Gallardo et al., 2021; Roos and Longo, 2021).
Recreational fishing is steadily increasing in low- and low-middle
income countries (Freire et al., 2016) and has been documented as
one of the most popular coastline activities around the world (Cowx,
2002; Freire et al., 2020), even considering that participation rates are
falling in industrialized nations (Arlinghaus et al., 2015). Besides
providing a source of leisure and food security (Cooke et al., 2018), this
activity contributes greatly to the social (e.g. employment) and eco­
nomic (e.g. income) development of coastline economies, directly
benefitting the tourism sector (Lynch et al., 2016). Conversely, there is
growing recognition that, in some instances, unassessed and unmanaged
recreational fishing has the potential to promote negative consequences
for target and non-target fish populations and ecosystems, generating
pressure on fishing resources and/or vulnerable species, and environ­
mental degradation (Coleman et al., 2004; Giglio et al., 2017, 2020;
Pacoureau et al., 2021).
Recreational fisheries have experienced little of the policy and
governance attention seen in other fisheries sectors (e.g. Sumaila et al.,
2007; Haas et al., 2019). Some operate under regimes of license permits
and fees (Alic et al., 2021), and little is known about the consequences of
this activity on the decline in various fish stocks worldwide. In Brazil,
although regulated by national and regional norms, the number of
licenses issued is underestimated (Freire et al., 2020). Important infor­
mation on recreational fishing is generally obtained during competi­
tions, tournaments, and systematic monitoring, describing the
composition, catch rate, and fishers’ profile (Schork et al., 2010; Bar­
cellini et al., 2013; Freire et al., 2016, 2017, 2020; Dal-Negro et al.,
2021). Considering the high diversity of fish, in addition to the large
coastline (7491 km) of the country and the lack of an effective moni­
toring program for data collection on fishery (Escobar, 2015), Brazilian
recreational fisheries require greater attention.
Here, we explore the use of a social media platform (Facebook) to
evaluate fish species caught and retained by a long-term offshore boat-
based recreational fishing operation in southern Brazil. Even though
social media data are non-independent in space and time (Bodin and
Crona, 2009), data mining approaches are gaining notoriety as data
collection tools. In the world of recreational fishing, mining of social
media has been shown to be a useful tool for recording fishing trophies
(Giovos et al., 2018; Sbragaglia et al., 2019; Giglio et al., 2020), indi­
cating potential impacts on endangered species (Cooke et al., 2016;
Shiffman et al., 2017; Gibson et al., 2019; Giglio et al., 2020), and for
assessing illegal fishing (Roos and Longo, 2021). In fact, social media
could be a cost-effective and efficient way to collect large amounts of
data on a relatively data-poor and unmonitored fishery and can play an
important role in monitoring recreational fishing activities (Thurstan
et al., 2017; Giovos et al., 2018; Gundelund et al., 2020; Roos and Longo,
2021).
The objectives of this study were to use data obtained through social
media to quantify the composition, effort, and temporal variation of
recreational fishing on the continental shelf off the southern Atlantic
Ocean in Brazil. We also discuss the capture of threatened species and
the potential impact of recreational fisheries in shaping the target spe­
cies populations, suggesting the need for a comprehensive survey of
recreational fishing to develop management strategies and conservation
measures together with stakeholders and fisheries agencies.
2
Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044
2. Material and methods
2.1. Data collection
Collecting data on recreational fisheries in Brazil is challenging, and
novel approaches for monitoring are needed to assess their potential
impacts. In the absence of an effective monitoring program for data
collection on regional fishery efforts and yields, screening online surveys
were carried out on the most commonly used social media platform by
anglers. Social media is a popular channel for sharing and accessing
data, including recreational fishing variables, such as pictures of iconic
species caught (Vitale et al., 2021), number of specimens, type of fishing
gear, and fish length (e.g. Giovos et al., 2018; Sbragaglia et al., 2019;
Giglio et al., 2020; Gundelund et al., 2020; Roos and Longo, 2021).
First, we explored publicly available digital information on catches
of marine fishes from the southern Atlantic Ocean posted by anglers on
Facebook. Keywords were not used and data collection was restricted to
content related to marine recreational fishing in Brazil, looking for
pictures of anglers holding fishes, images of total catches, and infor­
mation on the number of anglers in each fishing activity. During the
online survey, we specifically selected a page where we found detailed
information on a boat-based recreational fishing operation, including a
great number of posts showing daily fishing trips for several years (~5
years), pictures with the number of individuals, total catches, and the
number of anglers in each fishing trip. As our data collection was
focused on obtaining information through this Facebook’s page, we
contacted the fishing guide (page’s admin) to explain our research
approach and to obtain additional information on fishing activities and
areas. According to the fishing guide, during the studied period the one-
day fishing operations were performed with the same vessel and
restricted to the continental shelf between the northern state of Santa
Catarina and the southern state of São Paulo in Brazil (25◦ 23′ S/47◦ 53′ W
and 26◦ 61′ S/48◦ 41′ W), at depths ranging from 15 to 40 m (Fig. 1).
During the manual review process of each picture posted, no personal
details were accessed or recorded to protect the identity of users and
anglers, following the ethic protocols for the use of social media data in
fisheries research (Monkman et al., 2018; Correia et al., 2021; Di Minin
et al., 2021).
Images protected by privacy or those showing irrelevant subjects
were avoided, and we assumed that posts by anglers in the social
network represented a proxy for recreational fishing variables (e.g.
trophy species, type of fishing gear, fish length) and represented a pri­
mary source of information on species caught. In our study, pictures of
the captured fish were used as data collection instruments, because
those images are an important source of information, considering the
lack of self-reporting mechanisms for recreational fishing and the
absence of logbooks with the effort expended and capture by species.
Several images of each fishing trip (day) performed between 2008 and
2013 were downloaded from Facebook’s page and duplicates were
easily identified and excluded by ordering the date, species caught and
anglers. For all photographic records analyzed (Fig. 2), we identified the
species, number of individuals captured and boarded (trophies and the
total capture), number of anglers in each fishing trip (fishing partners
were identified individually by comparing the photos), and when the
recreational activity was performed (day/season/year), and later orga­
nized the information in a database.
Species were classified as either teleosteans or elasmobranchs, ac­
cording to their orders, families (Nelson et al., 2016; Betancur-R et al.,
2017), common names (according to Froese and Pauly, 2021), and
commercial designation names (Table 1). Commercial names were
defined based mostly on species taxonomy and economic importance
(international acceptable market names), rather than functional groups,
fish size, or life history traits, to avoid misidentification associated with
common names recorded in recreational fisheries (Freire and Pauly,
2005). Species were categorized according to the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and the Brazilian Red Book
G.M. Martinazzo et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044

Fig. 1. Map of fishing area, according to the fishing guide, showing the continental shelf between the northern state of Santa Catarina and the southern state of São
Paulo in Brazil.

Fig. 2. Images of trophies and total fishes captured by recreational fisheries between 2008 and 2013 on the continental shelf of the southern portion of the Atlantic
Ocean, southern Brazil, used as the data collection instrument in the social media. A - Isurus oxyrinchus; B – 134 specimens of Pomatomus saltatrix; C- 20 individuals of
Carcharhinus falciformis; D - 19 individuals of Coryphaena hippurus.

of Threatened Species (ICMBio. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação
da Biodiversidade, 2018). The categories used were data deficient (DD),
least concern (LC), near threatened (NT), vulnerable (VU), endangered
(EN), critically endangered (CR), and not evaluated (NE).
2.2. Data analyses
Recreational fishery composition was first quantified through the
frequency of occurrence. The relative frequency of occurrence (FO%) of
a determined taxonomical category (family or species) was calculated as
the occurrences of individuals of each category in the images of catches
(N) normalized by the total number of occurrences of all catches.
Furthermore, the relative frequency of occurrence of the most common
species observed in the images posted during the studied period of
recreational fishing were calculated across years and seasons, to deter­
mine their relative contribution to the temporal variation.
Histograms of the extinction risk categories of species observed in the
images posted in the Facebook’s page were generated to evaluate the
frequency of each category following the International Union for Con­
servation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and the Brazilian Red Book of
Threatened Species.
The catch per unit effort (CPUE) was established as the number of
fish caught and observed in the images posted per angler per day (unit of
time). The fishing effort of this boat-based recreational activity was

3
G.M. Martinazzo et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044

Table 1
Species, abundance (N), relative frequency of occurrence (FO%), and categorization according to IUCN Red List and the Brazilian Red Book of Threatened Species (DD -
data deficient, LC - least concern, NT - near threatened, VU - vulnerable, EN - endangered, CR - critically endangered, NE - not evaluated) of fishes captured by
recreational fisheries between 2008 and 2013 on the continental shelf of the southern portion of the Atlantic Ocean, southern Brazil.
Species Popular name Commercial name N FO% IUCN Brazil

Elasmobranchs

Carcharhiniformes/Carcharhinidae
Carcharhinus falciformis (Muller and Henle, 1839) Silky shark Shark 314 5.83 VU NT
Galeocerdo cuvier (Péron and Lesueur, 1822) Tiger shark Shark 7 0.13 NT NT
Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758) Blue shark Shark 1 0.02 NT NT
Rhizoprionodon lalandii (Müller and Henle, 1839) Brazilian sharpnose shark Shark 3 0.06 VU NT
Carcharhiniformes/Sphyrnidae
Sphyrna zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758) Smooth hammerhead Shark 170 3.16 VU CR
Sphyrna lewini (Griffith and Smith, 1834) Scalloped hammerhead Shark 6 0.11 CR CR
Lamniformes/Lamnidae
Isurus oxyrinchus (Refinesque, 1810) Shortfin mako Shark 18 0.33 EN NT
Rhinopristiformes/Rhinobatidae
Pseudobatos percellens (Walbaum, 1792) Chola guitarfish Guitarfish 2 0.04 EN DD
Teleosts
Anguilliformes/Muraenidae
Gymnothorax sp. Moray eel Moray eel 1 0.02
Carangiformes/Carangidae
Alectis ciliaris (Bloch, 1787) African pompano Pompano 9 0.17 LC LC
Caranx latus Agassiz, 1831 Horse-eye jack Jack 19 0.35 LC LC
Naucrates ductor (Linnaeus, 1758) Pilotfish Jack 1 0.02 LC LC
Oligoplites saliens (Bloch, 1793) Castin leatherjacket Jack 6 0.11 LC LC
Selene setapinnis (Mitchill, 1815) Atlantic moonfish Jack 3 0.06 LC LC
Seriola fasciata (Bloch, 1793) Lesser amberjack Jack 6 0.11 LC DD
Seriola lalandi Valenciennes, 1833 Yellowtail amberjack Jack 247 4.59 LC LC
Trachinotus sp. Pompano Pompano 2 0.04
Carangiformes/Coryphaenidae
Coryphaena hippurus Linneus,1758 Common dolphinfish Dolphinfish 569 10.56 LC LC
Ephippiformes/Ephippidae
Chaetodipterus faber (Broussonet, 1782) Atlantic Spadefish Spadefish 1 0.02 LC LC
Gadiformes/Phycidae
Urophycis brasiliensis (Kaup, 1858) Brazilian codling Phycid hake 1 0.02 NE NT
Gerreiformes/Gerreidae
Eugerres brasilianus (Cuvier, 1830) Brazilian mojarra Mojarra 13 0.24 LC LC
Istiophoriformes/Istiophoridae
Istiophorus albicans (Shaw, 1792) Atlantic sailfish Atlantic sailfish 2 0.04 NE LC
Sphyraena guachancho (Cuvier, 1829) Guachanche barracuda Guachanche barracuda 549 10.19 LC LC
Lutjaniformes/Haemulidae
Anisotremus virginicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Porkfish Grunt 4 0.07 LC LC
Anisotremus surinamensis (Bloch, 1791) Black margate Grunt 1 0.02 DD DD
Conodon nobilis (Linnaeus,1758) Barred grunt Grunt 6 0.11 LC LC
Lutjaniformes/Lutjanidae
Lutjanus analis (Cuvier, 1828) Mutton snapper Snapper 1 0.02 NT NT
Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) Lane snapper Snapper 6 0.11 NT NT
Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier, 1829) Vermilion snapper Snapper 215 3.99 VU NT
Priacanthiformes/Priacanthidae
Priacanthus arenatus Cuvier, 1829 Atlantic bigeye Bigeye 489 9.08 LC LC
‘Perciformes’/Centropomidae
Centropomus parallelus Poey, 1860 Fat snook Snook 5 0.09 LC LC
‘Perciformes’/Epinephelidae
Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) Dusky grouper Grouper 5 0.09 VU VU
Mycteroperca microlepis (Goode and Bean, 1879) Gag grouper Grouper 11 0.20 VU DD
‘Perciformes’/Sciaenidae
Cynoscion sp. Seatrout Croacker 204 3.79
Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest, 1823) Whitemouth croaker Croaker 138 2.56 LC LC
‘Perciformes’/Scorpaenidae
Scorpaena plumieri Bloch, 1789 Spotted scorpionfish Scorpionfish 1 0.02 LC LC
‘Perciformes’/Triglidae
Prionotus punctatus (Bloch, 1793) Bluewing searobin Searobin 5 0.09 LC LC
Pleuronectiformes/Paralichthyidae
Paralichthys patagonicus Jordan, 1889 Patagonian flounder Flounder 2 0.04 VU NT
Scombriformes/Pomatomidae
Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, 1766) Bluefish Bluefish 1709 31.72 VU NT
Scombriformes/Scombridae
Auxis thazard (Lacepéde, 1800) Frigate tuna Tuna 16 0.30 LC LC
Katsuwonus pelamis (Linnaeus, 1758) Skipjack tuna Tuna 59 1.1 LC LC
Scomberomorus brasiliensis (Collete, Russo and Zavala-Camin, 1978) Serra Spanish mackerel Tuna 132 2.45 LC LC
Scombriformes/Trichiuridae
Trichiurus lepturus Linnaeus, 1758 Largehead hairtail Cutlassfish 63 1.17 LC LC
Siluriformes/Ariidae
Genidens barbus (Cuvier, 1829) White sea catfish Catfish 4 0.07 NE EN
Spariformes/Lobotidae
Lobotes surinamensis (Bloch, 1790) Tripletail Tripletail 60 1.11 LC LC
(continued on next page)

4
G.M. Martinazzo et al.
Table 1 (continued )
Species Popular name
Elasmobranchs
Spariformes/Sparidae
Diplodus argenteus (Valenciennes, 1830) South American silver porgy
Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758) Red porgy
Syngnathiformes/Fistulariidae
Fistularia tabacaria (Linnaeus, 1758) Cornetfish
Tetraodontiformes/Monacanthidae
Aluterus monoceros (Linnaeus, 1758) Unicorn leatherjacket filefish
Tetraodontiformes/Balistidae
Balistes capriscus Gmelin, 1789 Grey triggerfish
calculated as the number of anglers per day, because the number of
hours was considered constant once recreational fishing was observed as
a daily leisure activity. The effect of the fishing gear (reels and spools)
was not evaluated because this information was not available for all
images. Estimates of CPUE for the total number of fish caught and posted
in the Facebook’s page was performed separately for each season and
year. The effect of season on the catch per unit effort was statistically
evaluated through a Kruskall-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by
ranks. Even considering the challenge of quantifying the effort for rec­
reational fisheries in terms of spatial and temporal variability, gears, and
practices employed (McCluskey and Lewison, 2008), the catch per unit
effort estimated can be used to visualize temporal trends in this fishing
activity, information important to build quota systems, and modeling
the outcome of management plans (Morgan and Burgess, 2005).
We then examined whether the CPUE of the main groups of fish
(assembled according to their commercial designation names) varied
between years and seasons. A non-metric multidimensional scaling
(NMDS) ordination was utilized to visualize, in a two-dimensional plane,
possible temporal patterns of the CPUE estimated for the main groups of
fish according to season and/or year. We preferred to use the NMDS
analysis over other ordination methods because it makes fewer as­
sumptions about the nature of the data, it allows the use of any distance
measure of the samples, and it also seeks to preserve the distance re­
lationships among the samples in a low-dimensional space (Clarke,
1993). Stress values generated by the algorithm with values equal or
below 0.1 indicated a good fit of the ordination (Clarke and Warwick,
1994). Vectors corresponding to Spearman correlations of the CPUE
estimated for the main groups of fish were superimposed onto the NMDS
axes (r > 0.7) to identify (direction and magnitude) the groups of fish
most strongly correlated with the ordination. Spearman’s correlation
coefficient is a nonparametric statistic that assesses how well an arbi­
trary monotonic function can describe a relationship between two var­
iables, without making any assumptions about the frequency
distribution of the variables (Hauke and Kossowski, 2011). Finally,
analysis of similarities (SIMPER) was performed to determine the best
discriminating fish categories (assembled according to their commercial
designation names) that contributed highly to the within-season simi­
larity and between-season dissimilarity. SIMPER analysis broke down
the percentage contribution of each group of fish to the observed simi­
larity (or dissimilarity) within and between seasons, and allowed the
identification of the most important group of fish to the observed pattern
of similarity. All analyses were performed using Primer v6 software
(Clarke and Gorley, 2006), and the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix was
constructed with the CPUE (square-root-transformed) of the commercial
fish categories.
3. Results
A total of 5387 fishes were identified from the photos, corresponding
to 50 taxa (three at the genus level only), 18 orders, and 30 families. The
majority of individuals (96.16%) were identified at the species level.
Teleosts (42 species) accounted for 90.3% of all individuals recorded.
The families with the highest FO% were Pomatomidae (31.7%),
5
Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044
Commercial name N FO% IUCN Brazil
Porgy 1 0.02 LC LC
Porgy 1 0.02 LC DD
Cornetfish 1 0.02 LC LC
Filefish 65 1.21 LC NT
Triggerfish 234 4.34 VU NT
Coryphaenidae (10.6%), Sphyraenidae (10.2%), Priacanthidae (9.1%),
Sciaenidae (6.3%), Carcharhinidae (6.1%), and Carangidae (5.3%).
Families with the highest frequencies were represented by a single
species: Pomatomus saltatrix (Pomatomidae), Coryphaena hippurus (Cor­
yphaenidae), Sphyraena guachancho (Sphyraenidae), and Priacanthus are­
natus (Priacanthidae) (Table 1).
Fourteen species (28% of all species registered) were commonly
observed during the period of recreational fishing, and they accounted
for 91.8% of all individuals recorded (Table 2). Guachancho barracuda,
S. guachancho, showed the highest catch rate in winter, with the highest
value being observed in the winter of 2008 (45.1%). The common dol­
phinfish, C. hippurus, showed the highest catch rate in the summer and
spring seasons, and the highest value was observed in the summer of
2008 (64.4%) and 2009 (76.3%). The threatened bluefish, P. saltatrix,
was dominant in almost all fall and winter seasons evaluated, and higher
values were observed in fall (2011, 69.3%), winter (2011, 77.4%; 2013,
49.5%), and spring (2013, 54.1%). Although the catches of the Serra
Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus brasiliensis, constituted only 2.45% of
the overall results, in the fall of 2012, this mackerel reached 16% of all
individuals registered. The Skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, showed a
similar pattern (11.35% in the fall of 2010). The Whitemouth croaker,
Micropogonias furnieri, was dominant in the spring of 2010 (23%) and
2013 (13%). Two threatened species of elasmobranchs were also
considered frequent during the study period. The Silky shark, Carch­
arhinus falciformis, and the Smooth hammerhead shark, Sphyrna zygaena,
showed higher frequencies in summer and spring seasons, with the
highest rates recorded of C. falciformis in the summer of 2010 (55.3%)
and 2012 (33.3%), and that of S. zygaena in the spring of 2009 (24.2%)
and summer of 2012 (24.2%).
According to the conservation status at global level, out of these eight
elasmobranchs and 42 teleosteans caught by anglers in the coastal re­
gion of southern Brazil, 27 were categorized as LC (57.4% of all species),
and one was data deficient (2.1%), resulting in a total of 12 (25.5%)
threatened species (Fig. 3A). Although the LC category represented the
highest number of species, threatened species (VU, EN, and CR)
accounted for 49.9% of the total number of individuals captured by
recreational anglers. Regarding the regional conservation status of the
Brazilian Red Book of Threatened Species, one species is listed as VU
(2.1% of all species), one as EN (2.1% of all species), and two as CR
(4.3% of all species) (Fig. 3B). LC category again represented the highest
number of registered species (n = 25), and NT category accounted for
47.8% of the total number of individuals captured.
The total number of days of this recreational angling activity exerted
in the coastal region of southern Brazil during 2008 and 2013 was 788,
and the average number of participants was 4.2 anglers/day (standard
deviation, SD = 0.5) (Table 3). The mean CPUE was 52.1 fish per angler/
day and catches of recreational fishing were directly related to the
fishing effort employed, with significant seasonal variations according
to a non-parametric test (H=12.03, P=0.007). CPUE values of winter
revealed statistical differences from summer (P=0.005) and spring
(P=0.013). Fall and winter seasons had the highest estimates of CPUE of
the total number of fish caught and posted in the Facebook’s page.
The NMDS ordination plot revealed seasonal CPUE differences of the
 G.M. Martinazzo et al.
Table 2
Total abundance and relative frequency of occurrence (%) of frequent species captured by recreational fisheries between 2008 and 2013 on the continental shelf of the southern portion of the Atlantic Ocean, southern
Brazil.
Period C. falciformis S. zygaena S. guachancho M. furnieri K. pelamis S. brasiliensis P. saltatrix C. hippurus L. surinamensis R. aurorubens B. capriscus S. lalandi T. lepturus P. arenatus Other
species

2008 Summer 2 (1.5%) 85 (64.4%) 1 (0.8%) 40 (30.3%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (2.3%)

Fall 1 (0.3%) 61 (15.7%) 2 (0.5%) 6 (1.5%) 169 30 (7.7%) 3 (0.8%) 17 (4.3%) 5 (1.3%) 93 (23.9%) 2 (0.5%)
(43.4%)
Winter 207 (45.1%) 10 (2.2%) 6 (1.3%) 61 (13.3%) 5 (1.1%) 14 (3.1%) 2 (0.4%) 55 (12%) 99 (21.6%)
Spring 7 (17.5%) 7 (17.5%) 1 (2.5%) 2 (5%) 12 (30%) 2 (5%) 9 (22.5%)
2009 Summer 20 (10.1%) 3 (1.5%) 2 (1%) 5 (2.5%) 1 (0.5%) 151 4 (2%) 1 (0.5%) 4 (2%) 1 (0.5%)
(76.3%)
Fall 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 19 (8.8%) 6 (2.8%) 98 (45.4%) 43 (19.9%) 4 (1.9%) 4 (1.9%) 10 (4.6%) 2 (0.9%) 28 (13%)
Winter 61 (24.3%) 8 (3.2%) 2 (0.8%) 72 (28.7%) 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.8%) 11 (4.4%) 5 (2%) 2 (0.8%) 87 (34.7%)
Spring 13 (9.8%) 32 10 (7.6%) 6 (4.5%) 1 (0.7%) 11 (8.3%) 19 (14.4%) 8 (6.1%) 6 (4.5%) 1 (0.7%) 11 (8.3%) 14 (10.6%)
(24.2%)
2010 Summer 109 (55.3%) 3 (1.5%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 5 (2.5%) 23 (11.7%) 5 (2.5%) 20 (10.1%) 4 (2%) 19 (9.6%) 5 (2.5%)
Fall 16 (11.3%) 5 (3.5%) 16 1 (0.7%) 65 (46%) 3 (2.1%) 3 (2.1%) 11 (7.8%) 3 (2.1%) 1 (0.7%) 17 (12.1%)
(11.3%)
Winter 1 (0.3%) 96 (29.4%) 2 (0.6%) 17 (5.2%) 9 (2.7%) 148 4 (1.2%) 7 (2.1%) 33 3 (0.9%) 1 (0.3%) 6 (1.8%)
(45.2%) (10.1%)
Spring 22 (13.3%) 22 1 (0.6%) 38 (23%) 4 (2.4%) 2 (1.2%) 31 (18.8%) 29 (17.6%) 4 (2.4%) 4 (2.4%) 8 (4.8%)
(13.3%)
2011 Summer 53 (32.1%) 31 2 (1.2%) 8 (4.8%) 56 (33.9%) 3 (1.8%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.6%) 10 (6.1%)
(18.8%)
Fall 7 (3.5%) 1 (0.5%) 3 (1.5%) 140 5 (2.5%) 5 (2.5%) 10 (5%) 18 (8.9%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 11 (5.4%)
(69.3%)
6

Winter 17 (5.7%) 21 (7.1%) 230 23 (7.7%) 6 (2%)

(77.4%)
Spring 2 (2%) 8 (8%) 2 (2%) 8 (8%) 1 (1%) 34 (34%) 13 (13%) 10 (10%) 1 (1%) 8 (8%) 1 (1%) 12 (12%)
2012 Summer 33 (33.3%) 24 4 (4%) 19 (19.2%) 6 (6.1%) 4 (4%) 9 (9.1%)
(24.2%)
Fall 1 (0.5%) 4 (1.8%) 1 (0.5%) 8 (3.7%) 35 (16%) 68 (31%) 4 (1.8%) 37 (16.9%) 12 (5.5%) 5 (2.3%) 29 (13.2%) 15 (6.8%)
Winter 7 (2.6%) 2 (0.7%) 5 (1.9%) 6 (2.2%) 213 2 (0.7%) 10 (3.7%) 11 (4.1%) 1 (0.4%) 3 (1.1%) 7 (2.6%)
(79.8%)
Spring 15 (12%) 9 (7.2%) 2 (1.6%) 4 (3.2%) 10 (8%) 32 (25.6%) 8 (6.4%) 37 (29.6%) 8 (6.4%)
2013 Summer 20 (11.6%) 8 (4.6%) 1 (0.6%) 3 (1.7%) 4 (2.3%) 1 (0.6%) 15 (8.7%) 3 (1.7%) 40 (23.2%) 49 (28.5%) 22 (12.8%) 6 (3.5%)
Fall 3 (0.6%) 2 (0.4%) 16 (3%) 68 (12.6%) 2 (0.4%) 38 (7.1%) 78 (14.5%) 61 206 65 (12.1%)
(11.3%) (38.2%)
Winter 33 (11.5%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 142 26 (9.1%) 2 (0.7%) 24 (8.4%) 53 (18.5%) 5 (1.7%)
(49.5%)

Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044

Spring 17 (6.3%) 19 (7.1%) 1 (0.4%) 35 1 (0.4%) 145 25 (9.3%) 4 (1.5%) 9 (3.4%) 4 (1.5%) 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.8%) 5 (1.9%)
(13.1%) (54.1%)
Total 314 170 549 138 59 132 1709 569 60 215 234 247 63 489 439
G.M. Martinazzo et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044

main groups of fish, suggesting that catch per unit effort established
through the images posted per angler diverged mostly by seasonal
contributions, instead of years, and the plot of vectors revealed that
eight groups of species, including dolphinfishes, sharks, tripletails,
triggerfish, bluefishes, jacks, barracuda, and cutlassfishes, mainly
contributed to the differences observed (Fig. 4).
SIMPER analysis also showed the dissimilarity of the catch per unit
effort of the main groups of fish species between seasons. The highest
average dissimilarity was found between summer and spring (79.79%)
and summer and fall (66.48%) seasons, whereas the lowest dissimilarity
was registered between fall and spring (38.75%). SIMPER analysis
showed that dolphinfishes and sharks were the highest contributory
groups of species in the pictures posted in summer and winter seasons
between 2008 and 2013. The highest contributory groups of species in
fall seasons were bluefishes (32.41%) and jacks (12.16%), and blue­
fishes (38.07%), followed by barracudas (18.99%) and jacks (15.27%),
showed the highest contribution in spring. The highest percentage of
similarity within-seasons was observed in winter (63.78%), whereas the
lowest percentage was found in summer (58.16%) (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The information provided by our survey of this poorly-known fishing

modality on the Brazilian coastline indicates that the official regulation
of recreational fisheries, based on fishing licenses, bag limits (15 kg/
angler/day, plus one specimen), and the prohibition of catch commer­
cialization may not succeed in avoiding overfishing, mostly because of
the socioeconomic complexity of the activity and the lack of a
Fig. 3. Relative frequency of occurrence for IUCN Red List of Threatened monitoring-enforcement program (Moura et al., 2013; Morzaria-Luna
Species categories (A) and Relative frequency of occurrence for the Brazilian et al., 2020). Even considering that our data collection instrument
Red Book of Threatened Species (B) categories of fishes captured by recrea­ should be interpreted with caution as it is not a direct estimate of cap­
tional fisheries between 2008 and 2013 on the continental shelf of the southern
tures and biomass, our estimated catches through the images posted of
portion of the Atlantic Ocean, southern Brazil. DD - data deficient, LC - least
dolphinfishes, bluefishes, croackers, triggerfishes, Atlantic bigeyes, and
concern, NT - near threatened, VU - vulnerable, EN - endangered, CR - critically
endangered, NE - not evaluated.
sharks were substantial, and 26% of species were categorized as
threatened (VU, EN, and CR) or near-threatened, especially elasmo­
branchs, a group vulnerable to fishing pressure (Worm et al., 2013; Stein
Table 3 et al., 2018) because of their slow growth, late age maturity, and low
Number of anglers, fishing days, captures, effort (angler/day) and Catch per Unit reproductive potential (Garcia et al., 2008).
Effort (CPUE) as the number of fishes caught per angler/day, in the recreational The broad diversity of elasmobranchs reflects the variety of habitats
fisheries between 2008 and 2013 on the continental shelf of the southern portion present in fishing zones. For example, the predominance of small
of the Atlantic Ocean, southern Brazil. (probably newborns or young individuals) in the images of captured fish
Season/ Anglers Fishing Captures Effort CPUE between 2008 and 2013 suggests that fishery areas may comprise
year (total) days (total) breeding and nursery grounds for some species of sharks (e.g.,
2008 Summer 58 12 132 4,8 27,3 hammerhead, silky, and mako sharks). The high catch of neonates and
Autumn 150 31 389 4,8 80,4 juveniles registered in this study, and by small-scale fleets in shallow
Winter 154 29 459 5,3 86,4 coastal waters in southeastern and southern Brazil (Bornatowski et al.,
Spring 73 19 40 3,8 10,4
2014), may result in additional recruitment mortality, but their ultimate
2009 Summer 199 41 198 4,9 40,8
Autumn 140 28 216 5,0 43,2 demographic risks and threats to the population remain unknown. In
Winter 121 28 251 4,3 58,1 Brazil, oceanic and coastal-pelagic migratory sharks, such as the silky
Spring 128 35 132 3,7 36,1 shark (C. falciformis) and hammerhead shark (S. zygaena), the most
2010 Summer 140 36 197 3,9 50,7 frequently recorded elasmobranchs in this study, are captured by target
Autumn 82 21 141 3,9 36,1
Winter 187 39 327 4,8 68,2
and non-target artisanal and industrial fisheries (Gilman 2011; Borna­
Spring 158 43 165 3,7 44,9 towski et al., 2018b; Gallagher and Klimley 2018; Pacoureau et al.,
2011 Summer 193 45 165 4,3 38,5 2021). Both species are categorized as globally VU due to continued
Autumn 118 32 202 3,7 54,8 fisheries decline in their populations (Rigby et al., 2017, 2019).
Winter 183 40 297 4,6 65,1
The overall seasonal pattern of the catch per unit effort established
Spring 102 31 100 3,3 30,4
2012 Summer 164 45 99 3,6 27,2 through the images posted by anglers may indicate that some groups of
Autumn 111 28 219 4,0 55,2 species are targets of recreational fisheries. Their seasonal occurrence in
Winter 163 39 267 4,2 63,9 shallow coastal areas are strongly influenced by environmental condi­
Spring 128 33 125 3,9 32,2 tions, and the distribution and abundance of resident and transient
2013 Summer 116 30 172 3,9 44,5
Autumn 210 49 539 4,3 125,8
coastal marine species are correlated with the distance from estuaries,
Winter 132 30 287 4,4 65,2 water salinity, temperature, and rainfall (Nascimento et al., 2021). For
Spring 150 36 268 4,2 64,3 example, the hammerhead shark, S. zygaena, the silky shark,
mean ± SD 140.1 ± 33.3 ± 224.5 ± 4.2 ± 52.1 ± C. falciformis, the dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus, and jacks (e.g.
39.4 8.7 117.3 0.5 24.1
Caranx latus and Seriola lalandi) were registered mainly during spring
and summer, whereas the most frequent species in our evaluation, the

7
G.M. Martinazzo et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044

Fig. 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot of the temporal patterns of the CPUE estimated for the main groups of fish (grouped according to
commercial names) captured by recreational fisheries between 2008 and 2013 on the continental shelf of the southern portion of the Atlantic Ocean, southern Brazil.
Vectors show the direction and magnitude of correlations.

et al., 2019), despite the lack of attention from government agencies in

Table 4
implementing an effective monitoring program for data collection on
Results of SIMPER analyses of CPUE listing groups of species (assembled ac­
fishery (Escobar, 2015; Freire et al., 2016).
cording to their commercial designation names) that contributed greatest (90%)
to the similarity within the seasons of 2008–2013. Although catch-and-release fishing is considered a conservation
strategy practiced voluntarily because of the ethics of anglers (Cooke
Percentage of contribution (%) to the similarity
et al., 2016), it should be carried out with attention, since some species
Seasons Summer Fall Winter Spring show high rates of mortality after release (Bartholomew and Bohnsack,
Dolphinfishes 32.64 7.57 21.34 2005). Mortality rates can be reduced using hooks without slings and by
Sharks 27.73 25.57 reducing the time and handling of fish caught (Brownscombe et al.,
Triggerfish 10.53 5.18 2017), this practice requires the development of appropriate manage­
Tripletails 9.34 6.55
Tunas 8.36 8.31 4.08 7.71
ment guidelines for each species, with the aim of achieving efficient
Croakers 5.81 6.42 9.21 4.84 survival rates (Cook and Schramm, 2007). Otherwise, the undesirable
Bluefishes 32.41 17.86 38.07 effects caused by the practice can cause injuries and physiological stress
Jacks 12.16 5.21 15.27 to individuals, resulting in mortality or reduction of reproductive
Barracuda 9.68 18.99
function. The activity of catch-and-release sport fishing is growing in
Bigeye 9.03 4.52
Snappers 4.98 Brazil (Barroco and Freitas, 2014), but it is not a common practice
Cutlassfishes 4.21 among the great majority of Brazilian recreational fishermen.
Average group similarity 58.16% 60.78% 63.07% 62.10% Our study explored the use of a social media platform (Facebook) to
investigate a boat-based recreational fishing activity practiced along the
southern Brazilian coastline. As our estimated catches obtained through
migratory bluefish, P. saltatrix, was captured mainly during the fall and
the images posted of threatened or near-threatened species were sub­
winter seasons, which corroborates the artisanal and industrial fishing
stantial, we argue that there is a clear need of regulating measures to
yields (Lucena et al., 2002; Fogliarini et al., 2021). It is plausible that
mitigate impacts and conserve fisheries resources. We highlight that an
both fleets play a complementary role in the depletion of fishing target
accurate monitoring could bring light to the marine recreational fishing
stocks in Brazil.
in Brazil, as this measure has already been tested and assured positive
The unreported and unregulated recreational fishing efforts and
results for artisanal and industrial fishing (Alves et al., 2012). We are
catches of threatened species along the Brazilian coast require sustain­
aware that the implementation of regulations to obligate the guides of
able policies and management measures. To maintain the economic and
recreational fisheries to provide daily reports is a difficult task in Brazil,
cultural benefits generated by this leisure activity and protect the ma­
due to the numerous landing sites and the historical lack of a strategic
rine resources from overfishing, an efficient system for monitoring rec­
planning for the sector, but this information is crucial and can provide
reational catches is needed in addition to developing fishing regulatory
management practices that are appropriate to this fishing modality.
measures, such as closed seasons and areas, catch-and-release practices,
Participatory research, also known as citizen science, has also
minimum and maximum sizes, and bag limits for anglers. Fishing rules
become a crucial ally in data collection and can be used for monitoring
based on scientific evidence (often limited) and participatory manage­
fishing activities (Fairclough et al., 2014; Gibson et al., 2019; Gundelund
ment have been legally established for artisanal fishers in Brazil (Freitas
et al., 2020). The alliance between the scientific community and sport

8
G.M. Martinazzo et al.
fishermen can improve the conservation of target species, generating
less impact on natural populations to guarantee the sustainability of this
activity over the long term.
5. Conclusions
Considering that all catches were performed during trips of a unique
fishing operation between 2008 and 2013, it could be argued that our
sampling may not have fully captured the variability of this recreational
activity. However, the high number (788) of fishing trips and photo­
graphic records of fish caught by anglers were especially helpful in
providing information to detect trends and patterns of this little-known
fishing modality on the Brazilian coastline. It is also reasonable to as­
sume that limitations were reduced as posts of captures were generally
made soon after the fishing trip occurred. Even considering that our data
collection instrument should be interpreted with caution as it is not a
direct estimate of captures and biomass, in addition to shedding light on
the exploited species and how social media platforms can be a com­
plementary tool to obtain (local and nationwide) data on endangered
species, the data presented here can be considered a proxy for recrea­
tional fishing activities practiced along the Brazilian coastline.
The high catches of threatened species by recreational fishing oper­
ations in southern Brazil raise an alert about the size of the recreational
fleet and the total effort employed by it, which signifies that the public
policies of this segment need to be reconsidered and new strategies must
be urgently implemented, considering that offshore recreational fishing
is a growing activity in Brazil. We recognize the difficulty of imple­
menting novel management strategies, but we believe that the imple­
mentation of monitoring programs, combined with public awareness
campaigns, can reduce the fishing of endangered species by recreational
fishers.
Author contributions
M.O.F., H.B and G.M.M. conceived the study. G.M.M. organized the
data. V.A. and M.O.F. analyzed the data, performed statistical analyses
and wrote the manuscript. All authors edited and approved the
manuscript.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests.
Acknowledgement
Financial support was provided by CNPq (Doctoral scholarship to E.
G.P under VA supervision) and Grupo de Pesquisa em Ictiofauna. We
thank Johnatas Adelir Alves for support in drawing up the map. MOF is
thankful to the Meros do Brasil Project, sponsored by Petrobras.
References
Alic, E., Trottier, L.L., Twardek, W.M., Bennett, L.L., Chisholm, S., Tremblay, P.,
Tuononen, E., Bennett, J.R., Bower, S.D., Lennox, R.J., Danylchuk, A.J., Cook, S.J.,
2021. Recreational fisheries activities and management in national parks: a global
perspective. J. Nat Conserv. 59, 125948 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jnc.2020.125948.
Alves, D.C., Moura, R.L., Minte-Vera, C.V., 2012. Estimativa da captura total: desenhos
amostrais para pesca artesanal. Interc 37, 899–905. http://hdl.handle.net/11
449/40596.
Andersen, K.H., Pedersen, M., 2010. Damped trophic cascades driven by fishing in model
marine ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B. 277, 795–802. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2009.1512.
Anderson, C.M., Krigbaum, M.J., Arostegui, M.C., Feddern, M.L., Koehn, J.Z.,
Kuriyama, P.T., Morrisett, C., Akselrud, C.I.A., Davis, M.J., Fiamengo, C., Fuller, A.,
Lee, Q., McElroy, K.N., Pons, M., Sanders, J., 2019. How commercial fishing effort is
managed. Fish Fish 20, 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12339.
9
Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044
Arlinghaus, R., Tillner, R., Bork, M., 2015. Explaining participation rates in recreational
fishing across industrialised countries. Fish Manag Ecol 22, 45–55. https://doi.org/
10.1111/fme.12075.
Barcellini, V.C., Motta, F.S., Martins, A.M., Moro, P.S., 2013. Recreational anglers and
fishing guides from an estuarine protected area in southeastern Brazil:
socioeconomic characteristics and views on fisheries management. Ocean Coast.
Manage. 76, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.02.012.
Barroco, L.S.A., Freitas, C.E.C., 2014. A pesca esportiva na amazônia: implicações para a
sustentabilidade dos estoques pesqueiros e da atividade. Sci. Amazon. 3, 93–99.
Bartholomew, A., Bohnsack, J.A., 2005. A review of catch-and-release angling mortality
with implications for no-take reserves. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 15, 129–154. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11160-005-2175-1.
Betancur-R, R., Wiley, E.O., Arratia, G., Acero, A., Bailly, N., Lecointre, G., Orti, G., 2017.
Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 162. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3.
Bodi, Ö., Crona, B.I., 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance:
what relational patterns make a difference? Global Environ Change 19, 366–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002.
Boonstra, W.J., Österblom, H., 2014. A chain of fools: or, why it is so hard to stop
overfishing. Marit. Stud. 13, 15.
Bornatowski, H., Braga, R.R., Barreto, R.P., 2018a. Elasmobranchs consumption in
Brazil: impacts and consequences. In: Rossi-Santos, M.R., Finkl, C.W. (Eds.),
Advances in Marine Vertebrate Research in Latin America, Coastal Research Library.
Springer International Publishing, pp. 251–262.
Bornatowski, H., Angelini, R., Coll, M., Barreto, R.R., Amorim, A.F., 2018b. Ecological
role and historical trends of large pelagic predators in a subtropical marine
ecosystem of the South Atlantic. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 28 (1), 241–259. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11160-017-9492-z.
Bornatowski, H., Braga, R.R., Vitule, J.R.S., 2014. Threats to sharks in a developing
country: the need for effective simple conservation measures. Nat. Conserv. 12 (1),
11–18. https://doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2014.003.
Brownscombe, J.W., Danylchuk, A.J., Chapman, J.M., Gutowsky, L.F.G., Cooke, S.J.,
2017. Best practices for catch-and-release recreational fisheries – angling tools and
tactics. Fish. Res. 186, 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.04.018.
Clarke, K.R., 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community
structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.
tb00438.x.
Clarke, K.R., Gorley, R.N., 2006. PRIMER V6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E,
Plymouth.
Clarke, K.R., Warwick, R.W., 1994. Change in Marine Communities: an Aproach to
Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth,
p. 144.
Coleman, F.C., Figueira, W.F., Ueland, J.S., Crowder, L.B., 2004. The impact of United
States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305 (5692),
1958–1960. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100397.
Cook, S.J., Schramm, H.L., 2007. Catch-and-release science and its application to
conservation and management of recreational fisheries. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 14,
73–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00527.x.
Cooke, S.J., Hogan, Z.S., Butcher, P.A., Stokesbury, M.J.W., Raghavan, R., Gallagher, A.
J., Hammerschlag, N., Danylchuk, A.J., 2016. Angling for endangered fish:
conservation problem or conservation action? Fish Fish 17 (1), 249–265. https://doi.
org/10.1111/faf.12076.
Cooke, S.J., Twardek, W.M., Lennox, R.J., Zolderdo, A.J., Bower, S.D.B., Gutowsky, L.F.
G., Danylchuk, J., Arlinghaus, R., Beard, D., 2018. The nexus of fun and nutrition:
recreational fishing is also about food. Fish Fish 19 (2), 201–224. https://doi.org/
10.1111/faf.12246.
Cooke, S., Cowx, I.G., 2004. The role of recreational fishing in global fish crises.
BioScience 54 (9), 857–859. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0857:
TRORFI]2.0.CO;2.
Correia, R.A., Ladle, R., Jaric, I., Malhado, A.C.M., Mittermeier, J.C., Roll, U., Soriano-
Redondo, A., Verissimo, D., Fink, C., Hausmann, A., Guedes-Santos, J., Vardi, R., Di
Minin, E., 2021. Digital data sources and methods for conservation culturomics.
Conserv Biol 35 (2), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13706.
Cowx, I.G., 2002. Recreational fisheries. In: Hart, P.B.J., Reynolds, J.D. (Eds.), Handbook
of Fish Biology and Fisheries. Blackwell Science, Oxford (United Kingdom),
pp. 367–390 (2).
Dal Negro, T., Santos, P.P., Tutui, S.L.S., Tomás, A.R.G., 2021. Coastal recreational
fisheries: a case study in the southeastern Brazil. Reg Stud Mar Sci 42, 101652.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2021.101652.
Di Minin, E., Fink, C., Hausmann, A., Kremer, J., Kulkarni, R., 2021. How to address data
privacy concerns when using social media data in conservation science. Conserv Biol
35 (2), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13708.
Escobar, H., 2015. Brazil roils waters with moves to protect aquatic life. Science 348,
169. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.348.6231.169.
Fairclough, D.V., Brown, J.I., Carlish, B.J., Crisafulli, B.M., Keay, I.S., 2014. Breathing
life into fisheries stock assessments with citizen science. Sci. Rep. 4, 7249. https://
doi.org/10.1038/srep07249.
Fogliarini, C.O., Ferreira, C.E.L., Bornholdt, J., Barbosa, M.C., Giglio, V.J., Bender, M.G.,
2021. Telling the same story: Fishers and landing data reveal changes in fisheries on
the Southeastern Brazilian Coast. Plos One 16, e0252391. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0252391.
Freire, K.M.F., Luz, R.M.C.A., Santos, A.C.G., Oliveira, C.S., 2017. Analysis of the onshore
competitive recreational fishery in Sergipe. Bol. Inst. Pesca. 43 (4), 487–501.
https://doi.org/10.20950/1678-2305.2017v43n4p487.
G.M. Martinazzo et al.
Freire, K.M.F., Machado, M.L., Crepaldi, D., 2012. Overview of inland recreational
fisheries in Brazil. Fisheries 37 (11), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03632415.2012.731867.
Freire, K.M.F., Nascimento, F.P., Rocha, G.R.A., 2020. Shore-based competitive
recreational fisheries in southern Bahia, Brazil: a baseline study. Mar. Fish Sci. 33
(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.47193/mafis.3322020301103.
Freire, K.M.F., Rocha, G.R.A., 2021. Baseline on-site information on coastal recreational
fishery and comparison with competitive events in Ilhéus, southern Bahia, Brazil.
Mar. Fish Sci. 34 (1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.47193/mafis.3412021010303.
Freire, K.M.F., 2005. Recreational fisheries of northeastern Brazil: inferences from data
provided by anglers. In: Kruse, G.H., Gallucci, V.F., Hay, D.E., Perry, R.I.,
Peterman, R.M., Shirley, T.C., Spencer, P.D., Wilson, B., Woodby, D. (Eds.), Fisheries
Assessment and Management in Data-Limited Situations. University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, pp. 377–394. https://doi.org/10.4027/famdis.2005.22.
Freire, K.M.F., Pauly, D., 2005. Richness of common names of Brazilian marine fishes and
its effect on catch statistics. J. Ethnobiol. 25 (2), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.2993/
0278-0771(2005)25[279:ROCNOB]2.0.CO;2.
Freire, K.M.F., Tubino, R.A., Monteiro-Neto, C., Andrade-Tubino, M.F., Belruss, C.G.,
Tomás, A.R.G., Tutui, S.L.S., Castro, P.M.G., Maruyama, L.S., Catella, A.C.,
Crepaldi, D.V., Daniel, C.R.A., Machado, M.L., Mendonça, J.T., Moro, P.S., Motta, F.
S., Ramires, M., Silva, M.H.C., Vieira, J.P., 2016. Brazilian recreational fisheries:
current status, challenges and future direction. Fish Manag. Ecol. 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1111/fme.12171.
Freire, K., Sumaila, U.R., Pauly, D., Adelino, G., 2018. The offshore recreational fisheries
of northeastern Brazil. Latin Am. J. Aquat. Res. 46, 765–778. https://doi.org/
10.3856/vol46-issue4-fulltext-14.
Froese, R., Pauly, D. (Eds.), 2021. FishBase. World Wide Web Electronic Publication.
www.fishbase.org. (Accessed 5 May 2021). version (02/2021).
Gallagher, A.J., Klimley, A.P., 2018. The biology and conservation status of the large
hammerhead shark complex: the great, scalloped, and smooth hammerheads. Rev
Fish Biol Fish 28 (3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-018-9530-5.
Gallardo, S.S., Fossile, T., Herbst, D.F., Begossi, A., Silva, L.G., Colonese, A.C., 2021. 150
years of anthropogenic impact on coastal and ocean ecosystems in Brazil revealed by
historical newspapers. Ocean Coast Manag 209, 105662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2021.105662.
Garcia, V.B., Lucifora, L.O., Myers, R.A., 2008. The importance of habitat and life history
to extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. Proc. R. Soc. B. 275, 83–89.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1295.
Gibson, K.J., Streich, M.K., Topping, T.S., Stunz, G.W., 2019. Utility of citizen science
data: a case study in land-based shark fishing. PLoS One 14 (12), e0226782. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226782.
Giglio, V.J., Bender, M.B., Zapelini, C., Ferreira, C.E.L., 2017. The end of the line? Rapid
depletion of a large-sized grouper through spearfishing in a subtropical marginal
reef. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 15 (2), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pecon.2017.03.006.
Giglio, V.J., Suhett, A.C., Zapelini, C.S., Ramiro, A.S., Quimbayo, J.P., 2020. Assessing
captures of recreational spearfishing in Abrolhos reefs, Brazil, thorough social
media. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 34, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100995.
Gilman, E.L., 2011. Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in
global tuna fisheries. Mar Policy 35, 590–609.
Giovos, I., Keramidas, I., Antoniou, C., Deidun, A., Font, T., Kleitou, P., Lloret, J., Matić-
Skoko, S., Said, A., Tiralongo, F., Moutopoulos, D.K., 2018. Identifying recreational
fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea through social media. Fish Manag Ecol 25,
287–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12293.
Gundelund, C., Arlinghaus, R., Baktoft, H., Hyder, K., Venturelli, P., Skov, C., 2020.
Insights into the users of a citizen science platform for collecting recreational
fisheries data. Fish. Res. 229, 105597 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fishres.2020.105597.
Haas, B., Fleming, A., Haward, M., McGee, J., 2019. Big fishing: the role of the large-
scale commercial fishing industry in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 14.
Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 29 (1), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-018-09546-8.
Hauke, J., Kossowski, T., 2011. Comparison of values of pearson’s and spearman’s
correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quest. Geographic 30 (2), 87–93.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1.
Hilborn, R., Branch, T.A., Ernst, B., Magnusson, A., Minte-Vera, C.V., Scheuerell, M.D.,
Valero, J.L., 2003. State of the world’s fisheries. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28,
359–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105509.
ICMBio. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, 2018. Livro
Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção: Volume VI – Peixes. ICMBio/
MMA, Brasília, DF, p. 730.
Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjornda, K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J.,
Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S.,
Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J.,
Warner, R.R., 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems. Science 293 (5530), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1059199.
Jones, B.L., Unsworth, R.K.F., Udagedara, S., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., 2018. Conservation
concerns of small-scale fisheries: by-catch impacts of a shrimp and finfish fishery in a
Sri Lankan Lagoon. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00052.
Kyne, P.M., Jabado, R.W., Rigby, C.L., Dharmadi, Gore M.A., Pollock, C.M., Herman, K.
B., Cheok, J., Ebert, D.A., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Dulvy, N.K., 2020. The thin edge of
the wedge: extremely high extinction risk in wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes.
Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1–25 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3331.
Lewin, W.C., Weltersbach, M.S., Ferter, I.K., Hyder, K., Mugerza, E., Prellezo, R.,
Radford, Z., Zarauz, L., Strehlow, H.V., 2019. Potential environmental impacts of
10
Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044
recreational fishing on marine fish stocks and ecosystems. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aqua. 27
(3), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2019.1586829.
Lucena, F.M., O’Brien, C.M., Reis, E.G., 2002. Effects of exploitation by two Co-existing
fleets on the bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, in southern Brazil: an application of a
seasonal catch-at-age model. Mar. Freshw. Res. 53, 835–847. https://doi.org/
10.1071/MF00093.
Lynch, A.J., Cooke, S.J., Deines, A.M., Bower, S.D., Bunnell, D.B., Cowx, I.G., Nguyen, V.
M., Nohner, J., Phouthavong, K., Riley, B., Rogers, M.W., Taylor, W.W.,
Woelmer, W., So-Jung, Y., Beard, T.D., 2016. The social, economic, and
environmental importance of inland fish and fisheries. Environ. Rev. 24, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2015-0064.
McCluskey, S.M., Lewison, R.L., 2008. Quantifying fishing effort: a synthesis of current
methods and their applications. Fish Fish 9 (2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-2979.2008.00283.x.
Monkman, G.G., Kaiser, M., Hyder, K., 2018. The ethics of using social media in fisheries
research. Rev. Fish Sci. Aqua. 26 (2), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23308249.2017.1389854.
Morgan, A.C., Burgess, G.H., 2005. Fishery-dependent sampling: total catch, effort and
catch composition. In: Musick, J., Bonfil, R. Rome (Eds.), Elasmobranch Fisheries
Management Techniques, Italy: FAO Fisheries Technical Papers, pp. 182–200.
Morzaria-Luna, H.N., Turk-Boyer, P., Hernández, J.M.D., Polanco-Mizquez, E., Downton-
Hoffmann, C., Cruz-Piñón, G., Carrillo-Lammens, T., Loaiza-Villanueva, R., Valdivia-
Jiménez, P., Sánchez-Cruz, A., Peña-Mendoza, V., López-Ortiz, A.M., Koch, V.,
Vázquez-Vera, L., Arreola-Lizárraga, J.A., Amador-Castro, I.G., Castillo, A.N.S.,
Munguia-Vega, A., 2020. Fisheries management tools to support coastal and marine
spatial planning: a case study from the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico.
MethodsX 7, 101108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.101108.
Moura, R.L., Secchin, N.A., Amado-Filho, G.M., Francini-Filho, R.B., Freitas, M.O., Minte-
Vera, C.V., Teixeira, J.B., Thompson, F.L., Dutra, G.F., Sumida, P.Y.G., Guth, A.Z.,
Lopes, R.M., Bastos, A.C., 2013. Spatial patterns of benthic megahabitats and
conservation planning in the Abrolhos Bank. Cont Shelf Res 1, 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.csr.2013.04.036.
Motta, F.S., Mendonça, J.T., Moro, P.S., 2016. Collaborative assessment of recreational
fishing in a subtropical estuarine system: a case study with fishing guides from south-
eastern Brazil. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 23, 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12172.
Nascimento, C.G., Costa, M.R., Tubino, R.A., Monteiro-Neto, C., 2021. Spatial and
seasonal patterns of the surf-zone ichthyofauna on a tropical Atlantic dissipative
coastline. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 48, 101981 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rsma.2021.101981.
Nelson, J.S., Grande, T.C., Wilson, M.V.H., 2016. Fishes of the World, fifth ed. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey [i]-xli, 1-707.
Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C.L., Kyne, P.M., Sherley, R.B., Winker, H., Carlson, J.K.,
Fordham, S.V., Barreto, R., Fernando, D., Francis, M.P., Jabado, R.W., Herman, K.B.,
Kwang-Ming, L., Marshall, A.D., Pollom, R.A., Romanov, E.V., Simpfendorfer, C.A.,
Yin, J.S., Kindsvater, H.K., Dulvy, N.K., 2021. Half a century of global decline in
oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589 (7843), 567–571. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-020-03173-9.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., Torres, F., 1998. Fishing down
marine food webs. Science 279, 860–863. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.279.5352.860.
Pauly, D., Alder, J., Bennett, E., Christensen, V., Tyedmers, P., Watson, R., 2003. The
future for fisheries. Science 302, 1359–1361.
Pauly, D., Zeller, D., 2016. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries
catches are higher than reported and declining. Nat. Commun. 7 (1), 1–9. https://
doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10244.
Post, J.R., Sullivan, M., Cox, S., Lester, N.P., Walters, C.J., Parkinson, E.A., Paul, A.J.,
Jackson, L., Shuter, B.J., 2002. Canada’s recreational fishery: the invisible collapse?
Fisheries 27, 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2002)027<0006:CRF>2.0.
CO;2.
Rigby, C.L., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Herman, K., Jabado, R.
W., Liu, K.M., Marshall, A., Pacoureau, N., Romanov, E., Sherley, R.B., Winker, H.,
2019. Sphyrna zygaena. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.
T39388A2921825. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.
T39388A2921825.en. Downloaded on. (Accessed 27 April 2021).
Rigby, C.L., Sherman, C.S., Chin, A., Simpfendorfer, C., 2017. Carcharhinus falciformis.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T39370A117721799. Downloaded
on. (Accessed 27 April 2021).
Roff, G., Brown, C.J., Priest, M.A., Mumby, P.J., 2018. Decline of coastal apex shark
populations over the past half century. Commun. Biol. 1, 223. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s42003-018-0233-1.
Roos, N.C., Longo, G.O., 2021. Critical information for fisheries monitoring may be
available in social media. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 1–9 https://doi.
org/10.1002/aqc.3655.
Sbragaglia, V., Correia, R.A., Coco, S., Arlinghaus, R., 2019. Data mining on YouTube
reveals Fisher group-specific harvesting patterns and social engagement in
recreational anglers and spearfishers. ICES Journ Mar Sci 77, 2234–2244. https://
doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz100.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Young, B., 2005. Cascading effects of overfishing marine
systems. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 20 (11), 579–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2005.08.018.
Shester, G.G., Micheli, F., 2011. Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries:
bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gillnets. Biol. Conser. 144 (5), 1673–1681.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.023.
Shiffman, D.S., Macdonald, C., Ganz, H.Y., Hammerschlag, N., 2017. Fishing practices
and representations of shark conservation issues among users of a land-based shark
angling online forum. Fish Res 196, 13–26.
G.M. Martinazzo et al.
Smith, T.D., 2002. A history of fisheries and their science and management. In: Hart, P.,
Reynolds, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. II. Blackwell
Science, Oxford, pp. 61–83.
Stein, R.W., Mull, C.G., Kuhn, T.S., Aschliman, N.C., Davidson, L.N., Joy, J.B., Smith, G.
J., Dulvu, N.K., Mooers, A.O., 2018. Global priorities for conserving the evolutionary
history of sharks, rays and chimaeras. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 288–298. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41559-017-0448-4.
Sumaila, U.R., Khan, A., Watson, R., Munro, G., Zeller, D., Baron, N., Pauly, D., 2007. The
World Trade Organization and global fisheries sustainability. Fish Res 88, 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.08.017.
11
Ocean and Coastal Management 218 (2022) 106044
Thurstan, R.H., Game, E., Pandolfi, J.M., 2017. Popular media records reveal multi-
decadal trends in recreational fishing catch rates. PLoS One 12 (8), e0182345.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182345.
Vitale, G., Dedeu, A.L., Pujol, M., Sbragaglia, V., 2021. Characterizing the profile of
recreational Fishers who share their catches on social media. Front. Mar. Sci. 8,
768047 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.768047.
Worm, B., Davis, B., Kettemer, L., Ward-Paige, C.A., Chapman, D., Heithaus, M.R.,
Kessel, S.T., Gruber, S.H., 2013. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding
options for sharks. Mar. Policy. 40, 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2012.12.034.