Next Article in Journal
From Dysbiosis to Neurodegenerative Diseases through Different Communication Pathways: An Overview
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Driver Genes and miRNAs in Ovarian Cancer through an Integrated In-Silico Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/biology12020194
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Complementary Role of Fishers’ Experiential Knowledge to Conventional Science in Terms of Species-Specific Biological Traits and Population Changes in Azorean Waters

by
Régis Santos
1,*,
Ualerson Iran Peixoto
1,2,
Morgan Casal-Ribeiro
1,2 and
Wendell Medeiros-Leal
1
1
Institute of Marine Sciences—Okeanos, University of the Azores, Rua Prof. Dr. Frederico Machado, 4, 9901-862 Horta, Portugal
2
Institute of Marine Research—IMAR, University of the Azores, Rua Prof. Dr. Frederico Machado, 4, 9901-862 Horta, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2023, 12(2), 194; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020194
Submission received: 21 November 2022 / Revised: 17 January 2023 / Accepted: 25 January 2023 / Published: 26 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Marine Biology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Combining scientific data with knowledge held by fishers may be a good way to help people make decisions about marine ecosystem conservation. The goal of this study was to assess how much fishers in the Azores know about the biology and ecology of six commercially important marine species. This knowledge was then compared to the scientific information already out there to understand its value and complementarity. In the nine islands that make up the archipelago, 105 fishers were interviewed. Findings revealed a reasonable level of agreement between the information provided by fishers and the scientific literature. This reinforced how useful fishers’ experiential knowledge is, especially when scientific information is limited. However, more research should be conducted to ensure the results are more reliable and consistent.

Abstract

Combining scientific information with fishers’ perceptions may be a robust approach for directing decision-makers working with marine ecosystems. This is particularly the case when baseline data on a vulnerable stock are poor, as the integration of fishers’ experiential knowledge can help fill data gaps, as well as inform legitimate management actions, and empower fishing communities in resource management. This study aimed to analyze fishers’ knowledge regarding the biology (reproduction, growth, and maximum size) and temporal changes in the abundance and size of six commercially important marine species (red porgy Pagrus pagrus, veined squid Loligo forbesii, blue jack mackerel Trachurus picturatus, blackspot seabream Pagellus bogaraveo, blackbelly rosefish Helicolenus dactylopterus, and European conger Conger conger) in the Azores small-scale communities. Additionally, a comparison between fishers’ knowledge and available scientific information was performed to determine the former’s value and its possible complementarity with the latter. A total of 105 fishers were surveyed in the nine islands of the archipelago. The results demonstrated a reasonable level of agreement between the information from fishers and scientific literature on the species-specific spawning seasons and growth rates. The median values of size at maturity and maximum length were not statistically different between data sources. Most participants indicated size and abundance trends that were consistent with the literature. This study highlights the usefulness of fishers’ perceptions in improving knowledge about species characteristics and temporal changes in commercially exploited stocks, especially when scientific research is limited, but further research should be encouraged to improve the reliability and consistency of these results.

1. Introduction

Small-scale fisheries (SSF) are traditional fisheries involving fishing families (as opposed to commercial companies) and relatively small boats (if any), which perform short fishing trips close to the coast and catch fish primarily for local consumption [1]. In addition to having social and cultural significance, these fisheries globally provide livelihood and nutritional security for millions of small-scale fishers and local communities [2,3]. Despite this, SSF are often understudied, which implies a severe constraint not only on assessing the magnitude of their impacts on exploited resources but also on effective suggestions made for their sustainable exploration [4,5,6]. To add to the problem, small, unassessed fisheries have been estimated to be in substantially worse condition than assessed fisheries [7].
In Portugal, coastal areas that have historically been centered on small-scale fishing communities–such as those in the Azores–have historically relied on fishing as a major source of income. The Azores is a remote Portuguese archipelago composed of nine volcanic islands located in the northeast Atlantic Ocean, where fishing activity employs over 3000 people. Since 2010, the region has had average landings of 10 M tons year−1 and a value of around 34 M €, which represents around 13% of the total value of fisheries in Portugal [8]. The fishery developed in the Azores is multi-species and multi-gear and has its dynamics apparently driven by the main target species, such as blackspot seabream Pagellus bogaraveo, tuna, and tuna-like species. Other important species include blackbelly rosefish Helicolenus dactylopterus, veined squid Loligo forbesii, European conger Conger conger, alfonsinos Beryx spp., blue jack mackerel Trachurus picturatus, and red porgy Pagrus pagrus [9]. However, the sustainability of current harvest levels on a significant portion of the exploited stocks remains unassessed under the European Union (EU) Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) [10]. This is in large part due to the lack of sufficient reliable scientific data on these resources. Gathering such data is also particularly challenging, given the large number of fishing vessels that employ a variety of fishing gear and catch a wide range of species [9].
When there is insufficient baseline data on a fishery and its exploited species for an analytical assessment, scientists often base their recommendations for management on the precautionary principle. According to EU law, the precautionary approach “means an approach in which the absence of adequate scientific information should not justify delaying or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species, non-target species, and the environment” [11]. This comes from the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, to which the EU is a contracting party [12], and its adoption may imply a reduction in fishing opportunities when the biological reference points or proxies are unknown. In the Azores, this occurred, e.g., with T. picturatus and Beryx spp. fisheries, for which the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) considers that a “precautionary reduction of catches should be implemented unless there is ancillary information clearly indicating that the current level of exploitation is appropriate for the stock” [13,14].
The comprehensive and location-specific expertise possessed by many fishers presents an opportunity to produce baseline knowledge in these data-deficient situations and improve assessment and conservation initiatives [15,16,17]. In this context, fishers’ experiential knowledge (FEXK) has been widely used to understand multiple aspects associated with fishing dynamics, fish behavior, reproduction, as well as temporal changes in the abundance and size of fishery resources (e.g., [18,19,20,21,22,23,24]). Such collaborations between scientists and fishers improve transparency and communication, resulting in increased confidence and legitimacy among fishers in science-based management measures [15,25,26,27]. However, FEXK should not be accepted without examination, and its limits should be thoroughly explored by well-designed research [28].
This study’s objective was to analyze FEXK concerning the biology (reproductive aspects, growth, and maximum size) and temporal changes in the abundance and length distributions of six commercially important marine species (P. pagrus, L. forbesii, T. picturatus, P. bogaraveo, H. dactylopterus, and C. conger) in the Azores. In addition, a comparison between FEXK and the available scientific information was performed to determine the former’s value and possible complementarity with the latter. This is the first study of its kind to be conducted in the Azores area and its findings may represent an important milestone in integrating research on fishers’ knowledge into regional science and management.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

Fishers from the nine islands of the Azores were surveyed between January and May 2022. Questionnaires were performed with the help of the administrative staff and presidents of fishers’ associations, with fishers being selected through purposive sampling based on their availability to answer the questionnaire. All participants were informed of the study objectives and the intended use of the collected data. To safeguard confidentiality, questionnaires were kept anonymous.
Questionnaire items related to general information about fisher’s experience and age, as well as the biological characteristics of the six studied species, such as size at maturity (at what size does this species start reproducing?), reproductive season (at what time of the year–spring, summer, autumn or winter–does this species reproduce?), maximum size (what the size of the biggest individual of this species ever caught?), and whether the species grows slowly, moderately, or rapidly. Items also covered fishery-related aspects, such as changes in length and abundance (catch rate) since the fisher started fishing (since you started fishing, have sizes/catch rates of this species increased, decreased, or remained stable?).

2.2. Data Analysis

Data reported in weight by fishers were initially transformed into lengths by applying weight–length equations [29,30]. Differences between fishers’ reports and scientific literature regarding the size at maturity and maximum size were verified by comparing the median values through the Mann–Whitney U test (Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, W), using the stats package in R [31]. The significance level was set at a p-value < 0.05. The information on species-specific spawning season, growth rate, and trends in the size and abundance estimates–derived from scientific surveys and fishery-dependent standardized catch-per-unit-effort were compared between the two data sources by using four arbitrary measures of agreement previously described by Ribeiro et al. [21]: high agreement (HA), when the information provided by more than 70% of the surveyed fishers was in agreement with the literature; medium agreement (MA), when this rate was between 30% and 69%; low agreement (LA), when it was less than 29%; and no agreement (NA), if none of the interviewed fishers provided information in agreement with the scientific literature.
Only data from fishers who answered at least one question were included in the analyses. Hence, the number of fishers surveyed may vary between the analyzed items and studied species.

3. Results

A total of 105 fishers were surveyed from the nine islands of the Azores: 29 from São Miguel, 20 from Flores, 17 from Graciosa, 14 from São Jorge, 10 from Corvo, seven from Faial, six from Santa Maria, one from Pico, and one from Terceira (Figure 1). Participants were on average 47 years of age (s.d. = 10.3 years) and showed relevant fishing experience, with 45% of them starting their fishing activity more than 20 years ago (Figure 2).
The information on the spawning season from fishers’ knowledge and scientific literature showed a high level of agreement for four species (L. forbesii, P. bogaraveo, H. dactylopterus, and C. conger), while the other two species showed a medium level (P. pagrus and T. picturatus) (Table 1). Since the scientific literature does not report a single season for any of the species but rather a range, e.g., winter–spring (Table 1), this comparison considered aggregate fishers’ responses, i.e., winter plus spring, as an alternative approach for this analysis.
Most surveyed fishers did not answer the item regarding size at maturity. Only one response was obtained for P. pagrus and H. dactylopterus, two for T. picturatus, and eight for P. bogaraveo. Considering the comparison between the median sizes reported for these species by the fishers and existing literature, no significant differences were observed between them (P. pagrus: W = 2.0, p = 0.540; T. picturatus: W = 4.0, p = 1.000; P. bogaraveo: W = 62.5, p = 0.681; H. dactylopterus: W = 9.0, p = 0.499; Figure 3). No information on length associated with the spawning size of L. forbesii and C. conger was provided by the fishers, nor was it available in the literature.
Considering the maximum sizes reported for the six species, no significant differences were observed between the median values from the different data sources (P. pagrus: W = 44.0, p = 0.428; L. forbesii: W = 33.0, p = 0.152; T. picturatus: W = 39.0, p = 0.458; P. bogaraveo: W = 137.5, p = 0.067; H. dactylopterus: W = 60.0, p = 0.810; C. conger: W = 24.0, p = 0.590; Figure 4).
Fishers’ knowledge on growth rates showed a medium level of agreement with the literature for P. bogaraveo and H. dactylopterus, while P. pagrus and T. picturatus showed a low level of agreement (Table 2). No scientific information on the growth rate of L. forbesii and C. conger was available, and FEXK constituted the only source of information.
Most participants indicated a stable trend in the size of the six species between the present and when they started fishing (Table 3). This was consistent with the scientific literature available for P. bogaraveo, H. dactylopterus, and C. conger, being demonstrated by a medium level of agreement for the first two and a high level for the last (Table 3). No scientific information on size trends was available for the other studied species. Catch rates of L. forbesii, T. picturatus, and C. conger remained stable according to most surveyed fishers, whereas for P. pagrus, P. bogaraveo, and H. dactylopterus this trend is declining (Table 4). These data agreed with the literature available for P. bogaraveo, H. dactylopterus, and C. conger, for which the level of agreement was considered moderate (Table 4). For P. pagrus, the scientific literature has shown an increasing pattern in the catch rate, while for T. picturatus, this pattern is decreasing (Table 4). The level of agreement noted between the literature and fishers’ knowledge for these species was low and medium, respectively. For L. forbesii, FEXK was the only source of information available on catch trends (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This study showcases the first results of an evaluation of the complementary role of FEXK to conventional science in the Azores. The results provided evidence that fishers’ understandings constitute important resources for describing biological traits, as well as long-term changes in the abundance and length of target species (such as P. pagrus, L. forbesii, T. picturatus, P. bogaraveo, H. dactylopterus, and C. conger). Overall, there was some level of agreement between FEXK and the scientific literature. Such a convergence encourages the coupling of these different sources of knowledge in the context of management developments.
Through FEXK, it was possible to identify some reproductive characteristics of studied species. Local fishers often acquire their knowledge about these attributes by catching juveniles and observing the physical condition and appearance of mature individuals during the catching process [41]. From these observations, fishers may be able to identify growth and reproduction areas as well as maturity and spawning seasons [18]. Nevertheless, several studies have shown inconsistencies or reduced agreement between FEXK and scientific literature on fish reproduction [21,42,43]. This problem may be partially due to the short spawning period of the caught species, or to the fact that fishers are mostly collecting juveniles (immature fish) owing to a drop in the number of adult fish [42].
Despite the reasonable agreement between FEXK and scientific literature observed in the present study, most participants did not respond to questions about size at maturity and spawning season. This may be related to the way fish are predominantly commercialized in the Azores, i.e., whole with viscera, preventing a more precise identification of the reproductive condition of the species. Therefore, there is a need for further detailed studies regarding reproduction–preferably using both FEXK and biological knowledge. This is especially important for species, such as L. forbesii and C. conger, about which we still know very little concerning these aspects. The collaborative and participatory monitoring of species reproduction and engaging fishers in data collection might be a good approach for conducting such studies [15,21,44].
The maximum length estimates were comparable to those documented in scientific literature for the six investigated species. These results, in conjunction with those from reproduction, corroborate previous studies demonstrating that FEXK can provide valuable data on strategic life history parameters, especially for species that are important to fishers as food and income sources [20,21,45,46]. In addition to their large sizes, most species studied here are characterized in the literature by their slow growth [32,47]. Growth rate is the intrinsic rate of population growth that should occur in a population under natural circumstances (i.e., no fishing) [33,48]. According to Hutchings [49], the ability of a fish population to sustain fishing mortality and recover after its collapse is ultimately determined by the population growth rate. Because of this, the population growth rate can be used to assess the intrinsic vulnerability and extinction risk of fish species [50,51] and has been adopted as one of the most relevant indicators by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List), as well as many national guidelines and criteria (e.g., American Fisheries Society) [52]. However, in practice, population growth rate is very difficult to estimate, especially, for species without demographic data [51,53]. In the present study, fishers may also have reflected this difficulty in some way, which ultimately resulted in a medium to low level of agreement with the scientific literature. Some possible solutions include using relationships between the growth rate and life-history traits [54] that are easier for fishers to identify and report (e.g., maximum length, lifespan).
Besides identifying and recognizing life-cycle traits of species, effective fisheries management and stock recovery are linked to the perception of changes in the number and size of individuals in an exploited population. In this context, FEXK may be valuable in identifying stocks that require further data collection, as it can help to identify and prioritize species in which a decline in abundance or size has been reported by fishers. Fishers who were surveyed in this study reported a general decline in abundance (catch rates) of some species, such as P. bogaraveo and H. dactylopterus, since these fishers first started fishing. In fact, these species’ populations have been acutely diminishing in recent years [35,39,40,55], and a variety of fishing-control measures, such as total allowable catches/quotas and minimum landing sizes, have been put in place in the Azores [32,39]. The temporal stability in size (length) for these species described in the literature [35,39] was also reflected in information provided by participants, suggesting that those management measures would be somewhat efficient in maintaining the populations’ size structure. However, the situation may become worse when FEXK is the only information available, as it is in the cases of L. forbesii for abundance and length, and P. pagrus and T. picturatus for lengths. Fishers’ current assessment of these species’ status is one of stability; no temporal variations have been detected in the variables investigated. On the other hand, as most studied species are highly vulnerable to disturbance because of their late maturity, long lifespan, low fecundity, and slow growth [32], and due to the importance of these species to the Azores in terms of landed value and weight [9], it would be desirable to perform more studies and continuously monitor the population status.
The results of this study reinforce the potential applications of FEXK as a complementary (and often unique) data source in SSF, such as the Azores [24]. However, several obstacles still constrain the adoption of FEXK into fisheries management, especially concerning collecting data from fishers. Fishers from different generations may have different perspectives on resource conservation status and may use biased information to judge changes in the environment (shifting baseline syndrome; [56]). Studies have documented this phenomenon in SSF [57], although some fishing communities may have attenuated potential patterns related to shifting baselines [19,21]. Low statistical representativity prevented assessing this effect in the Azores during the present study, but future research should strive to do so.
Improving fisher participation in research initiatives is crucial, as it currently seems to be undermined by strained relationships and a lack of trust in the scientific/management communities [58]. Measures should be taken to ensure the quality of FEXK data collected, by adopting the best available marine social sciences practices [59], using well-planned participation as a research tool [60], and by avoiding research fatigue that causes fishers to become reluctant in involving themselves in research [61]. If successful, ongoing efforts to integrate FEXK in the Azores (among other research involving fishers) should advance knowledge about regional stocks and improve their management, build positive relationships between fisheries stakeholders, and put in place management decisions that are more widely accepted and adopted [62].

5. Conclusions

This study showed that obtaining information on the biology and temporal variations in the abundance and size of commercially important marine species in the Azores using FEXK interviews may be a timely, efficient, reliable, and cost-effective method when scientific data are not available. This conclusion was based on a cross-analysis of fishers’ knowledge with scientific literature, which reinforced the established worldwide applications of FEXK to fisheries and ecological sciences. Participants reported reproductive characteristics, such as size at maturity and spawning season, as well as temporal changes affecting size, as being the sole source of information for certain studied species in the Azores. These results had limitations, particularly in terms of the number of surveyed fishers, but nevertheless represent an important baseline for future studies in the region. Despite the challenges of implementing collaborative efforts with local stakeholders and integrating FEXK into biological research and management, it is essential to underscore that FEXK-based studies may improve local capacity, refine stock assessment initiatives, and increase the likelihood of success for future conservation actions, particularly in small-scale communities. Further research on the biological and ecological traits and FEXK of the species targeted by the Azorean fisheries should be encouraged to improve the reliability and consistency of results, including a larger sample size and temporal scale.

Author Contributions

R.S. conceived the original idea, performed the analyses and interpretation of data, and wrote the manuscript. U.I.P. and M.C.-R. contributed to the study conception and acquisition of data and helped to discuss the results. W.M.-L. provided critical feedback and helped shaped the final manuscript. R.S. supervised the project. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is part of the PESCAz project (ref. MAR–01.03.02–FEAMP–0039) financed by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) through the Regional Government of the Azores under the MAR2020 operational program. W.M.–L. was funded by an FCT Ph.D. fellowship (ref. UI/BD/153596/2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Participants were fully anonymized and oral consent was obtained after the explanation of the purpose of the study and the usage of the data. Appropriate locally relevant social conventions were followed, and the study was undertaken in compliance with European Union regulations and ethical research guidelines (Regulation (EU) 2016/679).

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the fishers who provided their knowledge by answering the questionnaires, as well as the administrative staff and association presidents who helped gather the information analysed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO Guidelines for the Routine Collection of Capture Fishery Data. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 1999, 382, 150.
  2. Hendriks, S.L. Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries Can Help People and the Planet. Nature 2022, 606, 650–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Béné, C.; Arthur, R.; Norbury, H.; Allison, E.H.; Beveridge, M.; Bush, S.; Campling, L.; Leschen, W.; Little, D.; Squires, D.; et al. Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security and Poverty Reduction: Assessing the Current Evidence. World Dev. 2016, 79, 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Smith, H.; Garcia Lozano, A.; Baker, D.; Blondin, H.; Hamilton, J.; Choi, J.; Basurto, X.; Silliman, B. Ecology and the Science of Small-Scale Fisheries: A Synthetic Review of Research Effort for the Anthropocene. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 254, 108895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chuenpagdee, R. Global Partnership for Small-Scale Fisheries Research: Too Big to Ignore. SPC Tradit. Mar. Resour. Manag. Knowl. Inf. Bull. 2012, 29, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kolding, J.; van Zwieten, P.A.M. The Tragedy of Our Legacy: How Do Global Management Discourses Affect Small Scale Fisheries in the South? Forum Dev. Stud. 2011, 38, 267–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Costello, C.; Ovando, D.; Hilborn, R.; Gaines, S.D.; Deschenes, O.; Lester, S.E. Status and Solutions for the World’s Unassessed Fisheries. Science 2012, 338, 517–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Santos, R.M. Análise Da Evolução Recente Do Setor Das Pescas Nos Açores. Master’s Thesis, Universidade dos Acores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal, 2017; 194p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Santos, R.; Medeiros-Leal, W.; Pinho, M. Stock Assessment Prioritization in the Azores: Procedures, Current Challenges and Recommendations. Arquipelago. Life Mar. Sci. 2020, 37, 20–45. [Google Scholar]
  10. Instituto Nacional de Estatística Sustainable Development Goals—2030 Agenda. Indicators for Portugal: 2015-2021.; Lisbon, 2022. Available online: https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=563353598&PUBLICACOESmodo=2 (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  11. EC Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy. Off. J. Eur. Union 2013, L354, 22–61.
  12. Barston, R. United Nations Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Mar. Policy 1995, 19, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. ICES. Blue Jack Mackerel (Trachurus Picturatus) in Subdivision 10.a.2 (Azores Grounds). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2018. ICES Advice 2018, jaa.27.10a2. Available online: https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/Blue_jack_mackerel_Trachurus_picturatus_in_Subdivision_10_a_2_Azores_grounds_/18632873?backTo=/collections/ICES_Advice_2018/5796923 (accessed on 20 November 2022). [CrossRef]
  14. ICES. Alfonsinos (Beryx Spp.) in Subareas 1–10, 12, and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and Adjacent Waters). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, alf.27.nea. Available online: https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/Alfonsinos_Beryx_spp_in_subareas_1_10_12_and_14_the_Northeast_Atlantic_and_adjacent_waters_/18674753/1 (accessed on 20 November 2022). [CrossRef]
  15. Stephenson, R.L.; Paul, S.; Pastoors, M.A.; Kraan, M.; Holm, P.; Wiber, M.; Mackinson, S.; Dankel, D.J.; Brooks, K.; Benson, A. Integrating Fishers’ Knowledge Research in Science and Management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016, 73, 1459–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hind, E.J. A Review of the Past, the Present, and the Future of Fishers’ Knowledge Research: A Challenge to Established Fisheries Science. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2015, 72, 341–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Silvano, R.A.M.; Hallwass, G. Participatory Research with Fishers to Improve Knowledge on Small-Scale Fisheries in Tropical Rivers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Medeiros, M.C.; Barboza, R.R.D.; Martel, G.; da Silva Mourão, J. Combining Local Fishers’ and Scientific Ecological Knowledge: Implications for Comanagement. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 158, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hallwass, G.; Lopes, P.F.; Juras, A.A.; Silvano, R.A.M. Fishers’ Knowledge Identifies Environmental Changes and Fish Abundance Trends in Impounded Tropical Rivers. Ecol. Appl. 2013, 23, 392–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Pereira, S.A.; da Silva, R.G.A.; Campos-Silva, J.V.; Batista, V.D.S.; Arantes, C.C. Assessing Biological Traits of Amazonian High-Value Fishes through Local Ecological Knowledge of Urban and Rural Fishers. Hydrobiologia 2021, 848, 2483–2504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ribeiro, A.R.; Damasio, L.M.A.; Silvano, R.A.M. Fishers’ Ecological Knowledge to Support Conservation of Reef Fish (Groupers) in the Tropical Atlantic. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 204, 105543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pereira, P.H.C.; Ternes, M.L.F.; Nunes, J.A.C.C.; Giglio, V.J. Overexploitation and Behavioral Changes of the Largest South Atlantic Parrotfish (Scarus Trispinosus): Evidence from Fishers’ Knowledge. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 254, 108940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bastari, A.; Mascarell, Y.; Ortega, M.; Coll, M. Local Fishers Experience Can Contribute to a Better Knowledge of Marine Resources in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Fish. Res. 2022, 248, 106222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Peixoto, U.I.; Casal-Ribeiro, M.; Medeiros-Leal, W.M.; Novoa-Pabon, A.; Pinho, M.; Santos, R. Scientific and Fisher’s Knowledge-Based Ecological Risk Assessment: Combining Approaches to Determine the Vulnerability of Fisheries Stocks. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mangi, S.C.; Kupschus, S.; Mackinson, S.; Rodmell, D.; Lee, A.; Bourke, E.; Rossiter, T.; Masters, J.; Hetherington, S.; Catchpole, T.; et al. Progress in Designing and Delivering Effective Fishing Industry–Science Data Collection in the UK. Fish Fish. 2018, 19, 622–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Thompson, S.A.; Stephenson, R.L.; Rose, G.A.; Paul, S.D. Collaborative Fisheries Research: The Canadian Fisheries Research Network Experience. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2019, 76, 671–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Steins, N.A.; Kraan, M.L.; van der Reijden, K.J.; Quirijns, F.J.; van Broekhoven, W.; Poos, J.J. Integrating Collaborative Research in Marine Science: Recommendations from an Evaluation of Evolving Science-Industry Partnerships in Dutch Demersal Fisheries. Fish Fish. 2020, 21, 146–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Davis, A.; Ruddle, K. Constructing Confidence: Rational Skepticism and Systematic Enquiry in Local Ecological Knowledge Research. Ecol. Appl. 2010, 20, 880–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rosa, A.; Menezes, G.; Melo, O.; Pinho, M.R. Weight–Length Relationships of 33 Demersal Fish Species from Azores Archipelago. Fish Res. 2006, 80, 329–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Martins, H.R. Biological Studies of the Exploited Stock OfLoligo Forbesi (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) in the Azores. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. 1982, 62, 799–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  32. Santos, R.; Medeiros-Leal, W.; Pinho, M. Synopsis of Biological, Ecological and Fisheries-Related Information on Priority Marine Species in the Azores Region. Arquipelago Life Mar. Sci. 2020, 1 (Suppl. S12), 1–138. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sparre, P.; Venema, S.C. Introduction to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment; Pt. 1: Manual. Pt. 2: Exercises; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; ISBN 0429-9345. [Google Scholar]
  34. ICES Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources (WGDEEP). ICES Sci. Rep. 2020, 2, 1–928. [CrossRef]
  35. Santos, R.; Pabon, A.; Silva, W.; Silva, H.; Pinho, M. Population Structure and Movement Patterns of Blackbelly Rosefish in the NE Atlantic Ocean (Azores Archipelago). Fish Ocean. 2020, 29, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Medeiros-Leal, W.; Santos, R.; Novoa-Pabon, A.; Silva, H.; Pinho, M. Population Structure of the European Conger Conger Conger from the Mid-North Atlantic Ocean Inferred from Bathymetric Distribution, Length Composition and Movement Patterns Analyses. Fish Manag. Ecol. 2021, 28, 468–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pinho, M.; Medeiros-Leal, W.; Sigler, M.; Santos, R.; Novoa-Pabon, A.; Menezes, G.; Silva, H. Azorean Demersal Longline Survey Abundance Estimates: Procedures and Variability. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2020, 39, 101443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. ICES. Working Group on Southern Horse Mackerel, Anchovy and Sardine (WGHANSA). ICES Sci. Rep. 2020, 2, 1–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Santos, R.V.S.; Silva, W.M.M.L.; Novoa-Pabon, A.M.; Silva, H.M.; Pinho, M.R. Long-Term Changes in the Diversity, Abundance and Size Composition of Deep Sea Demersal Teleosts from the Azores Assessed through Surveys and Commercial Landings. Aquat. Living Resour. 2019, 32, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Santos, R.; Crespo, O.; Medeiros-Leal, W.; Novoa-Pabon, A.; Pinho, M. Error Distribution Model to Standardize LPUE, CPUE and Survey-Derived Catch Rates of Target and Non-Target Species. Modelling 2022, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Le Fur, J.; Guilavogui, A.; Teitelbaum, A. Contribution of Local Fishermen to Improving Knowledge of the Marine Ecosystem and Resources in the Republic of Guinea, West Africa. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2011, 68, 1454–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Silvano, R.A.M.; MacCord, P.F.L.; Lima, R.V.; Begossi, A. When Does This Fish Spawn? Fishermen’s Local Knowledge of Migration and Reproduction of Brazilian Coastal Fishes. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2006, 76, 371–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gasparini, J.L.; Rocha, L.A.; Floeter, S.R. Ptereleotris Randalli n. Sp., a New Dartfish (Gobioidei: Microdesmidae) from the Brazilian Coast. Aqua 2001, 4, 109–114. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schemmel, E.; Friedlander, A.M.; Andrade, P.; Keakealani, K.; Castro, L.M.; Wiggins, C.; Wilcox, B.A.; Yasutake, Y.; Kittinger, J.N. The Codevelopment of Coastal Fisheries Monitoring Methods to Support Local Management. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Batista, V.S.; Lima, L.G. In Search of Traditional Bio-Ecological Knowledge Useful for Fisheries Co-Management: The Case of Jaraquis Semaprochilodus Spp. (Characiformes, Prochilodontidae) in Central Amazon, Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2010, 6, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Begossi, A.; Salivonchyk, S.; Lopes, P.F.M.; Silvano, R.A.M. Fishers’ Knowledge on the Coast of Brazil. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Froese, R.; Pauly, D. FishBase. Available online: www.fishbase.org (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  48. Cadima, E.L. Fish Stock Assessment Manual; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2003; ISBN 9251045054. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hutchings, J.A. Numerical Assessment in the Front Seat, Ecology and Evolution in the Back Seat. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2000, 208, 299–303. [Google Scholar]
  50. Dulvy, N.K.; Ellis, J.R.; Goodwin, N.B.; Grant, A.; Reynolds, J.D.; Jennings, S. Methods of Assessing Extinction Risk in Marine Fishes. Fish Fish. 2004, 5, 255–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Hutchings, J.A.; Myers, R.A.; García, V.B.; Lucifora, L.O.; Kuparinen, A. Life-history Correlates of Extinction Risk and Recovery Potential. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22, 1061–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Dulvy, N.K.; Sadovy, Y.; Reynolds, J.D. Extinction Vulnerability in Marine Populations. Fish Fish. 2003, 4, 25–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, T.; Fujiwara, M.; Gao, X.; Liu, H. Minimum Viable Population Size and Population Growth Rate of Freshwater Fishes and Their Relationships with Life History Traits. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 3612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Froese, R.; Binohlan, C. Simple Methods to Obtain Preliminary Growth Estimates for Fishes. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2003, 19, 376–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Santos, R.; Medeiros-Leal, W.; Novoa-Pabon, A.; Silva, H.; Pinho, M. Demersal Fish Assemblages on Seamounts Exploited by Fishing in the Azores (NE Atlantic). J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2021, 37, 198–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pauly, D. Anecdotes and the Shifting Baseline Syndrome of Fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zapelini, C.; Bender, M.G.; Giglio, V.J.; Schiavetti, A. Tracking Interactions: Shifting Baseline and Fisheries Networks in the Largest Southwestern Atlantic Reef System. Aquat. Conserv. 2019, 29, 2092–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Glenn, H.; Tingley, D.; Marono, S.S.; Holm, D.; Kell, L.; Padda, G.; Edvardsson, I.R.; Asmundsson, J.; Conides, A.; Kapiris, K. Trust in the Fisheries Scientific Community. Mar. Policy 2012, 36, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McKinley, E.; Kelly, R.; Mackay, M.; Shellock, R.; Cvitanovic, C.; van Putten, I. Development and Expansion in the Marine Social Sciences: Insights from the Global Community. iScience 2022, 25, 104735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Silver, J.J.; Campbell, L.M. Fisher Participation in Research: Dilemmas with the Use of Fisher Knowledge. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2005, 48, 721–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Clark, T. We’re Over-Researched Here!’ Exploring Accounts of Research Fatigue within Qualitative Research Engagements. Sociology 2008, 42, 953–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mackinson, S.; Raicevich, S.; Kraan, M.L.; Magudia, R.; Borrow, K. Good Practice Guide: Participatory Research in Fisheries Science; GAP Connecting Science Stakeholder and Policy: Lowestoft, Suffolk, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Biology 12 00194 g001 550
Figure 1. Spatial coverage of the sampling procedure performed in the Azores archipelago involving fishers. The numbers indicate the absolute sample size (n).
Figure 1. Spatial coverage of the sampling procedure performed in the Azores archipelago involving fishers. The numbers indicate the absolute sample size (n).
Biology 12 00194 g001
Biology 12 00194 g002 550
Figure 2. Fishing experience of the surveyed Azorean fishers in this study. The numbers above the columns indicate the absolute sample size (n).
Figure 2. Fishing experience of the surveyed Azorean fishers in this study. The numbers above the columns indicate the absolute sample size (n).
Biology 12 00194 g002
Biology 12 00194 g003 550
Figure 3. Size at maturity (cm) of the species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge and obtained from scientific literature [32]. Line inside the box represents the median, the box represents the interquartile range, the curves indicate the kernel probability density of the data at different values, and the red point represents the mean value. P. pagrus (no. of fishers’ responses = 1), T. picturatus (n = 2), P. bogaraveo (n = 8), H. dactylopterus (n = 1).
Figure 3. Size at maturity (cm) of the species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge and obtained from scientific literature [32]. Line inside the box represents the median, the box represents the interquartile range, the curves indicate the kernel probability density of the data at different values, and the red point represents the mean value. P. pagrus (no. of fishers’ responses = 1), T. picturatus (n = 2), P. bogaraveo (n = 8), H. dactylopterus (n = 1).
Biology 12 00194 g003
Biology 12 00194 g004 550
Figure 4. Maximum size (cm) of the species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge and obtained from scientific literature [32]. Line inside the box represents the median, the box represents the interquartile range, the curves indicate the kernel probability density of the data at different values, and the red point represents the mean value. P. pagrus (no. of fishers’ responses = 14), L. forbesii (n = 20), T. picturatus (n = 9), P. bogaraveo (n = 13), H. dactylopterus (n = 8), C. conger (n = 19).
Figure 4. Maximum size (cm) of the species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge and obtained from scientific literature [32]. Line inside the box represents the median, the box represents the interquartile range, the curves indicate the kernel probability density of the data at different values, and the red point represents the mean value. P. pagrus (no. of fishers’ responses = 14), L. forbesii (n = 20), T. picturatus (n = 9), P. bogaraveo (n = 13), H. dactylopterus (n = 8), C. conger (n = 19).
Biology 12 00194 g004
Table
Table 1. Spawning season of the six species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge, obtained from scientific literature [32], and the agreement between these two sources of information. MA = medium agreement; HA = high agreement. Nº responses = number of fishers who answered this item.
Table 1. Spawning season of the six species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge, obtained from scientific literature [32], and the agreement between these two sources of information. MA = medium agreement; HA = high agreement. Nº responses = number of fishers who answered this item.
SpeciesSpawning Season (Fishers)Nº ResponsesFrequency (%) *Spawning Season
(Literature)		Agreement
Pagrus pagrusSpring423.5Spring to summerMA
Summer317.6
Autumn00.0
Winter1058.8
Loligo forbesiiSpring213.3Year-round, peak between the Winter and SpringHA
Summer16.7
Autumn00.0
Winter1280.0
Trachurus picturatusSpring318.8Winter to springMA
Summer956.3
Autumn00.0
Winter425.0
Pagellus bogaraveoSpring423.5Winter to springHA
Summer15.9
Autumn00.0
Winter1270.6
Helicolenus dactylopterusSpring423.5Winter to summerHA
Summer529.4
Autumn00.0
Winter847.1
Conger congerSpring323.1Winter to summerHA
Summer17.7
Autumn00.0
Winter969.2
* Considering only answered questions.
Table
Table 2. Growth rate of the six species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge, obtained from scientific literature [32], and the agreement between these two sources of information. k = von Bertalanffy growth coefficient, expressing the rate (year−1) at which the asymptotic length (i.e., the length that the individual would reach if it grew indefinitely) is approached; LA = low agreement; MA = medium agreement. Nº responses = number of fishers who answered this item.
Table 2. Growth rate of the six species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge, obtained from scientific literature [32], and the agreement between these two sources of information. k = von Bertalanffy growth coefficient, expressing the rate (year−1) at which the asymptotic length (i.e., the length that the individual would reach if it grew indefinitely) is approached; LA = low agreement; MA = medium agreement. Nº responses = number of fishers who answered this item.
SpeciesGrowth Rate
(Fishers)		Nº ResponsesFrequency (%) *Growth Rate
(Literature) **		Agreement
Pagrus pagrusSlow515.60.04 ≤ k ≤ 0.07LA
Moderate2578.1= Slow
Fast26.3
Loligo forbesiiSlow24.8No information-
Moderate2559.5
Fast1535.7
Trachurus picturatusSlow37.30.07 ≤ k ≤ 0.20LA
Moderate1946.3= Slow
Fast1946.3
Pagellus bogaraveoSlow1638.10.06 ≤ k ≤ 0.17MA
Moderate2150.0= Slow
Fast511.9
Helicolenus dactylopterusSlow1236.40.05 ≤ k ≤ 0.18MA
Moderate1957.6= Slow
Fast26.1
Conger congerSlow411.4No information-
Moderate2571.4
Fast617.1
* Considering only answered questions. ** k = 1.0 year−1 indicates fast growth, k = 0.5 year−1 moderate growth and k = 0.2 year−1 indicates slow growth [33].
Table
Table 3. Size trend of the six species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge, obtained from scientific literature, and the agreement between these two sources of information. MA = medium agreement; HA = high agreement. Nº responses = number of fishers who answered this item.
Table 3. Size trend of the six species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge, obtained from scientific literature, and the agreement between these two sources of information. MA = medium agreement; HA = high agreement. Nº responses = number of fishers who answered this item.
SpeciesSize Trend (Fishers)Nº ResponsesFrequency (%) *Size Trend
(Literature)		ReferenceAgreement
Pagrus pagrusIncreasing11.6No information--
Stable4065.6
Decreasing2032.8
Loligo forbesiiIncreasing57.8No information--
Stable5281.3
Decreasing710.9
Trachurus picturatusIncreasing00.0No information--
Stable5084.7
Decreasing915.3
Pagellus bogaraveoIncreasing47.4Stable[34]MA
Stable2750.0
Decreasing2342.6
Helicolenus dactylopterusIncreasing34.8Stable[35]MA
Stable4369.4
Decreasing1625.8
Conger congerIncreasing57.9Stable[36]HA
Stable4469.8
Decreasing1422.2
* Considering only answered questions.
Table
Table 4. Catch trend of the six species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge, obtained from scientific literature (reported abundance index estimates), and the agreement between these two sources of information. LA = low agreement; MA = medium agreement. Nº responses = number of fishers who answered this item.
Table 4. Catch trend of the six species studied in the Azores according to fishers’ experiential knowledge, obtained from scientific literature (reported abundance index estimates), and the agreement between these two sources of information. LA = low agreement; MA = medium agreement. Nº responses = number of fishers who answered this item.
SpeciesCatch Trend (Fishers)Nº ResponsesFrequency (%) *Catch Trend (Literature)ReferenceAgreement
Pagrus pagrusIncreasing46.9Increasing[37]LA
Stable2441.4
Decreasing3051.7
Loligo forbesiiIncreasing57.5No information
Stable3958.2
Decreasing2334.3
Trachurus picturatusIncreasing23.3Decreasing[38]MA
Stable3151.7
Decreasing2745.0
Pagellus bogaraveoIncreasing58.3Decreasing[39]MA
Stable1525.0
Decreasing4066.7
Helicolenus dactylopterusIncreasing46.7Decreasing[40]MA
Stable2541.7
Decreasing3151.7
Conger congerIncreasing35.1Stable[36]MA
Stable3254.2
Decreasing2440.7
* Considering only answered questions.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Santos, R.; Peixoto, U.I.; Casal-Ribeiro, M.; Medeiros-Leal, W. Complementary Role of Fishers’ Experiential Knowledge to Conventional Science in Terms of Species-Specific Biological Traits and Population Changes in Azorean Waters. Biology 2023, 12, 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020194

AMA Style

Santos R, Peixoto UI, Casal-Ribeiro M, Medeiros-Leal W. Complementary Role of Fishers’ Experiential Knowledge to Conventional Science in Terms of Species-Specific Biological Traits and Population Changes in Azorean Waters. Biology. 2023; 12(2):194. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020194

Chicago/Turabian Style

Santos, Régis, Ualerson Iran Peixoto, Morgan Casal-Ribeiro, and Wendell Medeiros-Leal. 2023. "Complementary Role of Fishers’ Experiential Knowledge to Conventional Science in Terms of Species-Specific Biological Traits and Population Changes in Azorean Waters" Biology 12, no. 2: 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020194

APA Style

Santos, R., Peixoto, U. I., Casal-Ribeiro, M., & Medeiros-Leal, W. (2023). Complementary Role of Fishers’ Experiential Knowledge to Conventional Science in Terms of Species-Specific Biological Traits and Population Changes in Azorean Waters. Biology, 12(2), 194. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020194

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop