4.2 Article

Urban market amplifies strong species selectivity in Amazonian artisanal fisheries

期刊

NEOTROPICAL ICHTHYOLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA ICTIOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/1982-0224-2021-0097

关键词

Flood pulse; Overfishing; Species diversity; Urbanization

类别

资金

  1. CNPq [303548/2017-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite Amazonia having the highest freshwater biodiversity on Earth, neglect of artisanal fishing activity makes it challenging to characterize the fishery and understand species selectivity drivers. Urban markets drive greater selectivity, resulting in significantly lower species diversity in commercial catches compared to subsistence catches.
Despite Amazonia possessing the highest freshwater biodiversity on Earth, urban landing data show how huge fishing pressure is placed on only a dozen species. However, truly characterising the fishery and understanding the drivers of species selectivity is challenging, given the neglect of artisanal fishing activity, who may catch most of the Amazon's fish. We register the catch of 824 fishing trips by interviewing artisanal fishers in their rural riverside communities. We use these data to characterise the artisanal fishery of the Rio Purus, the main fish source sub-system for the Amazon's largest city (Manaus), and investigate the factors determining catch composition. Fishers caught 80 fish species, yet just four species made up over half of the harvested biomass. Urban markets appear to drive greater selectivity, with a significantly lower species diversity in commercial compared to subsistence catches. Fish catch composition varied significantly both seasonally and with geographical remoteness from Manaus. The spatial turnover in catch composition appears to be driven by urban access, with more commercially important species dominating where Manaus-based fish-buyers frequent. Our data may partially explain observed overfishing in some commercially important species, particularly as most Amazonians now live in urban areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据