4.3 Article

Artisanal fisheries of native spiny lobster Panulirus meripurpuratus and smoothtail spiny lobster Panulirus laevicauda iYn the northeast region of Brazil

期刊

出版社

ACAD BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS
DOI: 10.1590/0001-3765202120190715

关键词

Fishery activity; fishing technology; fisheries ecology; Palinuridae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study characterized the fishing activity of spiny lobsters in the coast of the state of Rio Grande do Norte, Northeast Brazil. It found that artisanal fishermen engaged in illegal practices and different lobster species varied in their fishing pressure. P. laevicauda faced pressure for all size classes, while P. meripurpuratus only experienced partial pressure on certain population cohorts.
Spiny lobsters (Family Palinuridae) are a popular seafood in Brazil. We characterize the fishing activity and analyze the population of lobster species captured in the coast of the state of Rio Grande do Norte, Northeast Brazil. We monitored the landings of lobster fishermen at the start of the fishing season, from May 24 to November 21, in 2010, at Pirangi beach, the main landing point in the metropolitan area of Natal. The lobster fisherman in the region use small vessels and a compressor to dive in artificial reefs known as marambaias. The artisanal fishermen are engaged in several illegal practices and revealed a greater capture of lobsters categorized as small-sized for the market (11-13.95cm tail length). The capture area led to different fishing pressures for each species. For P. laevicauda, fishing pressure occurred for all size classes, while for P. meripurpuratus, pressure occurred partially, only for a few population cohorts. On regional scale, fishing involved a demand-supply trade balance centered on the size of capture vs. abundance, regardless of the natural interespecific differences on body size and the preferential distribution area. Our results provide key information for future decision making involving the fishing of spiny lobster.

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

4.3
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