An interview with Dr. Ingrid van Putten

Photo: ResearchGate

Dr. Ingrid van Putten is a scientist working with the ecosystems modelling team at the CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, in Hobart, Australia. She is also a member of the IMBER Scientific Steering Committee and Human Dimensions Working Groups. Her research focuses on the social and economic behavior modelling of interaction with the biophysical marine environment and on understanding coupled social-ecological systems. Because complexity in the bio-physical sphere is mirrored in social and economic systems, she focuses on the tools that effectively model social and economic data and aims to find the optimum level of complexity for human behavior models. Ingrid has used network analysis to model lease quota trade systems and Bayesian models to investigate non-economic drivers in indigenous fisheries. She has also applied qualitative models to investigate the drivers of participation in marine sectors in the context of climate change. Some of her work is focused on improving the management of coupled social-ecological systems and ensure their long-term viability.

 

In the month we celebrate the international women's day, nothing better than listening to Dr. van Putten talking about not only socio-ecological marine systems, but also about the role of women in science. Enjoy it!

FEME: Can we reach sustainability in our socio-ecological marine systems?

Ingrid: I think so. I hope so. I think, for all of us and our children and their children, we need to be sustainable and if there is a need there is a way, and I think that we will have to change our behavior to make it sustainable. And when the need increases the system can either fall apart or it can stay together and I think it will remain together to make the future possible, but we will need to change.

FEME: How far will we need to go to realize we need this change?

Ingrid: I think we are realizing it very slowly, but I think that your generation is already realizing it a lot more. In the next 20 years we will all need to make the change, otherwise there won’t be much to change. But I think it’s possible because your generation is so smart, they are learning about the vulnerability of the planet much earlier than previous generations did, so I think there is hope in the next generation.

FEME: I agree, but I’m afraid that our generation is waiting for some sort of a magical solution or technology that will deal with all pollution, rebuild the oceans and things like that.

Ingrid: I think technological solutions are important to some degree, but they won’t solve everything. I can see where you are coming from, it’s difficult, right? But I think if we don’t have hope we might as well give up. Even if sometimes we believe it is so hopeless, we need to change the way we speak about it, because you know, when you are sad about something you can talk yourself into being happy again. I think it is the same about the way we think about the future, if we always talk about it being broken and having no solution, then there is no solution. We need to start talking about the solutions, and technology is really important. I think that if we want to stop using fossil fuels, we can, we just need to find technologies and alternatives there are not destructive. But if we always say there are no alternatives then there are no alternatives. We need to be positive towards the future and believe that things are possible and then make them possible. That’s your responsibility.  

ClimEco5/IMBER - Natal, Brazil

FEME: What motivated you to switch from more traditional economics to a more environmental approach?

Ingrid: The traditional economics is really interesting, but I felt that I needed to broaden my view to be more about the behavior of groups of people that wasn’t so restrictive. I was in environmental economics, and then I started off switching to agriculture economics and then I went into environmental economics and then I went into behavioral economics. I felt that I wanted to better understand why we make irrational decisions about things, like climate change, and why we are making all these strange decisions. Economics can explain a lot of that but so can socio-psychology. I felt that to understand how we deal with climate change and overharvesting, and exploitation of the environment, we needed to understand better that there is a lot in that that is psychological. The solutions are actually a lot about socio-psychology. If we believe that we can do something as a group, then we can make it happen. We need both [economics and socio-psychology], but I think there has been less attention paid to the other side, to the social side for the solution.

FEME: Which changes would you like to see in our scientific community?

Ingrid: The changes I’d like to see are already happening to some degree, and that it is to try to understand each other’s discipline better, to expose people in the natural sciences to principles from the social sciences and to use each other’s methods and tools. We don’t need to understand everything about the other sciences, just a little bit can help. It is just so we don’t stay with blinkers in our eyes, we open up a little bit and become more accepting of people’s views, because some views are formed just by being in one discipline. If you open your eyes to other disciplines you may have a new perspective. Not that people have to became generalists, some people are good generalists, some people are good specialists and we need both of those as well. I think it is the opening up of your mind to other things. And I also care about women being more involved in science and decision making, making it more possible for young women who want to have children and be out of the work for a little while to come back without starting over from the bottom. If women were more able to be continuously involved in decision power, I think the world might be a better place. If we can find some equality between men and women in all fields, if we can be more equal in the way we work, the way we understand each other this is also a big step for the world.  If I have to pick two things then it would be those things for science [exposing people to different science approaches] and making it possible to accommodate young women’s needs in science better, so when you do a post doc you can do it part-time if you decide to have a baby, because that is the time of your life when you might have one. I think these are important issues.

Fishers' stories: not lies but useful tools

Commonly in Brazil people say “It is a fishers’ story”, when they refer to someone who is telling something that possibly is not true or that has been overstated. Well, surprisingly the information revealed by fishers are increasingly become an issue of interest to fishery scientists, managers and policy makers. Fishers have been turned in good suppliers of reliable facts. Let me explain it!

The majority of small-scale fisheries in developing countries usually have no data available to assess the stock status of target populations. Consequentely, to fulfill this gap, fishers have been called to tell what they know about it. This fact was recently showed in a paper about the small-scale fishery developed in one of the main hydroelectric reservoir in Brazil: the Itaipu reservoir (Fig 1). 

Fig.1: the Itaipu reservoir 

This reservoir produces the 25% of energy consumed in Brazil and borders Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay (Fig 2). During this research, we looked for the most experienced fishers in Itaipu reservoir. They were all willing to tell us about what they have perceived regarding to the fishery they practiced and the species they harvested through the years, including before and during the fishery monitoring carried out by researches of Maringá University.

Fig.2: the Itaipu reservoir boundaries

Results were promising and astonishing: fishers described with accuracy changes in species composition of the catches; they showed good knowledge about the ecology of some species; and all fishers deeply understand how the impoundment affected local fish species.

As a matter of fact, listening to them was like to be reading a scientific paper about the topic! Fishers were able to recognized the role of the river impoundment as the driver of changes in species richness and composition, as well as in the yield of large migratory and high-priced species, similar to what has been discussed in the literature. It is worth to say, they are predominately illiterate and clearly do not had access to scientific information published!

As life is not a bed of roses, histories diverged from local data collected systematically when absolute values are involved, such as when fishers were asked to recall their largest catch. Fishers tend to exaggerate when recalling their largest catch in a day. Apparently this shows that lack of memory is not the same of lack of truthfulness. Even though, fishers of Itaiou reservoir were homogeneous in their reports, indicating that instead of individual opinions, they revealed knowledge resulting from their everyday observation and fishery experience. They were also able to acknowledge some causes of catches decreasing, pointing out factors directly related with management: lack of enforcement of fishing regulations, capture of juveniles due to small mesh size used, higher number of professional fishers and increased number of recreational fishers. This is a factual proof that fishers are aware of the role of management and of their own commitment to develop a sustainable fishery in the reservoir.

Our study was able to identify that information supplied by fishers was similar to the data recorded by a local monitoring program, but not for absolute values of large catches and largest fish caught. The findings reinforce that fishers have a high ability to retain long-term information on fisheries, as it has been previous found in other studies. Fishers can be a reliable source of information for detecting changes in catches over time, especially when large-scale habitat changes have occurred within the time scale of a fisher career. Fishers may be key partners to be considered by managers in information gathering for effective management. This is the new story to be told!

By Juliana Strieder Philippsen

Philippsen, J. S., Minte-Vera, C. V., Okada, E. K., Carvalho, A. R., & Angelini, R. (2016). Fishers’ and scientific histories: an example of consensus from an inland fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research.

Interview with Christopher Cvitanovic #oceanoptimism

Dr Chris Cvitanovic is an Interdisciplinary Research Fellow specialized in knowledge exchange, stakeholder engagement and the governance of marine resources, working at the Centre for Marine Socioecology at the University of Tasmania. Contrarily to most researchers we interview, Chris also has experience working for the government, which gives him a unique approach and understanding of science and policy making, which he certainly shares with enthusiasm and a good dose of humor.

FEME: How do you think that social sciences could better interact with environmental sciences?

Chris: I think that both disciplines already have an appreciation of each other, but unfortunately, this doesn’t always translate into more integrative and interdisciplinary research.  I think that researchers need to work towards understanding what each discipline can do by accepting their own limitations, by respecting their differences, and by trying to negotiate the way that the individuals can work together. I think if science is going to be interdisciplinary, the individuals really need to drive it. People need to step out of their comfort zones and collaborate as broadly as possible.  

FEME: We heard that you worked for the government for a while, so, what was your main motivation to quit this job?

Chris: Ah, good question! I joined the government wanting to make a difference for conservation, but over time I became disillusioned with how the government used scientific information and the way that decisions tended to be politically driven, opposed to environmentally driven, or socially driven. I became really interested in how to change that relationship so that we make decisions based on evidence instead on a political will. So I left the government because there weren’t a lot of people doing research in that space and I thought it was a good space for me due to my background. So I left the government to try to improve the way the governments use science in their decision-making processes.

FEME: What was the main lesson you learned when you worked for the government?

Chris: My main lesson was that government employees are people, just like you and I. There is this big cultural gap between scientists and decision makers, and often we think quite negatively about decision makers. My biggest lesson was that decision makers and policy makers are very passionate, they are just like scientists, they want the best outcome. There are things that stop them; political agendas or institutional factors such as bad leadership. However, I think that on roots levels everyone wants the same: a better marine environment. And I think we can harness that passion that everyone has, that passion for conservation. The thing I learned is that we can actually work together as a scientific and a management community to achieve really good things. 

FEME: And how can you apply these lessons in science?

Chris: I like to share what I have learned with people like yourself and students who have not had that sort of exposure to the government. I think a lot of the way we train our students, we don’t expose them to policy or management; they know it is there, but they do not understand it. So, for me, it is what I am trying to give back to the next generation of scientists; to help them understand how they can influence it. I think for me it is about still trying to do research on how we make it better and about pushing the case for trying to do things better and using the energy of the next generation of scientists who are trying to improve things.

FEME: What changes you would like to see in scientific community in the future?

Chris: I would like to see a greater appreciation for everybody, a more inclusive research culture.  I think that there is still a lot of negativity towards certain disciplines or the way certain disciplines operate, there is still a lot of negativity towards the government and the government officials.  We need to embrace our differences, and work together to solve the worlds big problems.

I also think we need to be a lot more positive and I would like to see more ocean optimism, instead of always saying the negative story. As a scientific community there is a lot of good stories to be told. And I think if we tell the good stories, as much as the bad stories, if not more, I think we can actually get a lot more of the public interested, engaged and excited about trying to influence their behaviour. So I think as a scientific community we need to try to engage with the community and, make them feel positive about what they can do to help ocean conservation. #oceanoptimism 

Whale hunting in Brazil and what we didn’t learn from it!

To this day, our knowledge on Brazilian whale hunting is still blurred, only few articles and books approach this subject and even those leave tremendous gaps about an activity that is supposed to have killed more than 4 thousand whales per year along the Brazilian coast in its prime years. Although it may sound bizarre for the younger ears, whale hunting only ended in Brazil in 1986. With such a recent past we may wonder if we have learned anything from an activity that almost drove many whale species to extinction that may help us avoid the same mistake with other species. 

Even though there is no definitive evidence, some researchers believe that the first indigenous living in Brazil also hunted coastal whales, prior to the arrival of the Portuguese. However, large-scale whaling only began after 1602, when Portugal issued the first whaling license for Brazil. The first whaling installation was built in the island of Itaparica, Bahia state, followed by several others from the south to the north coast (states of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Santa Catarina and Paraíba). In the next two centuries whales, mainly southern right whale, were exploited without any kind of control. In its first years, 3 to 4 thousand whales, mainly southern right female whales with offspring, are estimated to have been annually killed. The massacre of the adult reproductive females and their calves could not have a different result: in 1786 the annual catches of southern right whales fell to a thousand and kept declining until 1819, when only 59 individuals were hunted. As the catches of southern right whales declined, the target species changed in a desperate attempt to keep the activity profitable.

Whales were hunted mainly for its fat, but practically nothing of the animal would go to waste. The fat was melted to make oil lamps to illuminate houses, streets and sugar cane mills. Part of the oil produced in Brazil was exported. The fins were also exported to Europe and used in various objects, such as umbrellas, brushes, and corsets. The meat was not really appreciated; it was first distributed among the slaves, the free workers and the poor, then later followed by an unsuccessful attempt to popularize its consumption. When that failed, the meat started being exported to Japan.

Whaling was first done on small rowing and sailboats with manual harpoons. It was only in 1911 that a new Norwegian technology, using an explosive harpoon and large steam-powered whalers, arrived in Brazil, boosting the industry and accelerating further the already exhausted resource. To make matters worse, in 1912 the Brazilian government offered significant concessions aimed at revitalizing the whaling industry by attracting foreign capital and technology. At this point, other species were already being exploited as well, mainly the humpback whale and occasionally minke, and sperm whale.

Imbituba-SC, anos 50 – Foto de João Hipólito do Nascimento (1920-1992).

There was no regulation for whaling in Brazil, until in 1923 a general decree forbade the catching of calves and females with offspring. In 1967 Brazil finally joined international agreements banning the hunting of blue whales, but it took the country another 19 years of much fight and pressure from environmental groups and the media to finally ban whaling in 1986.
 

By the time of the ban, most of the whales used for oil were commercially extinct, but by then the focus had already changed. In the 1950’s Brazil aligned its interests in modernizing its fishing with the Japanese’s interest in whaling for meat and also in fishing the Brazilian waters. For Japan, even the small whales that visited the coast of Brazil were worth the effort, and they did hunt the Brazilian coast legally until 1986. Therefore, the Brazilian whaling history compromised large and small species alike, including whales that were good for their oil or not. It is estimate that eight species have been seriously affected, and only a few so far have given signs of recovery.   

Exploiting a resource to near extinction without any regulation, with subsidies to modernize and increase the catch capacity of the fleet seems like a perfect recipe for an ecosystem doom. Under such catastrophic events, we would expect people to learn, but instead we chose to follow the footsteps of our not so old whalers. Our targets have changed, we like the big fish now, but as they also go, we move on to the smaller ones as well. And we are cooking our recipe for the fish doom in a not so low a fire after all...

Bibliography

A história da Caça de Baleias no Brasil: De peixe real a iguaria japonesa. William Edmundson e Ian Hart. Disal Editora. 311 p. 2014.
A history of Whaling in Brazil: from royal fish to Japanese delicaly. William Edmundson and Ian Hart. Ed. Pub. Pequena. 234 p. 2017.

By Ludmila Damasio

Interviewing Dr. Beth Fulton

It is always a pleasure to talk to people who think out of the box and Beth is indeed one of those! These days, thinking out of the box may just well mean to do things in the ways we did before, seeing the whole picture and not only the parts. Beth talks about this and much more here, but before we get there, let’s just remind you about who Beth Fulton is, a name very familiar for those studying fisheries. Beth has a PhD in ecomathematics from the University of Tasmania and is a leading marine ecosystem modeller with a background in marine ecology, mathematics and scientific programming. She has been leading the CSIRO ecosystem modelling efforts in Australia for the past 15 years. Her science focus is on marine natural resource management, conservation and ecosystems. 

Beth’s team focuses on the development of programs that model marine ecosystem models (e.g. Atlantis, InVitro and CORSA). In particular, such modelling software give equal attention to biophysical and human components of marine ecosystems. These models allow users to explore the impacts and management of the myriad pressures on marine and coastal environments. The approach underpins CSIRO’s research into managing potentially competing uses of Australia’s marine environments and adaptation to global change and is currently used up by researchers and management bodies in 26 countries around the world. 

In August (2016) during the IMBER ClimEco5 Summer School in Natal, Brazil, we had a chance to have a quick chat with her. Check it out!

FEME: There is still some resistance from scientists in relation to the modeling of nature. For instance, some of them believe that is impossible to model nature with all its complexity. What is your view on that?

Beth Fulton: I would say that everybody models nature already, they just do it in their heads. And so, by getting the models out into mathematics or onto a piece of paper you at least have all of the assumptions clear, so that everybody can talk around it. You are not assuming that people know the same things that you do, because people will make decisions regardless of the models or not. So, it is better to have that information out there to make clear what we do and what we don’t know and to help understanding than to just give up and keep it all in their heads and keep it messy. 

FEME: In your opinion, how reliable are IPCC scenarios?

Beth Fulton: Of course there is going to be things that don’t work exactly like in the model. It is just a model! But the basic fundamental principles of the way that the atmosphere works and what that means for the oceans have been known for over a hundred years. They got the same basic answers with pencils and papers a hundred years ago. The finer details of today around specific locations are why we continue to need to refine this work. But they (IPCC scenarios) are basically reliable for the general pattern of change. We can’t wait to the changes to happen to see what it is before we can react, because of the long- term timeframes. The changes we are making today will already influence the next a thousand to a million years of the ocean and the world, so we need to act now. It is like when you save in a bank account, the earlier you save the more difference that you make. That is why you need to just say we don’t know everything perfectly, we might need to change a few things as we go along, but the basic reliability is pretty strong for general patterns.    

FEME: What changes would you like to see in the scientific community for the future?

Beth Fulton: That one I would like to see across all academia: an embracing of the idea that we are all equal, that no group is better than any other group, and that we share that information and understanding together. As we have understood more and more, we have become very constraint into a one little bit of science, which can be so different from place to place. There are thousands of different kinds of science. So, I would like the renaissance idea of all science together across the disciplines. So people have that big broad view again, instead of getting stuck there in their one little bit.

Latest publications:

Consensus management in Antarctica's high seas – Past success and current challenges.

Ecosystem indicators—accounting for variability in species’ trophic levels.

A changing marine sector in Australian coastal communities: An analysis of inter and intra sectoral industry connections and employment.

Decision trade-offs for cost-constrained fisheries management. 

Integrating modelling of biodiversitycomposition and ecosystem function. 

An Integrated Coral Reef Ecosystem Model to Support Resource Management under aChanging Climate.

Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=iVezqKwAAAAJ&hl=en

Protecting the reef fish we catch: the case of parrotfish

We already know that parrotfish (Labridae: Scarini) are large (and beautiful!) fishes that play critical functional roles in reef environments when they feed, which in their case, we call “grazing”. Parrotfishes spend their day biting off bits and chunks of algae and other benthic organisms with their beak-like teeth. However, macroalgae may not be their preferred dish, they seem to like smaller diet items then what has been previously assumed. Because of this new finding, they have been recently reclassified as microphagous (“eaters of tiny particles”) (Clements et al., 2016), which by no means diminishes their importance in shaping the reef community. In other words, their nutrition comes from protein-rich autotrophic microorganisms, which in their turn are associated with macro organisms. By eating microorganisms, parrotfish affects the structure and composition of benthic communities by maintaining algae free corals. 

Unfortunately, fishing pressure on parrotfishes has grown in the last decades around the world, and in Brazil, it is not different. Small-scale fisheries are exploiting large numbers of parrotfishes from Brazilian reefs, which could be leading to significant changes in the community structure. In particular, three species, Scarus trispinosus (Valenciennes, 1840), Sparisoma frondosum (Agassiz, 1831) and Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner, 1878), labeled as threatened in 2014, have been intensively targeted, mostly on the northeastern coast.

Scarus trispinosus landings. Photo by Natalia Roos.

In the Brazilian northeast, fishermen use different gears, including gillnets, handlines and spearguns, depending on the parrotfish species targeted. The effects that gears have in a given fishing are important to be understood because they may change catch composition, catch per unit effort (CPUE) and fish size frequencies. Therefore, the understanding of the effects of gear may guide suitable management strategies to maintain fish populations and long-term fishing yields.

The paper “Multiple management strategies to control selectivity on parrotfishes harvesting” assesses gear size selectivity and fishing pressure on the three most caught species of parrotfishes in the Brazilian northeast. The results showed that the annual total catch of S. trispinosus was estimated in 9.4 tons, while S. frondosum and S. axillare (usually caught together) were estimated at 15.4 tons, totaling 24.8 tons of parrotfish fished per year in a tiny area of the Brazilian coast.

Both S. frondosum and S. axillare are being caught by gillnets and handline above the size of first maturity, however, the CPUE value for gillnets are much higher than handline. For S. trispinosus, which is caught with gillnets and spearguns, the scenario is worse. About 80% of all S. trispinosus caught were below the size of first maturity, and most of the immature individuals are coming from gillnet fishery. 

Besides parrotfish artisanal fishing being multi-gear, multi-species and multi-strategy, there are many other problems involving this kind of fishery. First, parrotfishes are also targeted by unreported recreational fishing. Second, Sparisoma species are targeted by trap industrial fishing and exported to other countries. Third, some spearfishermen also hunt at night, when parrotfishes are asleep and much more vulnerable. Fourth, parrotfishes are protogynous hermaphrodite (i.e., they begin their life cycle as a female than they shift to male), and not protecting the larger individuals (males) can lead to several consequences to their reproduction. 

Due to all of these reasons, a multiple strategy approach is suggested for parrotfish management. Besides controlling artisanal gears by establishing a slot size limit for handline and speargun (gears that fishermen can choose the size of fish) and increasing the gillnet mesh size, banning recreational fishing, night fishing and exportation of parrotfishes should be taken into account. It is also important to consider spatial planning to protect sensitive areas. Clearly, all of these measures have to be monitored to ensure good results.    

The implementation of these multiple management strategies may oppose the latest Brazilian Red List, which recommended banning S. trispinosus fishery, as this was classified as Endangered, although it could support the need to manage S. axillare and S. frondosum. These two species are classified as Vulnerable and could be fished under restrictions. A repeal of the list would be a serious hindrance for the conservation and management of parrotfish. On the other hand, if this list is implemented, all the vulnerable species will require specific management measures, and this study is a timely contribution for the ecologically relevant and iconic groups of parrotfishes.

by Natalia Roos

References

Clements, K. D., German, D. P., Piché, J., Tribollet, A., & Choat, J. H. (2016). Integrating ecological roles and trophic diversification on coral reefs: multiple lines of evidence identify parrotfishes as microphages. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.

Roos, NC, Pennino, MG, Lopes, PF, & Carvalho, AR. 2016. Multiple management strategies to control selectivity on parrotfishes harvesting. Ocean & Coastal Management, 134, 20-29.

What do fishermen know about dolphins and why do they know what they know?

Every time you go to a different beach, the most prudent thing to do is asking local people where the safe places to swim are (places with no currents, for example). It is very likely that you would ask people somehow involved with the sea at that particular beach, such as lifeguards, surfers, and fishermen. The reason is obvious: since they are used to the local environment, they would know the risks. The same is true when researching any specific characteristic of a given area. Sometimes, when you want to understand specificities of a place, the best option is to ask local people about its characteristics and dynamics. When living in a place and depending directly on its resources, people learn how to deal with things available at the place. As these people spend time on their daily activities, they also have more opportunities to observe and accumulate knowledge of the surrounding area. Gathering this local ecological knowledge (LEK) is a good way to learn about local features without spending too much time and money, since they would already be the result of local experience through years (and, sometimes, over generations).

Based on this, several researchers have been including the LEK into their studies to learn about the ecology and biology of different species. In our paper [“The behavior of the estuarine dolphin (Sotalia guianensis, van Bénéden, 1864) according to fishermen from different fishing environments”], we investigated the knowledge fishermen had about the behavior of a local dolphin. Even though dolphins are charismatic species, even for researchers, we still have a lot to learn about them because it is not that easy or cheap to study the behavior of species that spend most of their time underwater. Fishermen, on the other hand, have a natural chance to learn about dolphins, simply by performing their profession. But fishermen are just regular human beings and, as such, will have their cultural biases as well that will shape the knowledge they carry.

Sotalia guianensis, PHOTO: http://uk.whales.org

Assuming that such biases would affect knowledge construction, we investigated how the perception of small-scale fishermen regarding the behavior of the estuarine dolphin (Sotalia guianensis) is affected by their education, experience, the type of environment where they predominantly fish, and the extent to which they are involved in dolphin watching tourism. We interviewed fishermen in routine contact with populations of S. guianensis in NE Brazil. Overall, most fishermen correctly reported the habitat, distribution, seasonality, and feeding behavior of this dolphin, besides bringing new insights into the dolphin’s reproductive behavior and its possible migration patterns. As expected, more experienced fishermen provided more details. Interestingly though, those fishermen that studied more years could also provide better details, perhaps suggesting that formal education could fine-tune their perception. Another important finding of this study is that fishermen’s knowledge is widely affected by the fishing environment they commonly use, because dolphins perform different behaviors depending on where they are. This finding has as additional implication and could be used as an attention flag to studies using LEK: you better carefully select your informants depending on what you want to learn, besides considering the effects of their cultural biases. Once you are aware of those limitation, inherent to human beings, be sure that fishermen, besides knowing a lot about fish, may also provide information on cetaceans that could be used in management and conservation when scientific sources are missing or insufficient. 

Manzan, M & LOPES, PFM. 2014. Fishers' knowledge as a source of information about the estuarine dolphin (Sotalia guianensis, van Bénéden, 1864). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187: 4096.