Journal of Ethnobiology 22(2): 2H5-306 Winter 2002

ETHNOICHTHYOLOGY AND FISH CONSERVATION IN THEPIRACICABA RIVER (BRAZILl

RENATO A. M. SILVA)\.1() and ALPINA BEGOSSINilcleo de Estudos e Pesquisas 11mbientais, University of Campitlas, C P. 6166,

CPP: 13083 970, Campinas (SP), Brazil

ABSTRACT.~ The impounded portion of the Piradcaba River sustains a recentlyestablished smaU scale fishery. The aims of this vlOrk are to \o"'€rity the knowledgeof Piracicaba River fishennen about fish biology and behavior, and to comparethis knowledge to scientific information. We interviewed 22 fishermen with ques­tionnaires and photographs of ten fish species. The fishermen showed a detailedknowledge about fish diet predators, spatial and temporal distributions, repro­duction and migratory patterns. Fishermen know better the common and com­mercially valuable fishes than the rare ones. Important factors influencing localethnoichthyological knmvledge are the value and abundance of the fishes~ theirusefulness in the fishery, and the frequency with which fishermen observe someof the biological attributes (such as feeding habits) of fishes. Much of the folkknmvledge agreed with observations from the scientifk literature, Fishermen un­derstand the trophic relationships among native and exotic fish species, and theyknow the migratory patterns and the habitat preferences of the most valuablefishes, Such folk information may contribute to fishery management strategies,These results show that the folk knowledge held by small scale tropical fishermenis important for improving biological research.

Key words: Ethnobiology, tropical freshwater fishes, fishery, reservoir! fresh\vaterfishermen.

RESUl'v10-A regHio represada do Rio Piracicaba sustenta uma pescaria comerdalde pequena escala~ estabeledda recentemente. Os objetivos deste trabalho eonsi.<;­tern em: verifiear 0 conhecimento que os pescadores do Rio Piracicaba possuemsobre a biologia e comportamento dos peixes e comparar este conhecimento pop­ular com as informac;:6es dentificas. Foram entrevistados 22 pescadores, atravCsde questionarios baseados em fotografias de dez especies de peixes, Os pescadoresentrevistado5 apresentaram lim conhecimento detalhado sobre a diehl, preda­dores, distribui<;ao espadai e temporat repr(xlu~ao e padroes migrat6rios dospeixes. Os pescadores conhecem melhor os peixes comuns e de "-'alar comeroaldo que as espedcs raras. 0 valor e a abundiincia dos peixes, sua utilidade parao pescador, bem como a observa<;ao frequente pe]o pescador de atributos bio16­gicos das €spccies abundantes, sao fatores importantes influendando 0 conheci­mento etnoictiol6gico locaL Muitas das Informac;oes oriundas dos pescadores en~

contram-se de acordo com observa~oesregistradas na literatura cientifica. Os pes­cadores conhffem bern as rela.;;oes alimentares entre espedes de peixes nativas eE'xotkas, bern como as padr5es migrat6rios e habitats preferendais dos peixesmais valiosos. Estas informa,Des populares podem contribuir para estrategias demancjo da pesea. Estes resultados demonstram que mesmo pescarias tropkais de

286 SILVANO and IlEGOSSI Vol. 22, No.2

pequena escala e estabelecidas recentemente silo importantcs como um rcruTSQ

cultural, que deve ser utilizado para guiar e auxiUar na pesquisa biol6gica.

RESUME.-La zone de retenue dl.l fleuve Piracicaba soutient une recente pecheriede petite echelle. Cette etude a pour but de determiner la (:oJUlaissance des pe­meum du fIcuve Piracicaba en matiere de biologic et de comportement des pois­sons ct de comparer ceUe connaissance populaire aux info.rmations scientifiques.NOlls avon'i interview€ 22 p&heurs en utiHsant des questionnaires et les photog­raphies de dix especes de POis.."'ODS. Les pecbeurs interroges ont demontn? uneconnaissance detamee de I'alimentation des poissons, de leurs prcdateurs, de leurrepartition geographiques et temporellel et de leur mode de reproduction et demigration. Les pedleurs connaissent mieux Ies POisSDns ordinaires ct les poissonscommerdaux qUE' les especes rares. L'etlmokhtyologif? loctlle depend essentielle­ment de la valeur marchande et de Ifabondancc des poissons, de leur utilite pourles pecheriesf et de )a frequence avec laqueUe ]es pecheurs observent <:ertains desattributs biologiques des poissons---'modes dfallmentation par exemple. Les con­naissances papula-ires correspondent en grande partie aux observations scienti­fiques, Les pecheurs comprennent 1es relations alimentaires entre Ie; especes in­digenes et et les especes exotiques et Us connaisscnt les modes de migration etI'habitat prefere des poissons les plus prises, Les resultats de cettc etude mootrentque Ies connaissance populaire dans les pecheries tropicales de petite echellespeuvent contribucr aux strategies de gestion des pecheries et aux progres de larecherche biologique.

INTRODUCTION

Ethnobiological studies have been frnnishing new biological informationabout insects (Posey 1983), reptiles (Goodman and Hobbs 1994) and fish (Johannes1981). Such informatiOfl, if properly interpreted using a biological sciences frame­work, may be useful to biologists (Johannes 1993). Biological folk knowledge re­mams little studied, and is being threatened by tbe disappearance of indigenouspeople or their customs, as well as by the influence of urbanization and marketeconomy on resource-use strategIes (Joharnes 1978; Posey ]983; Wester andYongvanit 1995),

There are two ethnobiological theories dealing with tl'e basis of folk knowl­edge. The utilitarian view argues tlu,t people should know useful organisms withmore detail (Hunn 1982). The mentalistic view states that folk knowledge is pri­marily influenced by factors other than the usefulness of the organisms, such astheir ahundance in the environment (Berlin 1992).

Ethnolchthyological research provides evidence that both river and marinesmall-scale fishermen have well established knowledge of fish biology and clas­sifieation (Begossi and Caravello 1990; Johannes 1981; Paz and Begossi 1996).Comparative studies show that folk knowledge is usually in accord with scientificdata (Marques 1991; Poizal and Baran 1997). For example, Pacifie island fisher­men's information regarding marine fish reproduction helped scientists in themanagement of fish stocks (Johannes 198]). Northeastern Brazilian fishermenmentioned that the estuarine fish Arius herzbergii eats insecls (Ephemeroplera)during certain months of the year. This information was investigated and con-

Winter 2002 IOURNAL OF ElliNOBIOLOGY 287

firmed by fish stomach content analysis, thus revealing a new food chain fortropical estuaries (Marques 1991).

Biological research alone may not be sufficient to gather the amount of datarequired to manage most lropical nearshore marine fisheries, due to lack of timeand money. In such cases, fishery management may be more successfully accom­plished if it is also based on contributions from fishermen's knowledge (Johannes1998). A similar situation occurs in tropical freshwater environments, such asSouth American rivers, where fishery management suffers from a scarcity of pub­lished information on fish biology (Bayley and Petrere 1989; Bohlke et al. 1978;Petrere 1989). In this context, ethnoichthyological studies may be a useful man­agement tool, bringing to light infomlation which may serve both as guidelinesfor biological research (Marques 1991; Poizat and Baran 1997) and as a quick andinexpensive way to assessing biological data (Chapman 1987; Johannes 1981,1998).

Southeastern Brazilian rivers and reservoirs drain industrialized regions andhave been harvested by fishemlen, who typically live in small fishing villageslocated near urban centers (Castro and Begossi 1995; Silvano and Begossi 1998;Vera et al. 1997). Such villages can be regarded as small "cultural units:' subjectto a distinctive set of political, economic, social and ecological characteristics. Thesmall scale commercial fishery at the impounded Piracicaba River Is of relativelyrecent origin, as it started around 1962 with the creation of the Barra BonitaResL'fvoir (Torloni 1994). This fishery has been threatened by environmental mod­ifications such as dam construction, pollution and deforestation (Silvano and Be­gossi 1998). It is likely that the fishery will decline, with a concomitant loss offolk knowledge; this has already happened In the polluted upper Plracicaba River(Silvano 1997). We believe that such knowledge should be documented, consid­ering its potential usefulness for fish conservation. The main objective of the pre­sent study is to document the knowledge of Piracicaba River fishermen about fishbiology and behavior. We also intend to investigate the basis for such knowledge,to compare it with ichthyological scientific data, and finally to point out someethnolchthyologlcal information that may be applied to fishery management.

METHODS

The Piracicaba River in Southeastern Brazil is 115 km long, draining an ur­banized region and receiving discharges of industrial effluents and domestic sew­age. Barra Bonita Reservoir, created In 1962 with the damming of the lower Plr­acicaba River, has small fishing villages with active fishermen living along Itsbanks (Silvano 1997). We carried out this study in two of these villages: Tanquaand Ponte de Santa Marla da Serra (Figure 1), inhabited by six and seven fisherfamilies, respectively. These villages are located about 100 km from the city ofPiracicaba, Sao Pau 10 State, southeastern BraziL fur details about the location ofthe study sites see Silvana and Begossi (1998). Many houses in both villagesbelong to tourists, being visited only during weekends and vacations (Silvana1997).

We interviewed men and women who fish now or had fished in the past. Wedeveloped a standardized questionnaire wilh six questions about fish diet, pred-

288 SILVANO and BEG()SSI VoL No,2

FIGURE of Brazil showing the Piracicaba River basin and theTanqua and Ponte de Santa Maria da Serra.

villages or

atorst seasonal occurrence, habitats, reproduction, and migratory movements, Theques.tions were asked in a manner understandable the interviewed fishermen,who were allowed to answer in as much time they wanted. For each fish, a colorphotograph was shown, in the same randomized order for all people interviewed.The questions were:

1) What is the name of this fish?2} What does this fish3) Which animals or other fishes prey on this fish?4) Where does this fish live?

TABLE L Fish useti for interviews, with their abundance and economic value. -------Abundance Economic

Fish Conunon .ru\me n' % value'

Astyanax bimoclilatus Characid"c lambari 21 10 (679) mediumHoplilL'4 maiiWaricxis Erythrinidae traira 22 S (363) mediumLiposarcus aff. anisH;;; Loricariidae cascudo (horn-scaled catfish) 22 11 (80l) mt"diumPimdodus maculaius and P fur Pimelodidae mand! (catfish) 20 14 (955) lowPlngioscion squ.a!1'1osissimus Sciaenidae coroina 21 18 (1289) mediumProchi1a{jus linel1lus Prochilodontidae corimbll 20 32 (2221 ) mediumRlwmdia sp_ Pimelodidae bagre (catfish) 22 0.1 (5) luwSalminus fflaxtllosu5 Characidae do.rado 22 0.8 (53) highSteindachnerina insculpta Curimatidae saguiru 22 0.6 (43) noneTilapia n""lalli Cichlidae tildpia 21 0.04 «5) low• n sa.mpJe si.lJ:" (number of interviewed fishermcf\)_l'Values are percent of total fish tru'lSS landed in the two fishing villages, during 1994··1995 {SHvaoo 1997; Silv;;uto and Bcgossi 19981.~ Economic value \V2lS assigned to the- following c;ltegoriQs~ none (dis<axded fish), law (US$ 0.60-0.90 per kg), medium (US$ O.9Q--4.40 per kg) and high (morethRfi US$ 440 per kg).

290 51lYANG and BEG0551 Vo1. 22, No, 2

TABLE 2.--Comparison of the number of doubts amt-'ll"'lg ten fish species CX\. iHl~ 57; p <0,01) and six biological attributes (X"'"" = 120; P < 0,01),~--~~-~--~~-~ ....-

Number NumberFish of doubts attributes of doubts

.l1stymmx bimactdatusHaptia;; 11ffl/aixmcusLirrosarcus aff. anisitsiPimelodus spp.Pla::pO$cion squamosissimusProchilodus lilU'atusRllamdia sp.Safmitlus maxillosusSteinda.cJmerina insculpfa

rend<llli

98

11988

23129

36

diethabitatmigralionpredatorsreproductionseasonal occurrence

234

234

6613

5) When is this fish found here?6) Does this fish move along the river? To where'?

Duration of interviews varied, depending on the knowledge and objectivity ofthe interviewed person. We selected ten fish species for study among the 43 reg~

i,tered in the Piraricaba River fish landings (Silvana 1997). They represent a widerange of fishes that are common and rare, native and exotic, great and small insize, valuable and discarded (Table 1), Comparisons along these gradients shauldprOVide some insight into factors influencing the acquisition and maintenance offishermen's folk knowledge. 'The number of interviewed people varied slightly forthe different fish species because some people could not complete the qllestion~

naire. We compared fishermen's information with data from the scientific litera­ture, following Marques (1991). All fish mentioned in this study were callectedand identified for verification,' The zoologist Ivan Sazima' identified the mammalsand reptiles dted as fish predators, which were not collected.

An..;wers given such as "I do not know iJ(D~'K.) were considered uncertain

knowledge, Considering that fishermen should best know the fish species ar bi­ological aspects with the smallest number of DNK, we compared the number ofDNK answers among the fish species and the biological attributes through a chi­square test.

RESULTS

\AVe int€rvle\vcd 17 men and 5 women, corresponding to about 80°;;) of theresident fishers in the two villages. The common and scientific names, abundance,and economic value of the ten fish species sludied are listed in Table 1. Of these,the cascudo (horn~scaled catfish-Liposarcus afl. ilnisil5i, Loricariidae [Figure 2]),the corvilla (Plagioscion squamosissimus [Heckel], Sciaenidae [Figure 3]) and thetilapia (Till/pia rendalli [Baulenger], Cichlidae) are exotic to the Piracicaba Riverbasin Considering the great variety of answers gathered, we show only thosementioned by at least 20% of interviewees.

Faclors lnflll.Ctldng Folk Kllowledge.--Fishers showed mare doubts (less knowledge)about IIlapia rendoW and Rhanutia sp, (x' ,.oes = 57; P < 0.01; Table 2), which were

Winter 2002 JOUR1'JAL OF ETHNOBIOLOCY 291

FCURE 2.-The ctlscudo, Lit'OslirrclJS afE iJ.nisitsi.

FIGURE 3.-The cotvin(/., Plagioscion squll11105lssimus.

•

292 SILVANO and BEGOSSr Vol. No.2

36

S, mm·iJfa.~Wf

fish {b}

puanha(S"rrasalmtfS .fprfopleurUj

otter(Lulra fon;!:fCl,/(d,'.~!

H. malahmicU.>fjAn. crustaceousand insects (b1

1'. squamo,.,ili'"imu.sfish dna Insects (c)

fPhr)lfl,Ops ge,rfthouflus andl~)dr()mcdusa lecl!fera)

piranharSerrasallmts spi[op[euYa)

___I[ insecLs J

S. ir.sculpJI1detritus (a}

FIGURE 4.-~A simplified model of the food web in the Piradcllba River, following fish­ermen's infonnation about sa,<:uiru diet and predators. Numbers inside small boxes corre­spond to the percentage of interviewees that mentioned the respective trophic link Belowthe sdentific rmmes of some of the are fish diets reported in the scientific literature;letters refer to sources: (a) Fugi et 211. 1996; (b) Bistani et al. (c) 1995.

1j

habits of the Piradcaba River fishesTABLE

Food items

plant mattermudirt~ts

earthwormsur'lsped fied fishesTilopia rcndalliAstyanax In'macuiatu..,;;Sfelndachnerinf1 insculptl1Pmchilodus lilWatUSUposnrcus aff. anL'litsiRhamdia sp.Pime/odus 'pp.Salminus maxi!losusPlagioscion squamosissi1'fUiSHop/ias malabaricus

Tilapiarcndalli

3348

Asf!fll'flax him­aculntus

29

52

Steillda­chnrr­ina in­slI/pla

235532

:<:5Il!'5S

to the interviewed fishermen.

Consumers

Plagios"Lip<> cion

Prochi- sarcus Salmin- squama-- Harlia ::>

lodlLS arr Rharu- Pimclo- us max-- sissi- mala Piran- (5lineatus I1nisifsi di" sp. dus spp. i/losus mus baricfts Otter ha Turtles iii

Z85 86 36 65 ;»

r-'25 040 "Ti

41 30 en~

24 29 52 29 :=:45 75 M 35 70 3S Z

036 45 64 41 73 23 520 80 65 35

22r

48 57 845 70 75 40

-(

36 6433 48 81 38

22 43 48 26

Note: The numbers correspond to the percentage of inl:crviewees who mentioned the respt:!ctivc trophic interaction.

-_ __ _.__._------------------

294 SILVANO and BFGOSSI VoL 22, No, 2

II

___l.

rare and of low economic value (Table 1), Some of the best known fish speciesare of high economic value, such as the tra{ra (Hoplias malabaricus [Bloch], Ery­thrinidae), Plagillsciml squamosissimus, the corimba (ProchilodllS lineatus Steindach­ner, Prochilodontidae), and the lambari (Astyan,'x bimaculalus [Linnaeus], Chara­cidae), or arc abundant in the fish landings, sud, as the mandi (catfish-Pimelodusspp" Pimelodidae; Tables 1 and 2), Considering biological aspects, fishermen hadmarc doubts about rCl'roduclion than about fish habitats and predators (X' ;,0,05

120; p < 0,01; Table 2),

Cotnpllrison of Folk Knowledge with Biological Literature.-A simplified folk food webfor thePiracicaba River fishes was constructed, based on fishermen citations re­garding fish diets and predators, Eadl link of the food web, represented by ar­rO\\'5,. corresponds to a certain proportion of fishermen's responses during inter­views, The width of the arrows reflects the proportion of citations referring to aparticular fceding relationship, In Figure 4 and Table 3, the fish diets accordingto scientific literature (letters referring to the sources) are presented below thefish scientific names, There are four levels in the food web: primary consumers,primary carnivores. secondary carnivores and top predators, allowing the assign­ment of feeding guilds for the fishes, It was possible to distinguish food specialist(one or two kinds of food) from generalist (three or more kinds of food) fishes,Specialists were Plsclvorous (Plagioseion squmnesi!lsimas, Hoplias malabarieus, thedourado [Sa/minus maxillosus, Valenciennes]) and detritivorous (Procl1ilodlls Jinell1us,LiflOsarclLs aff. anisitsi) species, Generalists were omnivorous fishes such as Pime­Icdus spp., the bagre (0 catfish-Rhamdia sp,. Pimelodidae), and Astyanax bimaculatus (CharacidaeJ,

Fishermen mentioned about 23 species of fish predators, corresponding to 11fishes, 5 birds, 4 reptiles and 3 mammals, the most cited being represented infigure 4, Accordingly with, respectively 35, 26 and 17% of fishermen, piranhas(Serrasalmus spllopleura [Kner], Characidae; Figure 5), otter (Liltra /ongiCiwdis [01­fers]), and turtles (Pl1rynops geoffroamls ISchweigger] and Hydrmneduso tectifera[Copell usually attack fishes that are entangled in the nets, The piranha, the mostcited predator, preys on all len fish species studied,

Fishermen mentioned a great diversity of habitats occupied by the fishes,which could be separated inlo lacustrine (HOfllias ma/aharicw;, Liposarms aff, anis­Itsi, Steindachnm'ilW i1Jscalpta, Tilapia rondalli), stream (Astyanax bimacu/ntus, Rhamdiasp,), and river (Prochilodus li1Jeatus, Salmi1Jus maxillosus, Pimelodus spp) species,with A bimllCulatus and Plagwscion squamos!ssimus being mentioned as habitat gen­eralists (see Table 4),

We observed that fishermen distingUished among migratory and sedentaryfish species. and they recognized many kinds of fish migratory movements, fromgreat longitudinal to short lateral migrations (Figure 6), According to fishermen'sanswers regarding seasonality, Pimelodus spp, occur mainly in the winter, H, mal­abaril:us and P squanws1ssimus were common during spring, whereas P. linea/usand S, maxillosus were most abundant in summer. The seasonal occurrence of themigratory P. lineatus and $, maxillosus was associated with rainfall (Table 5).

As mentioned in the section above, we had fewer answers about fish repro­duction than about other biological characteristics, In spite of this, fishermen did

Winter 2002 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 295

FIGURE :'5.-The piran1ta, Serrasa/mlls spi/op/eura.

mention that the majority of Piracicaba River fishes repmduce during sum.mer,whicll generally agrees with published data (Table 6).

DISCUSSION

Foctors Influencillg Folk Knowledge.-··Dur indicate that the folk knowledgeof Piradcaba River fishermen is more detailed for abundant and useful spE~ie:s,

especially those that are commercially valued. Sim.ilarly';. river and maritime Bra­zilian fishermen classify useful fish with more detail (Begossi and Figul~iredo

1995; Begossi and GaraveUo 1990).With regard to biological aSJ::)ect:s, information about fish reproduction may

be difficult for Piradcaha River fishermen to acquire, since fish reproduceinfrequently in time, Furthermore, knowing when fish lay eggs has no directusefulness to the fishery. Conversely, information about fish habitat is inlportantfor the Piradcaha River fishermen, as a good catch depetids 011 the fishermen'sability to set gillnets in appropriate places, Elsevvhere, researchers have shOVlinthat knowledge about fish spatial distribution influences river, maritime and es­tuarine fishing (Chapman 1987; Marques 1991; Petrere 1990). Tech­niques of attracting wanted fish species by increasing aquatic habitat heteroge­neity were documented for fishing communities from the northeastern Brazilianestuary (Martlues 1991), African lagoons (Hem and Avit 1994) and India maritimecoast (Cruz et aL 1994). Such habitat manipulation does not occur in the PiradcabaRiver fishery, perhaps due to its recent nature.

Piracicaba fishermen showed a good knowledge about the saguiru (Steirulach-

TABLE 4.-Fish habitats accordingly to fi~hers' answers and scientific literature. Vaiw~s in parenthesis are percent of fishermen that quoted anarti,cul'ar habitat. (Numbers of fishermen intervievvcd for each fish are in Table 1.)

Fish species l1abitat according to fishermen Habitat recorded in biological literature

main river channel, reservoirs (Agostinho et a1. 1995) onthe bottom (Ba rella et at 1994)

wide distribution; quiet water habitats, such as reservoirsand lagilims; among submerged rocks and gravel, open'waters, near the shon~ (Torloni et a1. 1993)

adults occupy rivers, juveniles occurs in lagoons (Agos~

tinho et at 1995), feed on the bottom, among the vege­tation and submerged logs (Fugi et at 19%)

streams (Ag{.)Stinho et a!' 1995), on the bottorn near theshore (Costa 1987)

Rivers, fast waters (Agostioho et at 1995)

Reservoirs, on the bottom and at middle waler (Agostin­ho et at ]995)

Streams, reservoirs, lakes, (Uieda 1984; Romanini 1989),shoals of juvenile fish in shallow waters near the shore,among the vegetation (Uieda et aL 1989)

shallow walers (55), lagoon (50), among thevegetation (50), on the bottom's mud (50),near the shore (27)

rocks (5S), lagoon (36), among the vegetation(36)

main river channel (60), on the hottom (50),shallow waters (20)

main river channel (38), On the bOllom (29),any place (29), ncar the shore (24)

main river tnannel (59), fast waters (45), onthe bottom (36), shallow waters (27)

lagoon (36), shallow waters (32) near the shore(32), main river channel (27)

lagoon (48), among the vegetation (38)

among submerged logs (60), lagoon (30), mainriver channel (25)

stream (45), main river channel (32), rocks (32)

Liposarcus aff. anisitsi

PlagioReion squamosissimus

Sa/minus maxillosus

PitUi.~lodus spp.

Steindadmerina ittsL'Ulpta

HOlllias malabaricus

Tilapia renda/Ii

Prochilodus lineatus

Astyanax biuUlculatus sLTC..1m (38), any hahitat (29), main river chan- wide distribution; streams, temporary pounds, reservoirs,nel (24), near the shore (24) quiet and fast waters, surface and l'niddle water (Uicda

1984; Agostinho et al. 1995)lagoons, reservoirs, temporary pounds, shallow waters

(Resende et aI. 1996), arnong the vegetation, on the bot­tom (Dieda 1984), near the shore during dry periods(Fink and Fink ]979)

not fmmd

Rhamdia sp_

Winrer 2002 JOU&'JAL OF ETHNOBIOLOCY

MlU~inlll LagDlms

297

dot, not nngrate

F',me!ov1ab ,pp.(65) hS ilIsculpla (55)A bimacul(l1W1 (52,L aft ams{tst f45)P squamo!JiJiSltHU,08)

Rhamdi(1 $1', {32:,r. n':l1;iiJilt (24)

Barra B...nita Resc.YV<lir

FIGURE 6.~Fish migratory movements according to Piradcaba River fishermen. Numbersin parentheses are the percentages of interviewees that pointed out the movement for therespel:t1\'e fish Letters refer to the scientific sources that with the informationgiven by the (a) Vazzoler and Menezes (b) lY75; (cl Petrere 1985i(d) Agostinho et al. 1995.

nerlna inseu/pta; Table 2). This fish has no commercial value and usually is dis­carded. Saguiru (fishes from family, including S. insculpta) com­prised about of the total catch in the Barra Bonita reservoir fishery during1985 and 1986, declining afterwards (Silvano and Begossi 1998). This decrease inabundance suggests that saguiru could have been more abundant or importantin the past. knowing the habits and behavior of a prey species likeS. insculpta can help Piradcaba fishermen to find piscivorous and valuable

such as Haplias malabari.cus.. Plagiosdon ,<;quamosissimus and SlIJminus l1U1Xil-

Amazon fishermen usually track small prey fishes in order to find want-ed pisdvorous ones (Goulding 1979).

Fishermen also kno1;v in detaiI fish diets and predators (Table 2), althoughsuch information may not be directly useful, as Piradcaba fishermen usually donot use bait. Information about fish feeding relationships may have an indirectvalue in the fi"hery, however, as the diet of a fish is usually r<~lated to its habitat.Furthermore, fishermen can minimize fish loss from predator attacks if they avoidsetting gillnets in places ,·vith high predator abundance, Notwithstanding suchproposed usefulness, the observed detailed folk knowledge regarding feedingl'elationships can be also merely due to a frequency of observation: fishermenfrequently clean fish and see stomachs contents, and predators are also commonlyobserved eating fish erdangled in the gillnets, Concerning the conflict of mental­istic versus utilitarian views in ethnobiology, Clement (1995) argued that bothutility and observed such as color and morphology could influence folkbiological being associated aspects of the same process. Perhaps this

surnm€f, autumn,winter,winter, springwinterautumn, springspring, summerautumn, wintl;'r, spring (scarcr.:)summer (srflfCt')discardedwinter (S(,lH'Ci.~)

V"lucs in pal:'Cnth€~siSiilrt-' the pel'r<:lltare In 'Jable

October I}r Novefnbcr), wet season (from November to March),Mayor April}.

Season of abundance'

Fishermen answers

summer (62), spring wet season (29), all the year (29)spring (73), low water se,lson (32), summer winter (27)wei ~ca,.(}n all Uw yl:,,1r (27), spring (27), winter (27), summer,·'!.'inter summer (20)spring summer (38), wint('f (33), all the year (29)spring summer (55), winter (20), Wt~t season (20)wet season summer (27), all the year (27), SCllrCt' (27)summer wet season (32), spring (32), scarCt, (27)summer all the year (36), (27)scarce

Fish

l?hamdia sp.Salminus maxillosusSIe1lldm:fmerinfl insct/itlt"

rel'ldalli

TABLE 5.·--·rish seasonal occurrence according with fishers answers and fish landing data (Silvanoof fishermen that a. 5l:'aoon. (Number of fishl:.'rmen interviewed for each fish

"Seasons arc- deJint;d db follows: summer (I)ec?mber, or Febmary), springtow wal<"r :Wilson (from August to November), V,'1ntcr (June, July or August), auhm111

A.styanax bimacull1tusHupllas miflllbaricllsUtWS,,.U'U5 aff. tmisi!siPimelodiltt> spp.

TABLE 6.-·-Fish reproductive period according to the fishermen answers and from the scientific literature. Values in parentheses are percentof fishermen that quoted a particular sea<:on. (Number of fishermen interviewed for ea(n fish species ilTe in Table L Seasons are specified in'lable 4.)

Fisb

AsfYllnax bimaculatusHoplias malabtlricusLiposarcu,s af£. anisitsiPime/adu. spp.Plagioscion sqw.l11'lOsissinwsf'rocltilodu5 linealusRhamdia sr.Salminus maxillvsusSteimlnchnerina insculpta

renda11i"

fishermen answers

Reproductive period

literature

wet season (Godoy 1975)September and October (Barmeri 1989)not foundnot foundNoven'\ber to~bruary (summer) (Braga 1997)spring (November), Slimmer (Agostinbo el at 1995)spring~ summer (Narah<1.ra 1983)spring, summer (Godoy 1975)not foundnot found

300 SILVANO and BEGOSSJ Vol. 22, No.2

condusion could be also applied to the Piradcaba River fishing villages studied.There, the acquisition of folk knowledge about fish may be associated with thefrequency of observation of biological events, whereas diffusion and maintenanceof this knowledge possibly depends on its direct usefulness for the fishermen.

Besides exploiting a recent and constantly changing environment, PiradcabaRiver fishermen exhibited a developed knowledge about fish, even for exotic spe­d€8, such as Plagioscion squamosissimu5 and LiposarCl-lS aff. anisitsi. This indicatesthat folk knowledge has been diffusing in qUick and efficient ways among suchsmall fishing villages in southeastern BraziL

Comparison of Folk KnfYWledge with Biologica! Literalure.-Piracicaba River fishermenrecognized several trophic relationships among fishes. Such relationships form acomplex food web, with approximately four levels and several links. Marques(1991, 1995) also recognized complex food webs, with five levels, based on theinformation provided by estuarine and river fishermen of northeastern Brazil.Tropical river fishes have complex and diverse trophic relationships (Lowe­McConnell 1987). At least some of this complexity is revealed through etlmobiol­ogieal research, which indicates aspects deserving further investigation. Accord­ing to the Piradcaba fishermen, detritus is at the basis of the food chain, beingthe main food for primary consumers and comprising the bulk of the diets ofProchilodus linealus and UI'0sarcus aff. anisil.i (Figure 4, Table 3). This agrees withbiological studies, which show that detritivorous fish, such as prochilodontids andloricariids, are the basis of many tropical aquatic food webs, being important innutrient recyding (Bowen 1984; Catella and Petrere 1996; F1ecker 1996). Thus wecan expect, based on our etlmoichthyological information, that detritus is an es­sential energy source to Piracicaba River fish and fishery, as observed in othertropical, undisturbed wetlands (Duque et aL 1998).

The predatory fish Serrasalmus spilol'!eura was the main fish predator men­tioned by the Piraeicaba River fishermen, who said lhat S. spilol'lPura bites offpieces of fish, preferring caudal fins (accordirlg to 17% of interviewees). The pro­liferation of this fish may be an effect of Piradcaba River damming, as serrasal­mids often increase in abundance after a river is dammed (Santos 1995; Sazirnaand Zamprogno 1985). As mentioned by Piracicaba River fishermen, S. spilapleurawas observed feeding opportunistically on a variety of other fish species, muti­lating the fishes and biting off pieces of the caudal fins (Sazima and Machado1990; Sazima and Pombal 1988). At the Pantanal Wetlands, t11e serrasalmids exerta great int1uence on aU fish communities, constraining the behavior and use ofspace of various fish spe<:ies (Sazima and ]\·1achado 1990). Our results suggest asimilar effect of S. spilopleura predatory beluwior on the Piracicaba River fishes,which inhabited a dammed river.

The otter, Lulra !ougiaJudis, was also quoted by most of the Piradcaba Riverfishermen as a fish predator. Emmons (1990) observed that L longicawIis is anaqnatic mammal that feeds ptt'dominantly on fish, with diurnal and nocturnalhabits, inhabiting clear water and running rivers" Furthermore,. this species iscurrently threatened, mainly by habitat destruction, and its biology and ecologyare poorly known (Fonseca et a!. 1994). Considering that 1. longicaudis is usuallyrare in silt-laden lowland rivers (Emmons 1990), such as the Piracicaba, fisher-

\.'Vinter 2002 JOURNAL OF HHNOBIOLOGY 301

men's infonnation indicates that populations of this mammal species may stilloccur in the dammed and polluted Piradcaba River. This information may beuseful in reinforcing the need to conserve and restore the ecological integrity ofthe Piracicaba River Basin, through reduction in water pollution and protedionof the riparian forests,

Piracicaba River fishermen assodated the seasonal OCcurrence of large migra­tory fishes with the rainfall period, thus using climatic clues to predict fish tem­poral abundance, In fact, an increase in rainfall is one of the factors that releasesthe reproductive stimulus and migratory behavior of these fishes (AgDstinho etat. 1995; Welcomme 1985), Climatic factors, such as winds, floods and tides areessential clues to assess the migratory movements of the fishes that sustain es­tuarine fisheries in northeastern Brazil (Cordell 1978; Marques 1991) and even fora maritime turtle fishery in Nicaragua (Nietschmann 1972),

Piradcaba River fishermen also mentioned some unknoV','Il biological features,such as the timing of reproduction of Piffle/adus spp, and Tilapia rcndal/l, the mi­gratory movements of Rltamdia sp, and T. remU/lIi, and all the biological charac­teristics of Lipos1rcus aff, anisilsi. We also observed some contradictions betweenfishennen's answers and the biological literature, especially with respect to mi­gratory behavior, an aspect poorly known to biologists, For example, fishermenmentioned Astynrtax binwcu/IlJus as migratory (Figure 6), although it has been re­garded as sedentary (Vazzoler and Menezes 1992), In these cases, biological re­seardl could be conducted at the Piracicaba River in order to verify whetherfishermen's assertions match scientific observations,

CONCLUSIONS CONCERNtNG ETHNOICHTHYOLOGY ANDFISH CONSERVAIION

As dL.scussed previously, information acquired with Piradcaba River fisher­men about fish biology is generally supported by the scientific literature, espe­cially regarding fish diet and habitat. Even considering that biologists often dealvvith the same genus or species from other rivers, the observed concordance be­tween folk and scientific knowledge indicates that folk knowledge probably ap­proaches biological reality, and provides useful support for fishery managementdecisions. We thus could point out at least three areas where these results wouldbe useful for fish conservation and fishery management actions on the Piradcabaand other rivers: seasonality, effects of exotic fishes, and fish migration and hab­itat.

Quick Appraisal of Seasonal Fish Occurwue,-Folk information about the seasonaloccurrence of fish at the Piradcaba River agreed with fishery data recorded dur­ing one year (Table 5), This agreement indicates that an ethnoichthyoJogical surveymay be a useful way to monitor fish species abundance when there is not suffi­dent time or money to gather detailed fishery data or experimental fish samplmgs,Poizat and Baran (1997) also observed fishermen folk knowledge was consistentwith the results of an experimental fishing survey concerning the spatial andtemporal distribution of African estuarine fishes.

302 SILVANO and BEGOSSI Vol. 22, No, 2

Estimates of the Effects of Exotic Fishes on Naliue Fish Fauno,~lnvasion or introductionof fish into tropical rivers and reservoirs had been often prejudicial to the nativeichthyofauna, which usually suffers the adverse effects of predation and compe­tition from exotic species (lowe-McConnell 1993; Stiassny 1996). Human inducedenvironmental changes, such as the damming of a river, could favor the prolif­eration of exotic species (Crivelli 1995), Currently, there is lack of biological studiesdirected to the interactions with native and non-native fishes for the majority ofBrazilian river basins wbere fish introductions have occurred. The corvino (Pla­gioscion squamosissimus) and the coseudo (Liposarcus aft, anisitsi) are exotic to thePiracicaba River basin, originating, respectively, in the Brazilian Amazon and Up­per Parana basins. While the fonner was intentionally introduced with the pur­pose of enhancing fishery yields (Torioni 1994), the latter possibly had invadedthe Piradcaba River. The abundance of the corvino and the ca.cudo in the fishcatches on the Pirncicaba River increased respectively after 1986 and 1993 (Silvanoand Begossi 1998), The dissemination of these exotic taxa probably had been af­fE.cting the native fish community, yet we do not exactly know the nature andextent of those effects. Although Jl squarncsissimu5 was studied by Braga (1995),the biology of L aff. an;sils; remains unknown, In the present study we providedfolk information about the biology 01 these two species. We believe that suchinformation, if properly interpreted and checked with scientific findings, couldhelp in the understanding of the interactions between exotic and native fish spe­cies in the Piracicaba River basin.

According to the majority of fishennen interviewed, detritus is a maio foodsourCe for the exotic Liposareus aff, anisitsi and the native corimbata (Procltilodusli>1catus), suggesting that these two species may have been competing for food.This information should be tested through biological studies, considering the im­portance of the corimbata to the Piracicaba River fishery (Silvano 1997).

Small charadform fishes, such as Astymmx bimaculalus and Steindax:hnerina in­sculpta, were mentioned by Piracicaba fishermen as important prey species forpiscivorous fish, including the introduced Amazonian fish, Plugiasdon squamosis­s;mus (Figure 4), Braga (1995) conducted a study of the P. squal1loslssimus dietthrough stomach contents analysis, observing that A. blmDeu/atus was one of itsmain food items. This feeding interaction was also mentioned by 75% of thePiracicaba River fishermen interviewed, Furthermore, respectively 80% and 45%of fishermen mentioned A. bimaeulatus as food for Hoplil15 malabaru:us and Salminusrnaxittosus, two native Piracicaba Rive, piscivorous fishes (fable 3). This study thusindicates that the introduction 01 P. squamosissimus may have been adversely af­fecting the native Piradcaba River fish community, both through predation pres­sure on the A. hinwculatus population and competition for food with H. malabaru:usand S. maxillasus. In other tropical freshwater habitats, such as the African lakes,the introductioll of predatory fish species severely disrupted the fisheries andcaused the extinction of many native fish species (Lowe-McConnell 1993).

In,ffmnation about Fish Habilats ami Migratory BeIUlVior.~Piracicaba fishermen fur­nished information about fish habitat preferences and migratory routes, A con­siderable amount of effort is necessary to assess this kind of data throllgh biolog­ical research. Piradcaba River fishennen Inentioned that the aquatic vegetation is

Winter 2002 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 303

a habitat for Hoplias malabaricus, Liposarcus aff. anisitsi and Tilapia retutalli Clable4), plus Plagiosclon s'luamosissimus (19%), Proehiladus lineatlls (15%) and Steindach··naina insellipta (18%). The aquatic vegetation is an important refuge and feedingground for freshwater fishes (Junk et al. 19K1; Lowe-lvlcConneIl1987; Sazima andZamprogno 1985), which reinforces the need for biological studies directed atcorroborating or refuting the suggested importance of riparian and submergedvegetation for the Piracicaba River fishes.

There is need for detailed studies of fish migration in the Piracicaba and inother Brazilian rivers. Our results may help in filling this gap, as Piracicaba fish­ennen mentioned nine fish species as migrating up and down the river, especiallyProchilodus linealus and Salminus maxilloslIs; P lineatus also moves betvveen the riverand marginal lagoons (Figure 6). Both these species must migrate in order toreproduce (Vazzoler and Menezes 1992), and juveniles of P lineatlls grow in mar­ginal lagoons, moving to the river when adults (Agostinho et al. 1995). Fisher­mens answers indicate that P. lineatus and S. maxillosus may be undergoing mi­grations in the Piracicaba River, in spite of the darn dowl18tream. This h}'P0thesisshould be verified through migratory studies, in order to support managementmeasures directed to ensure the continuity of the migrations and the reproductionof these two commercially important fish species.

Our study demonstrates that ethnoichthyological knowledge is not only re­stricted to indigenous fishing people, which harvest the same region over thecourse of centuries or millennia, Small-scale commercial fishermen also show adetailed folk knowledge, even over the course of a few generations. Tropical ar­tisanal fisheries have been widely subjected to external influences, such as habitatdegradation and market pressure, which have threatened not only the fish stocks,but also the fishing communities. It is an imperative task to document and inter­pret fishermen's folk knowledge, especially in the tropics, for it could enable sci­entists to work together with fishermen in devising measures aimed at conservingboth the fish and fishing culture.

NOTES

Erratum. In this artide, the term "fishermen" designates both the men and the womeninterviewed in the Piracicaba River fishing communitics_

j Voucher specimens are deposited at the fish collection of the Museu de Zoologia da Univ­ersidade de Sao Paulo (MZUSP), CP 42694, 04299-970, Sao Paulo (SP), BraziL Only Salmin"smaxillosus was not collected; it was identified \vith color photographs.

::' Dr. Ivan Sazima, D€partame-nto de Zoologia andI\,tuseu de Hist6ria Naturat UniversidadeEstadual de Campinas, c.P. 6109, 13083-970, Campinas (SP), Brazil.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are given to the fishermen from P(mte de Santa :rv'laria da Serri;l and Tanquafor their friendship and kindl.y collaboration for this work.. to L. Sanchez; 'v",ho introducedR.A.MS to the fishers; to 0. T. Oyakawa, for hetp with fish species identifications, to 1.Sazima, for help with fish species identifications and valuable suggestions, to M. Petrerc

p

SILVANO and BEGOSSI Vol. 22, No.2

,

Jr. and M. M. Habib for valuable suggestions; to CAPES and FMB for scholarships 10RAM.s., to CNI'Q for a research productivity scholarship to A.B., and to FAPESI' andI'AOCT-Finep for financial support of the fieldwork.

REFEl<E?\,lCES CruD

Agostlnho~ Angelo Antonio~ Anna Emiliade Amato Moraes Vazzoler, and SidineiMagela Thomaz. 1995. The high riverParana basin: limnological and khthy­ologieal aspects. In Limnology i1'1 Brazil"eds. J.G Tundisi, CE.M. Bkudo, andM. Matsumura-Tundisi, PI" 59-10.ABC/SBL, Rio de Janeiro, BrazH.

Barf?ierir Geraldo. 1989. Dinamica da re­prodw;:ao e crescimento de Hoplias mal­abaru:lIS (Bloch, 1794) (Osteichthyes, Er­ythrinidae) da represa do Monjolinho,Sao Carlos (51'). &'Visla Brasileira deb1ologia 6:225-233.

BarrelJa, ·Walter, Antonio Carlos Beaumord,and Miguel Petrere, Jr. 1994. Compari­son between the fish communities ofManso River (MT) and Jacare PepiraRiver (51'), Brazil. Acta blOlagica L~I1eZUe ..lana 15:11-20.

Bayley, Peter B. and Miguel Petrere Jr. 1989.Art'l.azon fishedes: assessment methods,current status and management options.Canadian Special Publicatii.ms it! Fisheriesand A1!lIatic Sciences 106:385-·398.

Begoss!, Alpina and JUlio c. Garavello.1990. Notes on the ethnoicthyology offishers from the Tocantins River {Bra­zil). Acta Amazonica 20:341-351.

Begossi, Alpina and Jose L. Figueiredo.1995. Ethnoichthyo10gy of southerncoastal fishers: cases from Bt1zios Islandand Sepetiba Bay (Brazil). Bulletin ofMarhu' Science 56:710-717,

Berlin, Brent. 1992. Ethnobiolvgiml Classifi­cation. Principles of Categorization ofPlants arid Animals in Traditional Sodetes.Princeton Universit\-' Press, Princeton.

Bistoni, Maria de los A~geles, Jose GustavoHaro and Mercedes Gutierrez, 1996,AmUisis comparativo de la dieta de Ho~

pUas malabarieus y Salminus maxillosus(Pisces: Characidae) en los bafiados delrio Duke (Cordoba, Argentina). NeDtr6­pica 42:17-21.

Bohlke, lames Eo, Stanley H. Weitzman andNaercio A. l>1enezes. 1978. Estado atllillda sistematica dos peixes de agua doceda America do SuI. Acta Amazonica 8:657-677.

Bowen, S.H.19S4. Detritivory in neotropi­cal fish communities. In EoolutionaryEcology of Neotropical Fresfnrnter Fishes,ed. T. M. Zaret, PI'. 59--66. Dr. W. JunkPublishers, The Hague, Netherlands.

Braga, Francisco l\l1.anuel de Souza. 1995.Biologia e pesca da COfvina Piagioscionsquamosissimus (Te1eostei, Sciaenidae)na represa de Barra Bonita, Rio Piraci­caba (51'). Ph.D. Dissertation (Zoology)Universidade EstaduaI Paulista, RioClaro, sao Paulo, Brazil.

-'~'-. 1997. Biologia reprodutiva de 1'1.1­gioscivl1 squamosissimus (Teleostei,Sciaenidae) na Represa de Barra Bonita,Rio I'iracicaba (51'). Revista UNIMAR(lv!£lringii) 19:447-460.

Castro, Fabio de and Alpina Begossi. 1995.Ecology of fishing at Rio Grande (Bra­zil): technology and territorial rights.Fisheries Research 23:361-373.

Catella, AC. and M. Petrere, Jr. 1996. Feed­ing patterns in a fish community of Baiada On<;a, a floodplain lake of the Aqui­dauana River, Pantanal, Brazil. FisherieslVlanagemmt ilnd Ecology 3:229-237.

Chapman, Margaret D. 1987. Women's fish­ing in Oceania. Human Ecology 15:267~

288.Clement, Daniel. 1995. Why is taxonomy

utilitarian? joumal of Elhflobiology15:1­44.

Cordell, J. 1978. Carrying capacity analysisof fixed-territorial fishing. Ethnology 17:1-24.

Costil, Wilson J.E.M. 1987. Feeding habitsof a fish community in a tropical coa.,;;t­81 stream, Rio IVfato Grosso, Brazil.Studies on Neotropical Fauna and EJrviron~

ment 22:145-153.Crivelli, A.I. 1995. Are fish introductions a

threat to endemic freshwater fishes inthe northern Mediterranean region? Bi~

ologicai Consern?tion 72:311-319.Cruz, Tillo d'. Steve Creech and John rer­

nandez. 1994, Cornparison of catch ratesand species composition from artificialand natural reefs in Kerala r India. Buf­feti" of MaritIR Science 55:1029-1037.

Winter 2002 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBJOLOCY 305

-1I

Duque, Aniello Barbarino, Donald C Ta­phorn, and Kid 0. Winemiller. 1998.Ecology of the coporo, Pmchilodus mat­We (Charadformes, Prochilndontldae)and status of annual migrations inWestern\ienezucla. Environmental Biol­ogy of Fishes 53:33-46.

Emmons, Louise II. 1990. Neotropical Rain­fares! Mammals, A field Guide. Universi­ty of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Fink William L. and Sara V. Fink 1979. Cen­tral Amazonia and its fishes. C'omparatillIJBiochemi'ltr!l PhysiolJJgy 62A:13-29.

Fleckr, Alexander S. 1996. Ecosystem en­¢neering bv a dominant deti·itivore ina diverse tropical stream. 77:1845-1854.

Gustavo A B., Anthony B. Ry­lands! Claudia M.R Ricardo RMachado, and Yuri L.R Leite (cds.).1994. Liprc; Vermelfw dos Mamlf€;rQs Bras­ileiros Amea~"dos de Extilll,:iio. Funda.;;aoBiodiversitas, Belo Brazil.

Rosemara, Norma Segatti Hahn, andAntonio Aghostinho. 1996.

of five of bottom-fL'eding oJ the Parana River.EtlVironmenlal Biology Fisllts '16:297~

307.Godoy, M.P. 1975. PeLU?5 do Brasil: SubOrdem

Cfll1rt1u4deFBacia do Rio Mogi~GUCL"SIl,Franciscana, Piracicaba, Brazil,

Goodman, Steven M. and joseph J. Hobbs,1994. The distribution and ethnozoolo­gy of reptiles of the northern portion ofthe Egyptian eastern desert, Journal ofEilmobiol08.1f 14:75-100.

Goulding, M, 1979. Ecologia dtl pesca no rioA1£ldeira. Instituto Nadonal de Pesquisasda Amazonia, Manaus, Amazonas, Bra­ziL

Hem, S. and }.LB. Avit. 1994, First resultson "ilcadja-endos" as an extensiveaquaculture (West Bul~

leUn {if l\1£Irine 55:1038-1049.Hunn, Eugene. 1982, The utili.tarian factor

in folk biological classification, AmericanAnthropologist 84:830-847,

Johannes, RE. 1978. Traditional marineconservation methods in Oceania andtheir demise. Annual Rl!"iJiew ofand Sl/stematicil 9:349-·364. ;

i 981. Working with fishers to im­prove coastal tropical fisheries and re­source management Bulletin of .MArineScima 31:673-680.

~'~-~', 1993. Integrating traditional eco­logical knowledge andwith environmental impact aSSt'Ssment.[n Traditional Ecohrgical Knowledge: Con­cepts and ed. J.T. Inglis, pp. 33--39.Canadian Museum of Nature, Canada,

1998. The case for data-less marineresource management: examples fromtropical nearshore finfisheries. Tretlds inEcology and £wlution 13:243-246,

Junk, Wolfgang L Gerdlia M. Soares, andFrancisco M. Carvalho. 1983. Distribu­tion of fish species in a lake of the am­a:wn river tloodplain near Marums(lago Camaleao), with referenceto extreme oxygen Altll1Zmi-

iana 7:397-431-Lowe-McConnelL RH. 1987. Ecological

Studies in Tropical Fish Communties,Cambridge University Press, Cam­bridge.

--. 1993. Fish fatmas of the AfricanGreat Lakes: and vul­nerability. Omsertt<tkm Biowgy 1:tl\;tHYI;j,

M£lrques, Jose Geraldo Wanderley. 1991.Aspectos rco16gicos no dus pt?sca-dore,5 do camp1eXD deMundau·/\1£Inguaba, ill,~goas. Universil:ia­de EstaduaI de Campinas, Instituto deBiologia, sao Brazil.

---. 1995. Pescando ehll.leca!o-abmngente no Sao Francisco AI-

agoouo. Nupaub-Universidade de SaoPaulo, 5.'\0 Paulo, Brazil,

Narahara, M.Y. 1983. Estrutura da Popull1j;aiJe Reprodufao de Rhamdia hilarii (Valenci­ennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriforl11l?s, Pi­melodidue). Universidade de sao Paulo,Institut(l de Biociencias, Siio Paulo, Bra­zil.

Nietschmann, Bernard. 1971. Hunting andfishing focus among the Jvtiskito indi­ans, easten Nicaragua. Human1:41-68.

Paz, Vilma A. and Alpina BegossL 1996.Ethnoichthyology (,If Gamboa fishers(Sepetiba Bay, Brazil). {ourrlflJ of Etlmv­biology 16:157-168.

Petrere, Jr., Miguel 1985. Mlgradones depeces de agua dulce en America Latina:algunos comentarios, COPESCAP do­cumento ocasional n" 1, r~AO, Rome.

'--. 1989. River fisheries in Brazil: are­vie\-\!. Regulated l?ivers: Research andManagement 4:1-16.

...._-. 1990. Nota sobr€ a pesea dos indios

•

306 SILVANO and BEGOSSI Vol. 22, No. 2

p

Kayap6 da aldeia de Gorohre, Rio Fres­co, Para. Bo/ctim do Museu Paraense Em­ma Goddi.. S{'ric Anfropo16gica (Belem) 6:6-17.

Poizat, G and E. Baran, 1997. Fishermen'sknowledge as background information intropical fish ecology: a quantitative com­panson with fish sampling results. Erwi·ronmel1tal Biology of Fishes 50;435--449.

Posey, D.A. 1983. Indigenous knowledgeand development: an ideological bridgeto the future. CWrn:ia e Cult"ra 35;877­894.

Resende, E.K" RA,C. Pereira" VL.L Al­meida. and AG Silva. J996. Alimenta"lode peixes carniiufOS da plan/cie inundaveldo rio Aiiramie, Pantanal do Mato Grossodo Sui, Brasil. EMBRAPA-CPAP (Boletimde Pesquisa 03), Corllmlla, !>1ato Grossodo SuI, Brazil.

Romaninj. r.u. 1989. Distribui.;ao e ecolo­gia alimentar de peixes no Reservi1toriode Americana, Sao Paulo, Ph.D. DlSser­billion (Biology) Universidade de saoPaulo, lnstituto de Biociencias, Sao Pau­lo, Brazil.

Santos, Geraldo Mendes. 1995. Impaclos dahidreletrica SaI'Huel sobre as COITtuni­dades de peixes do rio Jamari (Rondon­ia, Brasil). Acta Amazon;ca 25;247-280.

Sazima, Ivan and Jose P. Pombal, Jr. 1988.lvfutila~o de nadadeiras em acaras j

Geophagu5 brasWensis, por piranhas, $er­rasalmus spilop!cura. Revis/a brasildra debiologia 48:477-483.

Sazima, Ivan and Francisco A. MachZldo,1990. UndeTW'ater observations of pira­nhas in western Brazil EmJiromw.:nta!Biology of Fishc5 28:17-31.

Sazima, Ivan dnd Claudio Zamprogno.J985. Use of water hyacinths as shelter,foraging place, and transport by youngpiranhas, Serra..;;almus spilopltura. Envi·ronmental BioltWY of Fishes 12:23?-240,

Schroeder-Araujo, LT, 1980. Alimenta,aodos peixes da represa de Ponte Nova,Alto Tiet~. Ph.D. Dissertation (Biology)Universidade de sao Paulo, Instituto deBiocicncias, S2io Paulol" Brazil.

Sihrano, Renato Azevedo :l\latias. 1997.Ecologia de tres comunidades de pes­cadores no rio Piracicaba {SP), MastersThesis (Ecology) Universfdade Estadllal

de Campinas, Instituto de Biologia,Carnpinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil. ~

Silvano, Renato A.M. and Alpina Begossi.1998. The artisanal fishery of PiracicabaRiver (sao Paulo, Brazil): fish landingcomposition and environmental alter­ations. Italian Journal of Zoology 65:527­531.

Stiassnv, ~M.L.J. 1996. An overview of fresh­wat'er biodiversity: with some lessonsfrom African fish~s. FfsJten'es 21 :7~13.

rorlom, c.E. 1994. !>1anagement of the fish­ing resources in CESrS reservoirs. InftVork.'~h()p: Brazilir/fl PrQgramlJU' 011 Om­sertution i1n+tManagem,,"'J'It of Inland ~'\il­

tel'S, ed. FA Barbosa, pp. 177-186. ActaUrn.nologka Brasiliensia V, FWlda<;aoBiodivi.-"rSitas, Belo-Horizonte, Brazil.

Torlon;, C.E c., J.J Santo&, A.AC Junior,and A.RA Correa. 1993. A pescada doPiaut Plagiosc:ion squamosissimu.s (Heck­el, J840) (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) nos fe­

senXt!i'wio$ ria Conlpat1hiu Energctim de saoPaulo-CESP serie Pesqtlisa e DeseDvol­vimento,084, CESP, sao Paulo, Brazil

Uieda, Virginia Sanches. 1984. Ocorrencia edistribui,ao dos pcixes em urn riachade agua doce. Reolsta brasileira de biologia44:203-2J3.

Uieda, Virginia S" \,Vilson Uieda, OtavioFroelich and Maria Eugenia C AmaraL1989. Oro-aniza,ao de carduInE's em Ti~

lapitl renZm na represa de Americana..sao Paule. Rcvista brasileira de biologia 49:749-756.

Vazzoler, Anna Em:llia A. de M. and Naer­do A, Iv!enezes. 1992. Sintcsc de Cl}[l­

hecimentos sobre 0 comportamento re­produtivo dos Characifurmes da Amer­ica do Sui (Telcustei, Ostariophysi). Re­"trista brasi!eira de biologia 52:627-640.

Vera, C.V.M., S.A. Camargo, AP.M. Bubel,and 1\1. Peh"cre, fr. 1997, Artisanal fish­eries in a urh,m'reservoir: Billings case(metropolitan region of sao Paulo). Bra­zilian ]aunw! of Ecology (Rio Claro) I:143-147.

Wekomme, Rt. 1985, River Fisheries. FaoFisheries Technical Paperj Food and Ag­riculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Rome.

Wester, Lyndon and Sekson Yongvanit.1995, Biologica I diversity and commu­nity lore in northeastern Thailand. Jour­nal of Ethnobiology 15:71-88.