Local ecological knowledge (LEK) concerning snook fishers on estuarine waters: Insights into scientific knowledge and fisheries management

2020 ◽  
Vol 186 ◽  
pp. 105088
Author(s):  
Lygia de Morais Cardoso da Silva ◽  
Ingrid Cabral Machado ◽  
Sergio Luiz dos Santos Tutui ◽  
Acácio Ribeiro Gomes Tomás
2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renato A. M. Silvano ◽  
Alpina Begossi

We analyzed fishermen's local ecological knowledge (LEK) about the feeding habits, trophic interactions, habitats, fishing grounds, migration, and reproduction of nine coastal fishes in Búzios Island, southeastern Brazilian coast. We interviewed 39 fishermen using standardized questionnaires. Fishermen's LEK on habitat use and trophic interactions for the studied fishes agreed with the scientific literature, allowing the organization of reef and pelagic food webs. The interviewed fishermen mentioned that submerged rock formations would be important habitats for some large commercial fishes, such as Seriola spp., Caranx latus and Epinephelus marginatus. In some instances there was no scientific data to be compared with fishermen's LEK, and thus this kind of knowledge would be the only available source of information, such as for reproduction and migration of most of the studied fishes. We suggest herein ways to apply fishermen's LEK to develop and improve fisheries management measures, such as zoning of marine space, marine protected areas, and closed fishing seasons. Fishermen's LEK may be an important and feasible support to fisheries management and co-management.


Marine Policy ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 794-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Clyde Wilson ◽  
Jesper Raakjær ◽  
Poul Degnbol

2005 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 606-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Poul Degnbol

Abstract Indicators represent the link between objectives and action in management. The identification of ecosystem indicators must therefore be embedded in the decision-making process. Fisheries management can only be effective if the measures are considered legitimate by stakeholders. The choice of indicators to guide management should not be evaluated from a technical perspective alone, but also in relation to their effectiveness in communicating knowledge. More specifically, indicators should serve as a communication bridge between different knowledge discourses. Reference is often made to “local ecological knowledge” as a source that should be integrated in the process for management to be legitimate. However, while extensive studies have been made on local ecological knowledge per se, few have addressed the issue of its integration into co-management institutions with research-based knowledge. The challenge is consequently to identify indicators that have both research-based validity and reflect features that correspond to stakeholder knowledge, while relating to shared understandings of objectives and actions. This challenge is discussed from a developing-countries perspective. Problems and possible ways forward are illustrated on the basis of experiences from a range of case studies of knowledge discourses regarding living aquatic resources in southeast Asia and southern Africa. The studies have shown that the different knowledge discourses, and candidate indicators therein, relating to a specific ecosystem may be identified and characterized. Often, however, such indicators will have very little in common across knowledge discourses, and the differences cannot be overcome through a simple translation process. The perspectives of formal research-based knowledge and of fishers differ systemically, reflecting the different interests and scales of observation between the two parties. Also, fishers focus on a wider agenda than research alone, on allocation problems and conflicts among users. Allocation/access issues must therefore be addressed as an integral aspect of an ecosystem approach if management is to be effective.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Stephanie J. Peacock ◽  
Fabien Mavrot ◽  
Matilde Tomaselli ◽  
Andrea Hanke ◽  
Heather Fenton ◽  
...  

Effective wildlife management requires accurate and timely information on conservation status and trends, and knowledge of the factors driving population change. Reliable monitoring of wildlife population health, including disease, body condition, and population trends and demographics, is central to achieving this, but conventional scientific monitoring alone is often not sufficient. Combining different approaches and knowledge types can provide a more holistic understanding than conventional science alone and can bridge gaps in scientific monitoring in remote and sparsely populated areas. Inclusion of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is core to the wildlife co-management mandate of the Canadian territories and is usually included through consultation and engagement processes. We propose a status assessment framework that provides a systematic and transparent approach to including TEK, as well as local ecological knowledge (LEK), in the design, implementation, and interpretation of wildlife conservation status assessments. Drawing on a community-based monitoring program for muskoxen and caribou in northern Canada, we describe how scientific knowledge and TEK/LEK, documented through conventional monitoring, hunter-based sampling, or qualitative methods, can be brought together to inform indicators of wildlife health within our proposed assessment framework. Atuttiaqtut angutikhat aulatauni piyalgit nalaumayumik piyarakittumiklu tuhagakhat nunguttailininut qanuritni pitquhitlu, ilihimanilu pityutit pipkaqni amigaitnit alanguqni. Naahuriyaulat munarini angutikhat amigaitni aaniaqtailini, ilautitlugit aaniarutit, timai qanuritnit, amigaitnitlu pitquhit hiamaumanilu, atugauniqhauyut pitaqninut una, kihimik atuqtauvaktut naunaiyaiyit munariyauni kihimik amihuni naamangitmata. Ilaliutyaqni allatqit pityuhit ilihimanitlu qanuritni piqarutaulat tamatkiumaniqhanik kangiqhimani atuqtauvaktuniunganit naunaiyaiyit munarinit ahiniittut akuttuyunik amigaitni inait. Ilaliutyaqni pitquhit uumatyutit ilihimani (TEK) qitqanittut angutikhat aulaqataunit havariyaqaqtai tapkuat Kanatamiuni nunatagauyut ilaliutivakniqhatlu atuqhugit uqaqatigikni piqataunilu pityuhiit. Uuktutigiyavut qanuritnia naunaiyaqni havagut piqaqtitiyuq havagutikhainik hatqiumanilu pityuhit ilautitlugit Pitquhit Uumatyutit Ilihimanit (TEK), tapkualuttauq nunalikni uumatyutit ilihimanit (LEK), hanatyuhikhaini, atuqpaliani, tukiliuqnilu angutikhat nunguttailini qanuritnit naunaiyaqni. Pivigiplugit nunaliuyuningaqtut munaqhityutit havagutit umingmaknut tuktutlu ukiuqtaqtuani Kanata, unnirtuqtavut qanuq naunaiyaiyit ilihimani tapkuatlu TEK/LEK, titiqhimani atuqhugit atuqtauvaktut munaqhityutaunit, angunahuaqtumingaqtut naunaiyagat, uvaluniit nakuuninut pityuhit, atauttimuktaulat tuhaqhitninut naunaipkutat angutikhat tahamani uuktutauyuq naunaiyaqni havagutai.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document