ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE UNSUSTAINABLE HARVEST OF LIVE BAIT FOR SPORT FISHING IN THE BRAZILIAN PANTANAL BIOME – A REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2020.2403.01Palavras-chave:
aquatic macrophytes, environmental damage, angling, flooded habitats, recreational fishery.Resumo
This paper offers a review and discussion on environmental aspects of live bait capture for sport fishing within the Pantanal wetland. The extractive exploitation of live bait has intensified in the region due to the growing flow of tourists in search of sport fishing, who pay for this bait, creating a consolidated market. Because baitfish are often harvested from mixed stocks in the wild, the potential for bycatch exists, also leading to the disruption of their fragile habitat, affecting species assemblages in the wetland ecosystem. These target small fish, such as tuvira and other organisms, live in small-depth seasonally flooded ecosystems, usually covered by aquatic macrophytes. Due to the intense demand, this market brought in a socioeconomic factor, favoring the collectors of live bait. However, extraction has been done intensively to meet the growing demand, consequently causing damage to the fragile ecosystems and natural habitats occupied by these organisms used as live bait. The macrophyte species occurring in the Pantanal wetland vary depending on seasonal inundation and on various degrees of dependence of water. There has been limited focus on the socioeconomic and ecological consequences of recreational fishing in this biome. Also, there is particularly a scarcity of information on the consequences of the current live bait harvest on the natural habitats where the organisms live. This review explores some of the complex ecological interactions that occur with regard to live bait extractivism as well as identifies and analyzes environmental damage, emphasizes the socioeconomic importance of the extractive activity, and proposes a line of action to construct a management plan looking for the sustainability of the extractive resource of live bait within the Pantanal.
Referências
Alho, C. J. R. 2005. The Pantanal. In: L. H. Fraser & P. A. Keddy (Eds.) The World’s Largest Wetlands — Ecology and Conservation, pp. 203¬—271, Cambridge USA, Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511542091.008
Alho, C. J. R., & Reis, R. E. 2017. Exposure of fishery resources to environmental and socioeconomic threats within the Pantanal. International Journal of Aquaculture and Fishery Sciences, 3(2), 22—29. DOI:10.17352/2455-8400.000024
Alho, C. J. R., & Silva, J. S. V. 2012. Effects of severe floods and droughts on wildlife of the Pantanal wetland (Brazil) — A Review. Animals 2(4), 591—610. DOI:10.3390/ani2040591
ANA/GEF/PNUMA/OEA. 2003a. Technical Report: Subprojeto 5.1 MS - Diretrizes para o Manejo Sustentável da Atividade de Coleta de Iscas Vivas no Pantanal de Mato Grosso do Sul. Relatório Final. Projeto Implementação de Práticas de Gerenciamento Integrado de Bacia Hidrográfica para o Pantanal e Bacia do Alto Paraguai. Campo Grande, MS, p. 29.
ANA/GEF/PNUMA/OEA. 2003b. Technical Report: Subprojeto 5.1 MT - Coleta e Comercialização de Iscas Vivas na Bacia do Alto Paraguai em Mato Grosso. Relatório Final. Caracterização Socioeconômica da Atividade de Coleta e Comercialização de Isca Viva na BAP-MT. Cuiabá, MT, p. 27.
ANA/GEF/UNEP/OAS. 2005. Strategic Action Program for the Integrated Management of the Pantanal and the Upper Paraguay River Basin. Final Report. Brasília, DF: ANA – Agência Nacional de Águas, p. 318.
Arlinghaus, R. 2007. Voluntary catch-and-release can generate conflict within the recreational angling community: a qualitative case study of specialized carp, Cyprinus carpio, angling in Germany. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, 161–171. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00537.x
Arlinghaus, R. & Cooke, S.J. 2009. Recreational Fisheries: Socioeconomic Importance, Conservation Issues and Management Challenges. Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. B. Dickson, J. Hutton & W. M. Adams (Eds.) Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch3
Arlinghaus, R., Cooke, S., Lyman, J., Policansky, D., Schwab, A., Suski, C., Sutton, S.G., & Thorstad, E.B. 2007. Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: An integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social, and biological perspectives. Reviews in Fishery Science, 15, 75—167. DOI: 10.1080/10.641260601149432
Arlinghaus, R., Mehner, T. & Cowx, I.G. 2002. Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management with sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish and Fisheries, 3(4), 261–316. DOI: 10.1046/j.1467-2979.2002.00102.x
Britski, H. A., Silimon, K. Z. S., & Lopes, B. S. 2007. Peixes do Pantanal: manual de identificação. 2ed. Brasília: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica. p. 230.
Bronmark, C. 1985. Interactions between macrophytes, epiphytes and herbivores: an experimental approach. Oikos, 45(1), 26—30. DOI:10.2307/3565218
Burgin, S. 2017. Indirect Consequences of Recreational Fishing in Freshwater Ecosystems: An Exploration from an Australian Perspective. Sustainability 9(2), 280. DOI:10.3390/su9020280
Catella, A. C., Campos, F. L. R., & Albuquerque, S. P. 2017. Sistema de Controle da Pesca de Mato Grosso do Sul – SCPESCA/MS23-2016. Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento 133, 1—61. Corumbá: Embrapa-Pantanal.
Catella, A. C., Peixer, J., & Palmeira, S. S. 1996. Sistema de controle de pesca de Mato Grosso do Sul, SCPESCA/MS-1994-1995, Documentos 16,1—49, Corumbá: Embrapa-Pantanal.
Catella, A. C., Silva, J. M. V., & Jesus, V. M. F. 2009. Comércio de iscas vivas no Pantanal de Mato Grosso do Sul, SCPESCA/MS. Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento 90, 1—42. Corumbá: Embrapa-Pantanal.
Cyr, H., & Downing, J. A. 1988. The abundance of phytophilous invertebrates on different species of submerged macrophytes. Freshwater Biology, 20(3), 365—374. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2427.1988.tb00462.x
DiStefano, R. J., Litvan, M. E., & Horner, P. T. 2009. The bait industry as a potential vector for alien crayfish introductions: problem recognition by fisheries agencies and a Missouri evaluation. Fisheries, 34(12), 586—597. DOI: 10.1577/1548-8446-34.12.586
Drake, D. A. R., & Mandrak, N. E. 2014. Ecological Risk of Live Bait Fisheries: A New Angle on Selective Fishing. Fisheries 39(5), 201—211. DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2014.903835
Grenouillet, G., Pont, D., & Seip, K. L. 2002. Abundance and species richness as a function of food resources and vegetation structure: juvenile fish assemblages in rivers. – Ecography 25(6), 641–650. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250601.x
Kerr, S. J. 2012. Bait Management Review. Ontario: Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Retrieved from https:/www.ontario.ca/page/bait-management-review on July 2019.
Kilian, J. V., Klauda, R. J., Widman, S., Kashiwagi, M., Bourquin, R., Weglein, S., & Schuster, J. 2012. An assessment of a bait industry and angler behavior as a vector of invasive species. Biological Invasions 14(7), 1469–1481. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-012-0173-5
Lemmens P., Mergeay, J., De Bie T., Van Wichelen J., De Meester, L., & Declerck, S. A. J. 2013. How to Maximally Support Local and Regional Biodiversity in Applied Conservation? Insights from Pond Management. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e72538. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0072538
Marques, D. K. S. 2017. Etnoecologia no Comércio de Iscas Vivas no Pantanal. Boletim de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento 132, 1—17. Corumbá: Embrapa-Pantanal.
Monk, C. T., & Arlinghaus, R. 2017. Encountering a bait is necessary but insufficient to explain individual variability in vulnerability to angling in two freshwater benthivorous fish in the wild. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0173989. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173989
Pivari, M. O., Pott, V. J., & Pott, A. 2008. Macrófitas aquáticas de ilhas flutuantes (baceiros) nas sub-regiões do Abobral e Miranda, Pantanal, MS, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 22(2), 563—571. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-33062008000200023
Poi de Neiff, A. 1983. Observaciones comparativas de la mesofauna asociada a Pistia stratiotes L. (Araceae) en algunos ambientes acuaticos permanentes y temporários (Chaco, Argentina). Physis (Buenos Aires), Secc. B, 41(101), 95—102.
Poi de Neiff, A., & Neiff, J. J. 1980. Los camalotales de Eichhornia crassipes en aguas loticas del Parana y su fauna associada. Ecosur, 7(14), 185—199.
Pott, V.J. & Pott, A. 2000. Plantas aquáticas do Pantanal. Embrapa. Corumbá, MS: Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Pantanal. p. 404.
Pott, V. J., Pott, A., Lima, L. C. P., Moreira, S. N., & Oliveira, A. K. M. 2011. Aquatic macrophyte diversity of the Pantanal wetland and upper basin. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 71(1), 255—263. Suplemento. DOI:10.1590/S1519-69842011000200004
Reis, R. E., Kullander, S. O., & Ferraris Jr., C. J. (Orgs.), 2003. Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, p. 729.
Sharma, A., Kukreja, S., & Sharma, A. 2012. Role of tourism in social and economic development of society. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences 1(3), 10—31
Thomaz, S. M & Cunha, E. R. 2010. The role of macrophytes in habitat structuring in aquatic ecosystems: methods of measurement, causes and consequences on animal assemblages’ composition and biodiversity. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, 22(2), 218—236. DOI: 10.4322/actalb.02202011
Tortato, F. R., Izzo, T. J., & Hoogesteijn, R. 2017. The numbers of the beast: valuation of jaguar (Panthera onca) tourism and cattle depredation in the Brazilian Pantanal. Global Ecology and Conservation 11, 106—114. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.05.003
Weithman, A. S. 1999. Socioeconomic benefits of fisheries. In: C. C. Kohler & W. A. Hubert (Eds.) Inland Fisheries Management in North America, 2Ed., pp. 193–213. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.
WTTC — World Travel and Tourism Council. Publications. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.wttc.org/about/media-centre/press-releases/press-releases/2018/one-in-five-of-all-new-jobs-created-globally-in-2017-are-attributable-to-travel-and-tourism/ on July 2019.
