ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2018
Ethnotaxonomy of sharks from tropical waters of Brazil.
Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccessing folk knowledge from small-scale fishers is an affordable and reliable approach to understand the dynamic and diversity of shark species worldwide, especially of those eventually caught. In this context, ethnotaxonomy (folk identification and classification) may represent an alternative to support sharks fisheries management, especially in data-poor places. This study aimed to investigate fishing and ethnotaxonomy of the main shark species caught by small-scale fisheries from the coastal waters of the Brazilian Northeast.
methodsSemi-structured and structured interviews were conducted with fishers targeting general aspects of fishing activities and specific topics regarding ethnotaxonomy, capture, and commercialization of sharks. For species identification, an ethnobiological systematic perspective was used to analyze the folk nomenclature and classification criteria. Non-parametric statistical tests were used to verify associations between species caught, fishing gear, and harvest period.
resultsFishers mentioned 73 binomial names, 21 main folk species, and eight synonymies. Some species belonging to the same scientific genus are often named and grouped by the same folk name, with no distinction between species by fishers. Sharks are most landed as bycatch and correspond to less than 5% of the total commercial fisheries in the communities, with socioeconomic value for subsistence consumption and local commercialization. Sharks were said to be mainly caught with hand line and surface long line during the rainy season, while gillnet captures were associated to the dry season. At least three of the species most mentioned by fishers are currently classified as vulnerable and endangered worldwide.
conclusionsEven though landed sharks account for a small proportion of the fishing catches, their biological and life history features place sharks among the most vulnerable organisms globally. Such an ethnobiological approach towards shark identification may contribute to generate basic information on species caught, their frequency in the landings, and how different species belonging to the same genus can be landed and sold together. This type of information can generate subsidies to the development of conservation and management plans for these fishing resources, where knowledge is scarce.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.