Search

Understanding the impacts of human actions on marine species and developing mitigation strategies are crucial conservation challenges. Many fish species, especially marine top predators, are already highly depleted and rely on population monitoring and conservation strategies for their maintenance. In this context, Marine Protected Areas can help recover target species and provide crucial information about population trends when human activities are restricted or managed. Here, we used the longest and most complete temporal series of reef fish data in the Southwestern Atlantic, comprising 16 years of underwater visual census sampling. We evaluated temporal trends in the density and biomass of the dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus), both inside and outside a no-take and no-entry Marine Reserve. Our findings reveal a consistent decline in density and biomass inside and outside the MPA over time, reaching alarmingly low densities and experiencing a steeper biomass decline in the last five years. Our results contradict global expectations of positive population recovery trends within MPAs. We highlight the adverse impacts of human activities on the dusky grouper population, including illegal fishing and habitat degradation. Additionally, we address the limited understanding of species' life stages, underscoring that their occurrence outside protected boundaries may render the entire population vulnerable to human pressures. Thus, to guarantee population recovery, stakeholders and researchers must take immediate action to increase knowledge of all life stages and improve ongoing strategies. • Despite conservation efforts over decades, the dusky grouper population is declining. • The population is declining in one of the oldest No-Take areas in the Southwestern Atlantic. • The situation worsened in the last 5 years of the 16-year time series studied. • The Reserve might be underperforming due to the disregard of local factors. • Current conservation strategies must be urgently reviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Biota Neotropica (Edicao em Iingles) is the property of Biota Neotropica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The marine wildlife and seascape components of reef environments are part of peoples' senses and perceptions of nature and and ecosystem services. While people worldwide perceive and value reef components differently, such aesthetics evaluations often overlook marginal reefs, limiting our comprehensive understanding of their cultural significance. We interviewed 320 different users (e.g., recreational divers, researchers, recreational and commercial fishers, and beach tourists) using an online questionnaire with embedded pictures of 82 fish species and 65 seascapes. To assess people's perception about reefs, we related the aesthetic value (i.e., the preference rate) of each picture to body size, body shape and colour for bony and cartilaginous fish, and to the presence of predators, fish schools, benthic organisms, reef patches and area for the underwater and out-of-the-water seascape. We then created an index composed by site-level species aesthetic values, species relative abundances, under and out-of-water aesthetics and measuredthe overall aesthetic value of nine reef sites along the Brazilian province. The different users attributed similar aesthetic values to fish species, under and out-of-the-water components, yet preferences differed among them. Divers preferred large parrotfishes, while tourists preferred coloured fish. The most valued fish traits were the body shape of manta rays and colorful bony species. Out-of-the-water seascapes with emerging reef patches had the highest aesthetic values. When combining the different aesthetic value components in the index, we found that marginal biogenic reefs in Northeastern Brazil had the highest aesthetic value among the evaluated sites. These reefs hold immense value for national tourism, significantly contributing to the revenue of these states. Also, they harbour threatened species, which possess both high aesthetic value and great ecological importance. Therefore, incorporating aesthetic value in conservation initiatives has the potential to improve our ability to maintain and develop cultural reef services. [Display omitted] • Aesthetic value depicts people perception about cultural services. • Divers, fishers, researchers and tourists had similar aesthetic preferences. • Body shape and colour were related to the most valued cartilaginous and bony fishes. • Predators, fish schools and exposed reefs were the most valued seascape components. • Biogenic reefs in the Northeast Brazil exhibited the highest aesthetic values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Here, we clarify the events described on a recent paper by Soares & Lucas in Marine Policy 93 (2018) that resulted in the establishment of large marine protected areas (MPAs) in Brazil. We describe crucial aspects of the planning process that were not addressed by the authors, particularly: (i) top-down changes on the original design that left the most diverse, unique and vulnerable ecosystems poorly protected; (ii) the permission of fishing activities within no-take areas; and (iii) shortfalls in using these MPAs for quantifying progress towards the Aichi Target 11. The spatial configuration of MPAs was modified by the government in a typical top-down scenario that received neither public nor scientific input. We call for a ban on fishing activities around the islands and on mining activities within all MPAs. We emphasize the need for reconciling qualitative aspects of Aichi Target 11 when establishing new MPAs as a strategy for enhancing conservation outcomes. The establishment of these large MPAs should not divert attention from actions needed for the protection of priority sites based on scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]