Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity in Brazil

Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity
in Brazil
ANTÔNIA CECÍLIA Z. AMARAL∗ AND SÍLVIO JABLONSKI†
∗
Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Caixa Postal 6109,
Campinas 13083-970, São Paulo, Brasil, email [email protected]
†Departamento de Oceanografia, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ),
Rua São Francisco Xavier 524, Maracanã, 20550-900, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Abstract: The invertebrate benthos, especially the micro- and mesofaunal components, of the Brazilian seas
is still poorly known. Relatively few species have been recorded, reflecting the lack of research in this field. The
intertidal zone, to depths of about 20 m, has been studied the most, and there the numbers of endemic species
are relatively high. The diversity of demersal and pelagic fishes is similar among the major marine regions, and
endemism is typically low (<5%) and restricted to reef species. Surveys in southeastern Brazil (depths of up to
2000 m) have recorded more than 1300 species of benthic animals, of which the Porifera, Cnidaria, Sipuncula,
Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Scaphopoda, Polychaeta, Crustacea, Ophiuroidea, Bryozoa, and Brachiopoda were the
most abundant or frequent. Excepting the molluscs, decapods (brachiurans), cirripeds, and echinoderms,
the faunas of salt marshes, coral reefs, and islands remain poorly known. Marine and estuarine demersal
teleosts include 617 species in 26 orders and 118 families. Just over half the species (337) are Perciformes.
Overexploitation, for food and by the aquarium fish trade, habitat degradation and destruction, alien species
introductions, pernicious tourism, and pollution are the principal threats to Brazil’s marine biodiversity. The
Ministry of the Environment lists 34 threatened and 10 overexploited or at risk of being overexploited benthic
species. Fishes officially listed as threatened include 15 species of sharks and rays and 7 teleosts. Another
six elasmobranchs and 27 teleosts are currently or potentially being overexploited. Conservation of marine
biodiversity in Brazil is still broadly inadequate despite existing legislation and several protected areas. The
number and size of marine protected areas are insufficient, and some still lack management plans or have
yet to receive the appropriate measures and infrastructure to make them effective. Fisheries administration
and management is still precarious and in many areas lacks effective participation of local communities.
Major conservation initiatives include the identification of keys areas for biodiversity conservation, surveys,
intensified monitoring of fisheries, environmental education, and the creation and improved management of
protected areas.
Conservación de la Biodiversidad Marina y Costera en Brasil
Resumen: Los invertebrados bentónicos, especialmente los componentes micro y mesofaúnicos, de los mares
brasileños son poco conocidos. Se han registrado pocas especies relativamente, lo que refleja la carencia de
investigación en este campo. La zona intermareas hasta profundidades de casi 20 m es la más estudiada,
y el número de especies endémicas es relativamente alto. La diversidad de peces demersales y pelágicos es
similar en las regiones marinas principales, y el endemismo es tı́picamente bajo (<5%) y está restringido a
especies arrecifales. En muestreos en el sureste de Brasil (profundidades hasta 2000 m) se han registrado más
de 1300 especies de animales bentónicos, de las cuales fueron más abundantes y frecuentes Porifera, Cnidaria,
Sipuncula, Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Scaphopoda, Polychaeta, Crustacea, Ophiuroidea, Bryozoa y Brachiopoda.
Las faunas de marismas, arrecifes coralinos e islas permanecen poco conocidas, excepto por los moluscos,
decápodos (braquiuros) cirripedios y equinodermos. Los telesoteos demersales marinos y estuarinos incluyen
617 especies en 26 órdenes y 118 familias. Un poco más de la mitad de especies (337) son Perciformes. Las principales amenazas a la biodiversidad marina brasileña son la sobreexplotación, para alimento y el comercio
Paper submitted November 4, 2004; revised manuscript accepted January 17, 2005.
625
Conservation Biology, Pages 625–631
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
626
Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity
Amaral & Jablonski
de peces de acuario, la degradación y destrucción del hábitat, la introducción de especies exóticas, el turismo
pernicioso y la contaminación. El Ministerio del Ambiente enlista a 34 especies bentónicas amenazadas y 10
sobreexplotadas o en riesgo de serlo. Los peces enlistados oficialmente como amenazados incluyen 15 especies
de tiburones y rayas y 7 de teleósteos. Otras seis especies de elasmobranquios y 27 de teleósteos están siendo
sobreexplotados actual o potencialmente. La conservación de la biodiversidad marina en Brasil aún es considerablemente inadecuada a pesar de la legislación existente y varias áreas protegidas. El número y tamaño de
áreas marinas protegidas es insuficiente, algunas aún carecen de planes de manejo o no han recibido las medidas e infraestructura adecuadas para hacerlas efectivas. La administración y gestión de pesquerı́as todavı́a
es precaria y carece de la participación efectiva de comunidades locales en muchas áreas. Las principales
iniciativas de conservación incluyen la identificación de áreas clave para la conservación de biodiversidad,
muestreos, monitoreo intensivo de pesquerı́as, educación ambiental y la creación y mejor administración de
áreas protegidas.
Species Diversity in Brazil
Tropical and subtropical characteristics dominate the entire Brazilian coast, although regional phenomena define
climatic and oceanographic conditions that leave distinct
impressions on the biodiversity, such as at the mouth of
the Rio Amazonas and in the Marajoara and Maranhense
gulfs. Coral reefs extend for about 3000 km along the
northeast, from Maranhão to southern Bahia, and are the
only reef ecosystems in the South Atlantic. In the southeast and south, the presence of the South Atlantic Central Water over the continental shelf and its occasional
upwelling along the coast contribute to increased productivity. Farther south, the northward winter shift of the
subtropical convergence—formed by the meeting of the
Brazil Current with the Malvinas (Falklands) Current—
confers more temperate climatic characteristics, which
profoundly influence the composition of the local fauna.
Cabo Frio marks the transition between the northern tropical and the southern subtropical and temperate environments (Rocha et al. 1975).
Benthos
Although some records date from the mid-seventeenth
century (Marcgrave 1942), knowledge of the benthic invertebrates of Brazil is still unsatisfactory, especially with
regard to the micro- and mesofauna. Zoological knowledge increased substantially from the 1970s, although
some phyla have never been recorded, evidently for lack
of studies, including the Placozoa, Mesozoa, Gnathostomulida, Loricifera, and Cycliophora.
The northern states of Piauı́, Maranhão, Pará, and
Amapá are bordered by an extensive estuarine area (about
50% of the total estuaries along our coast). In spite of the
enormous area involved, the local benthic fauna is among
the least known. Basic references on the benthic macrofauna consist of the studies of Kempf et al. (1967), Kempf
(1970), and Aller and Aller (1986). Among the betterstudied groups are the Foraminifera, Porifera, Octocorallia, Sipuncula, Echinodermata, Crustacea, Mollusca, and
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
algae. The presence of Callianassa sp. galleries is notable
in sandy-mud sediments, where their density may reach
3915 individuals/m2 (Lana et al. 1996).
Estuaries, coastal lagoons and mangrove forests are
abundant along the northeast coast, from the Parnaı́ba
delta to the Bahia–Espı́rito Santo border. The descriptions of the fauna and flora by Kempf (1970) are the
standard references. Gorgonians, scaphopods, bivalves,
polychaetes, and ophiuroids are abundant, and the vagile
fauna is well represented by the shrimps Xiphopenaeus
kroyeri and Farfantepenaeus subtilis. Prominent reefdwellers include the hydrocorals Millepora alcicornis
and M. braziliensis and several species of Madreporaria
(Lana et al. 1996). The fauna characteristic of the northeast shelf gradually disappears farther north because of
the enormous terrigenous input from the Amazon River.
The reef and hermatypic corals are progressively replaced
by ahermatypic species, such as Madraeis asperula and
M. acatiae, which apparently have uninterrupted distributions (Kempf 1970).
The benthos in the southeast and south (excepting
Espı́rito Santo) is the best known of the Brazilian coast.
This is due to well-established research groups and the
large number of samples taken during oceanographic expeditions. Quantitative studies on the biomass and/or
density of the benthic fauna have been carried out mainly
off the coasts of São Paulo (Pires-Vanin 1993; Amaral et
al. 2003) and Rio Grande do Sul (Seeliger et al. 1998).
The known total numbers of phyla and some of their
main subdivisions are presented in Table 1. Catalogues
or guides are available for the poriferans, cnidarians, molluscs, polychaetes, crustaceans, echinoderms, and ascidians, but there are no Brazilian checklists for the remaining
groups. For our analysis, the principal sources of information were Migotto and Tiago (1999), Lewinsohn and Prado
(2002), and Amaral and Rossi-Wongtschowski (2004) and
recent reports from two multidisciplinary programs: Assessment of the Sustainable Yield of the Living Resources
in the Exclusive Economic Zone (Avaliação do Potencial
Sustentável de Recursos Vivos na Zona Econômica Exclusiva [REVIZEE]) and the marine benthic biodiversity
Amaral & Jablonski
Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity
627
Table 1. Approximate numbers of species of invertebrates with representative marine species in Brazil and in the world.
Number of speciesa
Taxa
Phylum Porifera
Phylum Cnidaria
Phylum Ctenophora
Phylum Platyhelminthes
Class Turbellaria
Class Cestoidea
Phylum Nemertea
Phylum Rotifera
Phylum Gastrotricha
Phylum Kinorhyncha
Phylum Nemata
Phylum Nematomorpha
Phylum Acanthocephala
Phylum Entoprocta
Phylum Priapula
Phylum Sipuncula
Phylum Echiura
Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta
Class Clitellata
Phylum Tardigrada
Phylum Arthropoda,
Subphylum Crustacea
Order Decapoda
Infraorder Penaeida
Infraorder Caridea
Infraorder Anomura
Infraorder Brachyura
Superorder Peracarida
Order Isopoda
Order Amphipoda
Class Maxillopoda
Subclass Thecostraca
Subclass Copepoda
Subphylum Cheliceriformes
Subphylum Hexapoda
Phylum Mollusca
Class Aplacophora
Class Polyplacophora
Class Gastropoda
Class Bivalvia
Class Scaphopoda
Class Cephalopoda
Phylum Phoronida
Phylum Ectoprocta
Phylum Brachiopoda
Phylum Echinodermata
Phylum Chaetognatha
Phylum Hemichordata
Subphylum Urochordata
Class Ascidiacea
Class Thaliacea
Class Appendicularia
Subphylum Cephalochordata
Brazil
world
350
477
2
400
350 (187 mar)
30 (mar)
43
467
103 (40 mar)
1
230 (mar)
11 (1 mar)
30–50
10
1
40
9
1,150 (818 mar)
800 (mar)
92 (18 mar)
67 (6 mar)
7,000
11,000
100
20,000 (4,200 mara )
4,500
3,400
1,149
2,000 (50 mar)
500 (240 mar)
150
25,000 (4,000 mar)
320 (4 mar)
1.150
150
16
320
135
16,500 (mar)
10,000 (mar)
360 (mar)
800 (136 mar)
2,040
68,200
566
61
63
117
302
500
120
139
512
79
714
70 (mar)
1
3,900
10
5,000
11,400
4,000
5,700
10,300
1,100
17,500
70,000
45
100,000
4
25
1,125
250
600
80,000
410
30
45
6
300
4
342
230
7
146
118
27
25
2
20,000
350
650
20
5,500
355
7,000
25,000 (4,000 mar)
90
3,000
2,600
40
70
25
Principal collectionsb
MCN-FZB, MN-UFRJ, MZUSP, UFBA
CEBIMar-USP, IBUSP, UFPE, MN-UFRJ
nonexistent
FIOCRUZ, MZUSP
FIOCRUZ, MZUSP
FIOCRUZ, MZUSP
IBUSP
UEM, UFPE, INPA
IBUSP
nonexistent
IOUSP, IBUSP
nonexistent
nonexistent
nonexistent
nonexistent
IBUSP
IBUSP
IOUSP, MHN-UNICAMP, CEM-UFPR, IBUSP, IB-UFRJ
IOUSP, MHN-UNICAMP, CEM-UFPR, IBUSP, IB-UFRJ
IBUSP
MZUSP
MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, FURG, UFPE, UFPB, IOUSP, UFPE,
FZB-RS
MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, FURG, UFPE
MZUSP
MZUSP
MZUSP
MZUSP
MZUSP, IOUSP
MZUSP, UFPE
MZUSP, IOUSP
IBUSP, MN-UFRJ, IOUSP, FURG, UFRPE, UFPB, FZB-RS
MN-UFRJ, MZUSP, UFPB, FZB-RS
IBUSP, MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, FURG, UFPB
MZUSP
MZUSP, IOUSP
MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MOFURG, IB-UFRJ, FIOCRUZ,
MCN-FZB, UFRPE
MZUSP
MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, IB-UFRJ, MCN-FZB
MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, IB-UFRJ, FIOCRUZ,
MCN-FZB
MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, IB-UFRJ, MCN-FZB
MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, IB-UFRJ, MCN-FZB
MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, MCN-FZB
nonexistent
UFPR, IBUSP
IB-UNESP
MZUSP, IOUSP, MNH-UNICAMP, MN-UFRJ
IOUSP
IBUSP
IBUSP, MZUSP, UFPR, UFCE
IBUSP,MZUSP, UFPR, UFCE
nonexistent
IBUSP
nonexistent
a
Abbreviation: mar, marine.
Abbreviations: CEBIMar-USP, Centro de Biologia Marinha, Universidade de São Paulo; CEM-UFPR, Centro de Estudos do Mar, Universidade Federal do Paraná;
FIOCRUZ, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz; FURG, Fundação Universidade do Rio Grande; FZB-RS, Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul; IB-UFRJ, Instituto de
Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; IB-UNESP, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Campus de Botucatu; IBUSP, Instituto de
Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo; INPA, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa da Amazônia; IOUSP, Instituto Oceanográfico, Universidade de São Paulo; MCN-FZB,
Museu de Ciências Naturais, Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul; MHN-UNICAMP, Museu de História Natural, Universidade Estadual de Campinas;
MN-UFRJ, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; MO-FURG, Museu Oceanográfico, Fundação Universidade do Rio Grande; MZUSP, Museu de
Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo; UEM, Universidade Estadual de Maringá; UFBA, Universidade Federal da Bahia; UFCE, Universidade Federal do Ceará;
UFPB, Universidade Federal da Paraı́ba; UFPE, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; UFPR, Universidade Federal do Paraná; UFRJ, Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro; UFRPE, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco.
b
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
628
Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity
component of a major biotic survey program for the state
of São Paulo supported by the State of São Paulo Research
Foundation (Biodiversidade Bêntica Marinha do Estado
de São Paulo [Biota]/Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do
Estado de São Paulo [FAPESP]). Data obtained recently
from samples taken at depths of up to 2000 m through
these programs revealed more than 1300 species of benthic animals, of which the Porifera, Cnidaria, Sipuncula,
Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Scaphopoda, Polychaeta, Crustacea,
Ophiuroidea, Bryozoa, and Brachiopoda were the most
abundant or frequent groups. Except for the molluscs,
decapods ( brachiurans), cirripeds, and echinoderms, the
faunas of salt marshes and coral reefs and islands remain
poorly known.
Amaral & Jablonski
Plankton and Pelagic Shellfish
Knowledge of the pelagic fauna is also sparse. The beststudied groups are the Copepoda, Chaetognatha, and
Dendrobranchia. The plankton, principally along the continental shelf, is insufficiently known with, according to
Brandini et al. (1997), the best-studied regions being Rio
Grande do Sul (Lagoa dos Patos), Paraná (Paranaguá),
São Paulo (Cananéia, Ubatuba, and São Sebastião), Rio
de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro and Cabo Frio), and Pernambuco (Recife). Twenty-three species (nine families) of
cephalopods and 19 species (three families) of crustaceans have been registered in pelagic environment off
the Brazilian coast (Cergole 2002).
Number and Distribution of Threatened Species
Fish
Demersal and pelagic fish faunas are relatively uniform
over large regions, and endemism is low (<5%) and restricted to reef species. Overfishing and pollution are
the principal threats. The marine and estuarine demersal
teleosts in Brazil include 617 species in 26 orders and 118
families. Slightly more than half the species (337) are Perciformes. Adding the Pleuronectiformes, Anguilliformes,
and Tetraodontiformes accounts for about 70% (446) of
the total (Haimovici & Klippel 2002). Twenty-two species
of demersal teleosts are endemic to the Brazilian continental coast, four to the São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago,
and one to Rocas Atoll (Haimovici & Klippel 2002). With
regard to their habitats, 347 are considered demersal, 178
reef-dwellers, 49 benthopelagic, and 43 bathydemersal.
Overall 82 species of sharks and 45 rays have been described for Brazil (Lessa et al. 2002). Elasmobranchs can
be classified according to their typical macrohabitats during the longest part of their lifecycle: coastal sharks and
rays (intertidal zone as far as about 200 m in depth, which
usually defines the continental platform, and including
estuaries and reef formations); pelagic species; and demersal species of the continental slope. Coastal elasmobranchs include 39 species (10 families) of sharks—15 of
them strictly coastal—and a further 39 species (13 families) of rays. Pelagic elasmobranchs total 30 species in 10
families of sharks and six species (three families) of rays
(Lessa et al. 2002). Collecting expeditions for Brazilian
elasmobranchs have been restricted to the slopes above
deep sea environments from 200 to 2000 m. There, 33
species of sharks and 12 rays have been recorded. A number of species are migratory and widespread, and occur in
more than one of these macrohabitats. Our knowledge of
coastal elasmobranch diversity is still incipient but better than it is for the slopes and open ocean (Lessa et
al. 2002). Small, pelagic fishes recorded in Brazil total
151 species in 37 families (Cergole 2002). Large pelagic
species recorded total 41 species in 14 families (Hazin et
al. 2002).
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Inconspicuousness and the lack of population studies
and demographic monitoring make it difficult to establish the threatened status of most benthic marine organisms worldwide. Recognizing this limitation, 34 threatened species are currently registered and a further 10
species are overexploited or in danger of overexploitation
(Normative Decree No. 5, 21 May 2004, Ministry of the
Environment). Besides pollution, the principal cause of
threat for these species is excessive or indiscriminate harvesting. However, specialists agree that habitat loss, particularly in coastal areas with a wide diversity of species
and most vulnerable to human action, is most serious.
For example, a gastropod, the Goliath conch (Strombus
goliath), is endemic to the Brazilian coast from Ceará to
Espı́rito Santo and is especially sensitive to habitat degradation. Its specialized herbivory renders it more vulnerable. S. goliath, moreover, is exploited because of the
commercial value of its meat and shell.
Nineteen species of coastal echinoderms of the classes
Asteroidea (starfishes), Echinoidea (sea urchins), and
Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers) are considered threatened. Their peculiar forms (especially the starfishes and
sea urchins) fascinate tourists and aquarium hobbyists,
who harvest them for commercial purposes or use them
for decorative or religious artifacts.
Among the cnidarians, the sea anemones, stony corals,
fire corals, and gorgonians (sea fans) are indiscriminately
and intensively collected for sale in aquarium shops and
by tourists. Three species of polychaete are considered
potentially threatened: the eunicid Eunice sebastiani (a
species described from the Brazilian coast, the adults of
which may reach about 3 m in length), the onuphid
Diopatra cuprea, and the amphinomid Eurythoe complanata (fire worm), which inhabit the intertidal zone
and are used as fishbait.
Years of overexploitation have resulted in a continuous decline in the stocks and reduction in the size
of individuals of numerous crustaceans, including mangrove crabs ( blue land crab [Cardisoma guanhumi] and
Amaral & Jablonski
swamp ghost crabs [Ucides cordatus]), lobsters (Panulirus argus and P. laevicauda), shrimps (Farfantepenaeus brasiliensis, F. paulensis, and F. subtilis, Litopenaeus schmitti, and Xyphopenaeus kroyeri), and a
species of small crab ( blue crab [Callinectes sapidus]).
All suffer from overfishing and selective harvesting and,
especially in the case of the mangrove species, by the
destruction of their habitats.
In their natural environment, the greatest threats to
elasmobranchs are fishing, habitat destruction, coastal
development, and pollution of the marine environment.
Fishing, in particular, considerably affects shark and ray
populations. Globally exploitative fishing is responsible
for the inclusion of a large number of species on the
IUCN ( World Conservation Union) Red List (Camhi et
al. 1998). Studies carried out in Brazil formed the basis for the listing of several species, including some endemics: Brazilian guitarfish (Rhinobatos horkelii), daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus), striped
smooth-hound (Mustelus fasciatus), sawfishes (Pristis
spp.), sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus), tope shark
(Galeorhinus galeus), and angel sharks (Squatina spp.)
(Lessa et al. 2002).The following species are also at risk:
whale shark (Rhincodon typus), great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), narrownose smooth-hound (Mustelus schmitti),
scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini), lesser devil ray
(Mobula hypostoma), lesser Guinean devil ray (M. rochebrunei), and manta ray (Manta birostris) (Lessa et al.
2002).
Current Habitat Loss and Present and Future
Threats
The greatest threats to marine and coastal biodiversity
are the degradation or alteration of habitats, overexploitation for consumption or ornaments, and introduction of
exotic species. Unregulated tourism is especially damaging for coral reefs and calcareous bottom sediments. Pollution, mainly from pesticides, chemical products, and
industrial effluents, is another major destructive force,
but it is difficult to evaluate its extent for lack of understanding of the effects on individual species. The huge
quantities of largely untreated organic matter discharged
into the oceans, besides wrecking marine environments,
constitute a chronic public health problem.
The introduction of exotic species not only causes serious problems for some native species, but may, in extreme
cases, threaten entire ecosystems. The main vectors in the
marine environment are ship ballast water, encrustation
(fouling), and the importation of species for aquaculture
and the aquarium trade. One of a number of serious cases
in Brazil is the introduction of Charybdis hellerii, an IndoPacific crab of no commercial value, which is prejudicial
to the fishery of the corresponding native species in the
Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity
629
state of Bahia. It has already spread to the states of Rio de
Janeiro and São Paulo (Tavares & Mendonça 2004). Isognomon bicolor, an intertidal Indo-Pacific bivalve mollusc,
has been reported along the coast from Bahia to Santa
Catarina (Fernandes et al. 2004). Toxic algae native to
other parts of the world have also been found. Mostly
dinoflagellates, they can be toxic and cause serious problems in areas where oysters and mussels are cultivated
(Proença & Fernandes 2004).
Exploitative fishing, and especially overfishing, threaten many species besides the fishes themselves. The accidental capture of marine birds on long lines causes high
mortality of albatrosses and petrels in the world’s oceans.
About 10,000 marine birds die annually after swallowing
baits on long lines off the Brazilian coast, mainly in the
south and southeast (Olmos et al. 2000). Entanglement
in fishing nets is the main cause of accidents with harbor
porpoises.
Administration of the fisheries by traditional techniques is insufficient to avoid overexploitation and declines in harvests. The failure of these procedures is evident in most marine and estuarine environments in Brazil
and other parts of the world. The creation of marine reserves, which are sufficiently large to take in the numerous and complex interrelated habitats and allow for the
maintenance of their physical and biological dynamics, is
a key strategy to assure that biodiversity can be preserved
and, where appropriate, serve as breeding grounds and
sources of recruitment for species that are exploited or
otherwise under pressure in neighboring areas. Marine
protected areas have been established at federal, state,
and municipal levels in Brazil. Table 2 shows those which
are strictly marine (coastal and oceanic islands that include only land are not listed).
Fundação Bio-Rio et al. (2002) identified the greatest
threats to the species of the coastal and shelf ecosystems as follows: deforestation of mangroves and floodplain hardwoods for charcoal; itinerant agriculture; harvesting of native plants; fishing and exploitative capture
of crabs; pasturing of cattle and buffalo in salt marshes and
swamps; highway and marina construction; dredging in
igarapés (side channels) and watercourses; extraction of
minerals for direct use in civil construction; uncontrolled
urban expansion; domestic solid waste and sewage; industrial effluents; real-estate speculation; ports and oil terminals; aquaculture, including exotic species; and tourism
and its accompanying activities.
Major Conservation and Research Initiatives
The Ministry of the Environment has carried out an evaluation of the marine and coastal biological diversity of
Brazil, through the Project for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biological Diversity (PROBIO). Culminating in a workshop in 1999, the project resulted in
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity
Amaral & Jablonski
Table 2. Principal marine protected areas in Brazil.a
r provide appropriate technical and legal conditions for
630
Conservation unit b
National Marine Park of Fernando de
Noronha—PE
National Marine Park of Abrolhos—BA
State Marine Park of Parcel Manuel Luis—MA
State Marine Park of Laje de Santos—SP
Municipal Marine Park of Recife de Fora—BA
Marine Biological Reserve of Atol das
Rocas—RN
Marine Biological Reserve of Arvoredo—SC
Environmental Protection Area of Fernando de
Noronha—PE
Environmental Protection Area of Costa dos
Corais—PE/AL
Environmental Protection Area of “Baleia
Franca”—PR
State Environmental Protection Area of Recife
de Corais—RN
State Environmental Protection Area of Ponta
da Baleia/Abrolhos—BA
Marine Extractive Reserve of Ponta do
Corumbau—BA
Marine Extractive Reserve of Baı́a de
Iguape—BA
Marine Extractive Reserve of Arraial do
Cabo—RJ
Marine Extractive Reserve of Pirajubaé—SC
Area (ha)
11,270
88,249
45,238
5,000
1,750
36,249
17,600
93,000
413,563
156,100
34,600
38,174
8,117
56,769
1,444
of coastal and oceanic islands, which include only land, are
not listed. Sources: http://www.ambientebrasil.com.br; http://www.
ibama.gov.br; http://www.zee.ma.gov.br; Silva 2004; MMA 2003.
b States: AL, Alagoas; BA, Bahia; MA, Maranhão; PB, Paraı́ba; PE,
Pernambuco; PR, Paraná; RJ, Rio de Janeiro; RN, Rio Grande do
Norte; SC, Santa Catarina; SP, São Paulo.
the delineation of 40 priority areas for the conservation
of teleost and elasmobranch fishes, 15 priority areas for
the benthos of the continental shelf, and 31 national priority conservation areas overall (Fundação Bio Rio et al.
2002). The areas include important sites for the conservation of bony and cartilaginous fishes and fishes for which
harvesting is a significant source of environmental pressure and are composed of parts of the coastal area, the
continental shelf and slope, coastal and oceanic islands,
and banks.
The Ministry of the Environment (Edict No. 126, 27 May
2004) mandated the recognition of the areas and the responsibility of the federal government with regard to promoting their conservation and sustainable use. The workshop participants approved several recommendations for
the marine zone (Fundação Bio-Rio et al. 2002):
r intensify oceanographic studies, faunal and floral surveys, studies of population and community dynamics,
and stock assessments;
intensify studies of artificial habitats and their effects
on the marine environment;
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
r
r
r
32,500
a Those
r
r
the implementation of marine protected areas, and
create marine reserves;
carry out technical and legal studies to mitigate the
impact of trawling;
intensify environmental education efforts for oceanic
and coastal ecosystems, especially reefs and islands
with the greatest tourism potential;
identify new fishery resources and still-underexploited stocks and introduce appropriate technologies
to reduce bycatch;
focus exploitation and sustainable use of living marine
resources exclusively on the production of food in the
form of fisheries resources, but also consider the resource in terms of its biodiversity (genetic patrimony
and biotechnology).
More recently, the Ministry of the Environment (Normative Decree No. 5, 21 May 2004) listed a number of
aquatic invertebrates and fishes as endangered, overexploited, or threatened with overexploitation. Catching
endangered species is prohibited, and the decree instructed that recovery plans should be developed and
implemented for all under the coordination of the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) in collaboration with appropriate
state-level organizations, the scientific community, and
organized civil society, within a maximum of 5 years.
The decree also mandated 5 years for the development
of management plans for the species overexploited or
threatened with overexploitation. Fifteen sharks and rays
and eight marine teleosts were listed as endangered, of
which only the mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) is commercially exploited. The others are reef species, some of
which are sought after by the aquarium trade. Anthias
salmopunctatus is endemic to the São Pedro and São
Paulo Archipelago (Haimovici & Klippel 2002). Six elasmobranchs and 27 marine and estuarine teleosts were included as either overexploited or threatened with overexploitation. The list contains at least two inconsistencies.
Lutjanus analis is considered endangered, even though
it is common in landings of commercial hand-line fisheries in the Brazilian Northeast. And, the Goliath grouper
(Epinephelus itajara) is listed as merely overexploited,
whereas IBAMA (Edict No. 121, 20 September 2002) considers it critically endangered and prohibited fishing for
5 years.
Effective conservation has yet to become a reality in
most of Brazil’s marine environments in spite of the existing legislation and the marine protected areas. The
protected areas of different management categories are
insufficient in number and extent, and for some management plans have not been implemented or are lacking
altogether. Excessive harvesting is not restricted to industrial fisheries and is commonly found in artisanal fishing. The management and administration of fisheries has
Amaral & Jablonski
recently become more complex because of the division
of responsibilities between two distinct institutions—the
Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries (SEAP)
and IBAMA. The first agency is reponsible for promoting aquaculture and fishing and for resources that are
considered underexploited, and the second is responsible for stocks that are overexploited. Unification of these
attributes and integrated management and administration
would be more effective in controlling and reducing fisheries, tackling the major threats, and in establishing an
effective protected-area system and strategy for the conservation of marine biodiversity.
Acknowledgments
We thank J. W. Reid for revision of the English text.
Literature Cited
Aller, J. Y., and R. C. Aller. 1986. General characteristics of benthic faunas
on the Amazon inner continental shelf with comparison to the shelf
off the Changjianh River, East China Sea. Continental Shelf Research
6:291–310.
Amaral, A. C. Z., and C. L. D. B. Rossi-Wongtschowski, editors. 2004.
Biodiversidade bentônica das regiões sudeste e sul do Brasil—
plataforma externa e talude superior. Série documentos REVIZEE:
Score Sul. Instituto Oceanográfico da Universidade de São Paulo,
São Paulo (in Portuguese).
Amaral, A. C. Z., M. R. Denadai, A. Turra, and A. E. Rizzo. 2003. Intertidal macrofauna in Brazilian subtropical sandy beaches landscape.
Journal of Coastal Research 35:446–455.
Brandini, P. F., R. M. Lopes, K. S. Gutseit, H. L. E. Spach, and R. Sassi.
1997. Planctonologia na plataforma continental do Brasil. Fundação
de Estudos do Mar (FEMAR), Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Camhi, M., S. Fowler, J. Musick, A. Brautigam, and F. S. Fordham. 1998.
Sharks and their relatives. Occasional paper 20. Species Survival
Commission, World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.
Cergole, M. C. 2002. Nécton—pequenos pelágicos. In Workshop para
Avaliação e Ações prioritárias para a Conservação da Biodiversidade
das Zonas Costeira e Marinha do Brasil. Technical report (CD-ROM).
Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
Fernandes, F. C., L. C. Rapagnã, and G. B. D. Bueno. 2004. Estudo da população do bivalve exótico Isognomon bicolor (C. B. Adams, 1845)
(Bivalvia, Isonomonidae) na Ponta da Fortaleza em Arraial do Cabo—
RJ. Pages 133–141 in J. S. V. Silva and R. C. C. L. Souza, editors. Água
de lastro e bioinvasão. Editora Interciência, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Fundação Bio-Rio et al. 2002. Avaliação e ações prioritárias para a conservação da biodiversidade das zonas costeira e marinha. Secretaria
de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brası́lia
(in Portuguese).
Haimovici, M., and S. Klippel. 2002. Diagnóstico da biodiversidade
dos peixes teleósteos demersais marinhos e estuarinos do Brasil. In
Workshop para Avaliação e Ações prioritárias para a Conservação da
Biodiversidade das Zonas Costeira e Marinha do Brasil. Technical re-
Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity
631
port (CD-ROM). Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministério
do Meio Ambiente, Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
Hazin, F. H. V., J. R. Zagaglia, S. Hamilton, and T. Vaske-Júnior. 2002.
Nécton—grandes teleósteos pelágicos. In Workshop para Avaliação
e Ações prioritárias para a Conservação da Biodiversidade das Zonas
Costeira e Marinha do Brasil. Technical report (CD-ROM). Secretaria
de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brası́lia
(in Portuguese).
Kempf, M. 1970. Notes on the benthic bionomy of N.E. Brazilian shelfs.
Marine Biology 5:213–214.
Kempf, M., P. N. Coutinho, and J. O. Moraes. 1967. Plataforma continental do norte e nordeste do Brasil: nota preliminar sobre a natureza do
fundo. Trabalhos do Instituto Oceanográfico da Universidade Federal
de Pernambuco 9/11:9–26 (in Portuguese).
Lana, P. C., M. G. Camargo, R. A. Brongim, and V. J. Isaac. 1996. O bentos da costa brasileira: avaliação crı́tica e levantamento bibliográfico
(1858–1996). Fundação de Estudos do Mar, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Lessa, R., F. M. Santana, G. Rincón, O. B. F. Gadig, and A. C. A. El-Deir.
2002. Biodiversidade de elasmobrânquios do Brasil. In Workshop
para Avaliação e Ações prioritárias para a Conservação da Biodiversidade das Zonas Costeira e Marinha do Brasil. Technical report
(CD-ROM). Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministério do
Meio Ambiente, Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
Lewinsohn, T. M., and P. I. Prado. 2002. Biodiversidade brasileira: sı́ntese
do estado atual do conhecimento. Editora Contexto, São Paulo (in
Portuguese).
Marcgrave, J. 1942. História natural do Brasil. Museu Paulista da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (in Portuguese).
Migotto, A. E., and C. G. Tiago. 1999. Biodiversidade do estado de São
Paulo, Brasil: sı́ntese do conhecimento ao final do século XX, 3:
invertebrados marinhos. Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado
de São Paulo, São Paulo (in Portuguese).
MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). 2003. Atlas dos recifes de coral nas
unidades de conservação brasileiras. A. P. L. Prates, editor. Ministério
do Meio Ambiente, Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
Olmos, F., G. C. C. Bastos, and T. Neves. 2000. Estimating seabird bycatch
in Brazil. In E. Flint and K. Swift, editors. Abstracts of oral and poster
presentations: second international conference on the biology and
conservation of albatrosses and petrels. Marine Ornithology 28:125–
152.
Pires-Vanin, A. M. S. 1993. A macrofauna bêntica da plataforma continental ao largo de Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brasil. Publicação Especial,
Instituto Oceanográfico, São Paulo 10:137–158 (in Portuguese).
Proença, L. A. O., and L. F. Fernandes. 2004. Introdução de microalgas
no ambiente marinho: impactos negativos e fatores controladores.
Pages 77–97 in J. S. V. Silva and R. C. C. L. Souza, editors. Água de lastro e bioinvasão. Editora Interciência, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Rocha, J., J. D. Milliman, C. I. Santana, and M. A. Vicalvi. 1975. In J. D. Milliman and C. Summerhayes, editors. Upper continental margin sedimentation off Brazil. Contributions to Sedimentology 4:111–150.
Seeliger, U., C. Odebrecht, and J. P. Castello, editors. 1998. Os ecossistemas costeiro e marinho do extremo sul do Brasil. Editora Ecoscientia, Rio Grande, Brası́l (in Portuguese).
Silva, P. P. 2004. From common property to co-management: lessons
from Brazil’s first maritime extractive reserve. Marine Policy 28:419–
428.
Tavares, M., and J. B. Mendonça Jr. 2004. Introdução de crustáceos
decápodes exóticos no Brasil: uma roleta ecológica. Pages 59–76
in J. S. V. Silva, and R. C. C. L. Souza, editors. Água de lastro e bioinvasão. Editora Interciência, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005