Amaral e Jablonski 2005

7/30/2019 Amaral e Jablonski 2005

1/7

Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity

in BrazilANTONIA CECILIA Z. AMARAL AND SILVIO JABLONSKIDepartamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Caixa Postal 6109,

Campinas 13083-970, Sao Paulo, Brasil, email [email protected]

Departamento de Oceanografia, Instituto de Geociencias, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ),

Rua Sao Francisco Xavier 524, Maracana, 20550-900, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Abstract: The invertebrate benthos, especially the micro- and mesofaunal components, of the Brazilian seasis 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 (


2/7

626 Conservation of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Amaral & Jablonski

de peces de acuario, la degradaci on y destrucci on del habitat, la introducci on de especies ex oticas, el turismo

pernicioso y la contaminaci on. El Ministerio del Ambiente enlista a 34 especies bent onicas 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 tele osteos. Otras seis especies de elasmobranquios y 27 de tele osteos est an siendo

sobreexplotados actual o potencialmente. La conservaci on de la biodiversidad marina en Brasil a un es consid-

erablemente inadecuada a pesar de la legislaci on existente y varias areas protegidas. El numero y tamano de

areas marinas protegidas es insuficiente, algunas a un carecen de planes de manejo o no han recibido las me-

didas e infraestructura adecuadas para hacerlas efectivas. La administraci on y gesti on de pesquer as todav a

es precaria y carece de la participaci on efectiva de comunidades locales en muchas areas. Las principalesiniciativas de conservaci on incluyen la identificaci on de areas clave para la conservaci on de biodiversidad,

muestreos, monitoreo intensivo de pesquer as, educaci on ambiental y la creaci on y mejor administraci on de

areas protegidas.

Species Diversity in Brazil

Tropical and subtropical characteristics dominate the en-tire Brazilian coast, although regional phenomena defineclimatic and oceanographic conditions that leave distinct

impressions on the biodiversity, such as at the mouth ofthe Rio Amazonas and in the Marajoara and Maranhensegulfs. Coral reefs extend for about 3000 km along thenortheast, from Maranhao to southern Bahia, and are theonly reef ecosystems in the South Atlantic. In the south-east and south, the presence of the South Atlantic Cen-tral Water over the continental shelf and its occasionalupwelling along the coast contribute to increased pro-ductivity. Farther south, the northward winter shift of thesubtropical convergenceformed by the meeting of theBrazil Current with the Malvinas (Falklands) Currentconfers more temperate climatic characteristics, which

profoundly influence the composition of the local fauna.CaboFrio marks the transitionbetween the northern trop-ical and the southern subtropical and temperate environ-ments (Rocha et al. 1975).

Benthos

Although some records date from the mid-seventeenthcentury (Marcgrave 1942), knowledge of the benthic in-

vertebrates of Brazil is still unsatisfactory, especially withregard to the micro- and mesofauna. Zoological knowl-edge increased substantially from the 1970s, althoughsome phyla have never been recorded, evidently for lack

of studies, including the Placozoa, Mesozoa, Gnathosto-mulida, Loricifera, and Cycliophora.

The northern states of Piau, Maranhao, Para, andAmapa are bordered by an extensive estuarine area (about50% of the total estuaries along our coast). In spite of theenormous area involved, the local benthic fauna is amongthe least known. Basic references on the benthic macro-fauna consist of the studies of Kempf et al. (1967), Kempf(1970), and Aller and Aller (1986). Among the better-studied groups are the Foraminifera, Porifera, Octocoral-lia, Sipuncula, Echinodermata, Crustacea, Mollusca, and

algae. The presence ofCallianassa sp. galleries is notablein sandy-mud sediments, where their density may reach3915 individuals/m2 (Lana et al. 1996).

Estuaries, coastal lagoons and mangrove forests areabundant along the northeast coast, from the Parnaba

delta to the BahiaEsprito Santo border. The descrip-tions of the fauna and flora by Kempf (1970) are thestandard references. Gorgonians, scaphopods, bivalves,polychaetes, and ophiuroids are abundant, and the vagilefauna is well represented by the shrimps Xiphopenaeuskroyeri and Farfantepenaeus subtilis. Prominent reef-dwellers include the hydrocorals Millepora alcicornisand M. braziliensis and several species ofMadreporaria(Lana et al. 1996). The fauna characteristic of the north-east shelf gradually disappears farther north because ofthe enormous terrigenous input from the Amazon River.The reef and hermatypic corals are progressively replaced

by ahermatypic species, such as Madraeis asperula andM. acatiae, which apparently have uninterrupted distri-butions (Kempf 1970).

The benthos in the southeast and south (exceptingEsprito Santo) is the best known of the Brazilian coast.This is due to well-established research groups and thelarge number of samples taken during oceanographic ex-peditions. Quantitative studies on the biomass and/ordensity of the benthic fauna have been carried out mainlyoff the coasts of Sao Paulo (Pires-Vanin 1993; Amaral etal. 2003) and Rio Grande do Sul (Seeliger et al. 1998).

The known total numbers of phyla and some of theirmain subdivisions are presented in Table 1. Catalogues

or guides are available for the poriferans, cnidarians, mol-luscs, polychaetes, crustaceans, echinoderms, and ascidi-ans, but there are no Brazilian checklists for the remaininggroups. For our analysis, the principal sources of informa-tionwere Migottoand Tiago (1999), Lewinsohn and Prado(2002), and Amaral and Rossi-Wongtschowski (2004) andrecent reports from two multidisciplinary programs: As-sessment of the Sustainable Yield of the Living Resourcesin the Exclusive Economic Zone (Avaliacao do PotencialSustentavel de Recursos Vivos na Zona Economica Ex-clusiva [REVIZEE]) and the marine benthic biodiversity

Conservation Biology

Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005


3/7

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 Brazil world Principal collectionsb

Phylum Porifera 350 7,000 MCN-FZB, MN-UFRJ, MZUSP, UFBA Phylum Cnidaria 477 11,000 CEBIMar-USP, IBUSP, UFPE, MN-UFRJPhylum Ctenophora 2 100 nonexistentPhylum Platyhelminthes 400 20,000 (4,200 mar a) FIOCRUZ, MZUSP

Class Turbellaria 350 (187 mar) 4,500 FIOCRUZ, MZUSPClass Cestoidea 30 (mar) 3,400 FIOCRUZ, MZUSP

Phylum Nemertea 43 1,149 IBUSPPhylum Rotifera 467 2,000 (50 mar) UEM, UFPE, INPA Phylum Gastrotricha 103 (40 mar) 500 (240 mar) IBUSPPhylum Kinorhyncha 1 150 nonexistentPhylum Nemata 230 (mar) 25,000 (4,000 mar) IOUSP, IBUSPPhylum Nematomorpha 11 (1 mar) 320 (4 mar) nonexistentPhylum Acanthocephala 3050 1.150 nonexistentPhylum Entoprocta 10 150 nonexistentPhylum Priapula 1 16 nonexistentPhylum Sipuncula 40 320 IBUSPPhylum Echiura 9 135 IBUSPPhylum Annelida 1,150 (818 mar) 16,500 (mar) IOUSP, MHN-UNICAMP, CEM-UFPR, IB USP, IB-UFRJ

Class Polychaeta 800 (mar) 10,000 (mar) IOUSP, MHN-UNICAMP, CEM-UFPR, IBUSP, IB-UFRJClass Clitellata 92 (18 mar) 360 (mar) IBUSP

Phylum Tardigrada 67 (6 mar) 800 (136 mar) MZUSP

Phylum Arthropoda,Subphylum Crustacea 2,040 68,200 MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, FURG, UFPE, UFPB, IOUSP, UFPE,

FZB-RSOrder Decapoda 566 10 MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, FURG, UFPEInfraorder Penaeida 61 MZUSPInfraorder Caridea 63 MZUSPInfraorder Anomura 117 MZUSPInfraorder Brachyura 302 5,000 MZUSPSuperorder Peracarida 500 11,400 MZUSP, IOUSPOrder Isopoda 120 4,000 MZUSP, UFPEOrder Amphipoda 139 5,700 MZUSP, IOUSPClass Maxillopoda 512 10,300 IBUSP, MN-UFRJ, IOUSP, FURG, UFRPE, UFPB, FZB-RSSubclass Thecostraca 79 1,100 MN-UFRJ, MZUSP, UFPB, FZB-RSSubclass Copepoda 714 17,500 IBUSP, MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, FURG, UFPB

Subphylum Cheliceriformes 70 (mar) 70,000 MZUSPSubphylum Hexapoda 1 45 MZUSP, IOUSP

Phylum Mollusca 3,900 100,000 MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MOFURG, IB-UFRJ, FIOCRUZ,MCN-FZB, UFRPE

Class Aplacophora 4 250 MZUSPClass Polyplacophora 25 600 MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, IB-UFRJ, MCN-FZBClass Gastropoda 1,125 80,000 MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, IB-UFRJ, FIOCRUZ,

MCN-FZBClass Bivalvia 410 20,000 MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, IB-UFRJ, MCN-FZBClass Scaphopoda 30 350 MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, IB-UFRJ, MCN-FZBClass Cephalopoda 45 650 MZUSP, MN-UFRJ, MO-FURG, MCN-FZB

Phylum Phoronida 6 20 nonexistentPhylum Ectoprocta 300 5,500 UFPR, IBUSPPhylum Brachiopoda 4 355 IB-UNESPPhylum Echinodermata 342 7,000 MZUSP, IOUSP, MNH-UNICAMP, MN-UFRJPhylum Chaetognatha 230 25,000 (4,000 mar) IOUSPPhylum Hemichordata 7 90 IBUSP

Subphylum Urochordata 146 3,000 IBUSP, MZUSP, UFPR, UFCE

Class Ascidiacea 118 2,600 IBUSP,MZUSP, UFPR, UFCEClass Thaliacea 27 40 nonexistentClass Appendicularia 25 70 IBUSP

Subphylum Cephalochordata 2 25 nonexistent

aAbbreviation: mar, marine.bAbbreviations: CEBIMar-USP, Centro de Biologia Marinha, Universidade de S ao Paulo; CEM-UFPR, Centro de Estudos do Mar, Universidade Federal do Parana;

FIOCRUZ, Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz; FURG, Fundacao Universidade do Rio Grande; FZB-RS, Fundacao Zoobotanica do Rio Grande do Sul; IB-UFRJ, Instituto de

Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; IB-UNESP, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Campus de Botucatu; IBUSP, Instituto de

Biociencias, Universidade de S ao Paulo; INPA, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa da Amazonia; IOUSP, Instituto Oceanogr afico, Universidade de S ao Paulo; MCN-FZB,

Museu de Ciencias Naturais, Fundacao Zoobotanica do Rio Grande do Sul; MHN-UNICAMP, Museu de Historia Natural, Universidade Estadual de Campinas;

MN-UFRJ, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; MO-FURG, Museu Oceanogr afico, Fundacao Universidade do Rio Grande; MZUSP, Museu de

Zoologia, Universidade de S ao Paulo; UEM, Universidade Estadual de Maring a; UFBA, Universidade Federal da Bahia; UFCE, Universidade Federal do Cear a;

UFPB, Univers idade Federal da Paraba; UFPE, Univer sidade Federal de Pernambuco; UFPR, Universidad e Federal do Parana; UFRJ, Universidade Federal do Rio de

Janeiro; UFRPE, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco.




4/7


component of a major biotic survey program for the stateof Sao Paulo supported by the State of Sao Paulo ResearchFoundation (Biodiversidade Bentica Marinha do Estadode Sao Paulo [Biota]/Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa doEstado de Sao Paulo [FAPESP]). Data obtained recentlyfrom samples taken at depths of up to 2000 m throughthese programs revealed more than 1300 species of ben-thic animals, of which the Porifera, Cnidaria, Sipuncula,Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Scaphopoda, Polychaeta, Crustacea,Ophiuroidea, Bryozoa, and Brachiopoda were the mostabundant or frequent groups. Except for the molluscs,decapods (brachiurans), cirripeds, and echinoderms, thefaunas of salt marshes and coral reefs and islands remainpoorly known.

Fish

Demersal and pelagic fish faunas are relatively uniformover large regions, and endemism is low (


5/7


swamp ghost crabs [Ucides cordatus]), lobsters (Pan-ulirus argus and P. laevicauda), shrimps (Farfantepe-naeus brasiliensis, F. paulensis, and F. subtilis, Litope-naeus schmitti, and Xyphopenaeus kroyeri), and aspecies of small crab (blue crab [Callinectes sapidus]).

All suffer from overfishing and selective harvesting and,especially in the case of the mangrove species, by thedestruction of their habitats.

In their natural environment, the greatest threats toelasmobranchs are fishing, habitat destruction, coastaldevelopment, and pollution of the marine environment.Fishing, in particular, considerably affects shark and raypopulations. Globally exploitative fishing is responsiblefor the inclusion of a large number of species on theIUCN (World Conservation Union) Red List (Camhi etal. 1998). Studies carried out in Brazil formed the ba-sis for the listing of several species, including some en-demics: Brazilian guitarfish (Rhinobatos horkelii), dag-gernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus), stripedsmooth-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 (Car-charodon carcharias), basking shark (Cetorhinus max-imus), narrownose smooth-hound (Mustelus schmitti),scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini), lesser devil ray(Mobula hypostoma), lesser Guinean devil ray (M. roche-brunei), and manta ray (Manta birostris) (Lessa et al.2002).

Current Habitat Loss and Present and FutureThreats

The greatest threats to marine and coastal biodiversityare the degradation or alteration of habitats, overexploita-tion for consumption or ornaments, and introduction ofexotic species. Unregulated tourism is especially damag-ing for coral reefs and calcareous bottom sediments. Pol-lution, mainly from pesticides, chemical products, andindustrial effluents, is another major destructive force,but it is difficult to evaluate its extent for lack of under-standing of the effects on individual species. The hugequantities 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 seri-ous problems forsome native species, but may, in extremecases, threaten entire ecosystems. The main vectors in themarine environment are ship ballast water, encrustation(fouling), and the importation of species for aquacultureand the aquarium trade. One of a number of serious casesin Brazil is the introduction ofCharybdis hellerii,anIndo-Pacific crab of no commercial value, which is prejudicialto the fishery of the corresponding native species in the

state of Bahia. It has already spread to the states of Rio deJaneiro and Sao Paulo (Tavares & Mendonca 2004). Isog-nomon bicolor, an intertidal Indo-Pacific bivalve mollusc,has been reported along the coast from Bahia to SantaCatarina (Fernandes et al. 2004). Toxic algae native toother parts of the world have also been found. Mostlydinoflagellates, they can be toxic and cause serious prob-lems in areas where oysters and mussels are cultivated(Proenca & Fernandes 2004).

Exploitative fishing, and especially overfishing, thre-aten many species besides the fishes themselves. The ac-cidental capture of marine birds on long lines causes highmortality of albatrosses and petrels in the worlds oceans.

About 10,000 marine birds die annually after swallowingbaits on long lines off the Brazilian coast, mainly in thesouth and southeast (Olmos et al. 2000). Entanglementin fishing nets is the main cause of accidents with harborporpoises.

Administration of the fisheries by traditional tech-niques is insufficient to avoid overexploitation and de-

clines in harvests. The failure of these procedures is evi-dent in most marine and estuarine environments in Braziland other parts of the world. The creation of marine re-serves, which are sufficiently large to take in the numer-ous and complex interrelated habitats and allow for themaintenance of their physical and biological dynamics, isa key strategy to assure that biodiversity can be preservedand, where appropriate, serve as breeding grounds andsources of recruitment for species that are exploited orotherwise under pressure in neighboring areas. Marineprotected 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 in-clude only land are not listed).Fundacao Bio-Rio et al. (2002) identified the greatest

threats to the species of the coastal and shelf ecosys-tems as follows: deforestation of mangroves and flood-plain hardwoods for charcoal; itinerant agriculture; har-

vesting of native plants; fishing and exploitative captureof crabs; pasturing of cattle and buffalo in salt marshes andswamps; highway and marina construction; dredging inigarapes (side channels) and watercourses; extraction ofminerals for direct use in civil construction; uncontrolledurban expansion; domestic solid waste and sewage; indus-trial effluents; real-estate speculation; ports and oil termi-

nals; aquaculture, including exotic species; and tourismand its accompanying activities.

Major Conservation and Research Initiatives

The Ministry of the Environment has carried out an eval-uation of the marine and coastal biological diversity ofBrazil, through the Project for Conservation and Sustain-able Use of Brazilian Biological Diversity (PROBIO). Cul-minating in a workshop in 1999, the project resulted in




6/7


Table 2. Principal marine protected areas in Brazil.a

Conservation unitb Area ( ha)

National Marine Park of Fernando deNoronhaPE

11,270

National Marine Park of AbrolhosBA 88,249State Marine Park of Parcel Manuel LuisMA 45,238State Marine Park of Laje de SantosSP 5,000

Municipal Marine Park of Recife de ForaBA 1,750Marine Biological Reserve of Atol das

RocasRN36,249

Marine Biological Reserve of ArvoredoSC 17,600Environmental Protection Area of Fernando de

NoronhaPE93,000

Environmental Protection Area of Costa dosCoraisPE/AL

413,563

Environmental Protection Area of BaleiaFrancaPR

156,100

State Environmental Protection Area of Recifede CoraisRN

32,500

State Environmental Protection Area of Pontada Baleia/AbrolhosBA

34,600

Marine Extractive Reserve of Ponta do

CorumbauBA

38,174

Marine Extractive Reserve of Baa deIguapeBA

8,117

Marine Extractive Reserve of Arraial doCaboRJ

56,769

Marine Extractive Reserve of PirajubaeSC 1,444

aThose 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.bStates: AL, Alagoas; BA, Bahia; MA, Maranhao; PB, Paraba; PE,

Pernambuco; PR, Parana; RJ, Rio de Janeiro; RN, Rio Grande do

Norte; SC, Santa Catarina; SP, S ao Paulo.

the delineation of 40 priority areas for the conservationof teleost and elasmobranch fishes, 15 priority areas forthe benthos of the continental shelf, and 31 national pri-ority conservation areas overall ( Fundacao Bio Rio et al.2002). The areas include important sites for the conserva-tion of bony and cartilaginous fishes and fishes for whichharvesting is a significant source of environmental pres-sure and are composed of parts of the coastal area, thecontinental shelf and slope, coastal and oceanic islands,and banks.

The Ministryof the Environment (Edict No. 126, 27 May2004) mandated the recognition of the areas and the re-sponsibility of the federal government with regard to pro-moting their conservation and sustainable use. The work-shop participants approved several recommendations forthe marine zone (Fundacao Bio-Rio et al. 2002):

r intensify oceanographic studies, faunal and floral sur-veys, studies of population and community dynamics,and stock assessments;

r intensify studies of artificial habitats and their effectson the marine environment;

r provide appropriate technical and legal conditions forthe implementation of marine protected areas, andcreate marine reserves;

r carry out technical and legal studies to mitigate theimpact of trawling;

r intensify environmental education efforts for oceanicand coastal ecosystems, especially reefs and islands

with the greatest tourism potential;r identify new fishery resources and still-underex-

ploited stocks and introduce appropriate technologiesto reduce bycatch;

r focus exploitation and sustainable use of living marineresources exclusively on the production of food in theform of fisheries resources, but also consider the re-source in terms of its biodiversity (genetic patrimonyand biotechnology).

More recently, the Ministry of the Environment (Nor-mative Decree No. 5, 21 May 2004) listed a number ofaquatic invertebrates and fishes as endangered, overex-

ploited, or threatened with overexploitation. Catchingendangered species is prohibited, and the decree in-structed that recovery plans should be developed andimplemented for all under the coordination of the Brazil-ian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natu-ral Resources (IBAMA) in collaboration with appropriatestate-level organizations, the scientific community, andorganized civil society, within a maximum of 5 years.The decree also mandated 5 years for the developmentof management plans for the species overexploited orthreatened with overexploitation. Fifteen sharks and raysand eight marine teleosts were listed as endangered, of

which only the mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) is com-mercially exploited. The others are reef species, some ofwhich are sought after by the aquarium trade. Anthiassalmopunctatus is endemic to the Sao Pedro and SaoPaulo Archipelago (Haimovici & Klippel 2002). Six elas-mobranchs and 27 marine and estuarine teleosts were in-cluded as either overexploited or threatened with overex-ploitation. The list contains at least two inconsistencies.Lutjanus analis is considered endangered, even thoughit is common in landings of commercial hand-line fish-eries in the Brazilian Northeast. And, the Goliath grouper(Epinephelus itajara) is listed as merely overexploited,

whereas IBAMA (Edict No. 121, 20 September 2002) con-

siders it critically endangered and prohibited fishing for5 years.

Effective conservation has yet to become a reality inmost of Brazils marine environments in spite of the ex-isting legislation and the marine protected areas. Theprotected areas of different management categories areinsufficient in number and extent, and for some manage-ment plans have not been implemented or are lackingaltogether. Excessive harvesting is not restricted to in-dustrial fisheries and is commonly found in artisanal fish-ing. The management and administration of fisheries has




7/7


recently become more complex because of the divisionof responsibilities between two distinct institutionstheSpecial Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fisheries (SEAP)and IBAMA. The first agency is reponsible for promot-ing aquaculture and fishing and for resources that areconsidered underexploited, and the second is responsi-ble for stocks that are overexploited. Unification of theseattributes and integrated management and administration

would be more effective in controlling and reducing fish-eries, tackling the major threats, and in establishing aneffective protected-area system and strategy for the con-servation 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 characteristicsof benthic faunason the Amazon inner continental shelf with comparison to the shelf

off the Changjianh River, East China Sea. Continental Shelf Research

6:291310.

Amaral, A. C. Z., and C. L. D. B. Rossi-Wongtschowski, editors. 2004.

Biodiversidade bentonica das regioes sudeste e sul do Brasil

plataforma externa e talude superior. Serie documentos REVIZEE:

Score Sul. Instituto Oceanografico da Universidade de Sao Paulo,

Sao Paulo (in Portuguese).

Amaral, A. C. Z., M. R. Denadai, A. Turra, and A. E. Rizzo. 2003. Inter-

tidal macrofauna in Brazilian subtropical sandy beaches landscape.

Journal of Coastal Research35:446455.

Brandini, P. F., R. M. Lopes, K. S. Gutseit, H. L. E. Spach, and R. Sassi.

1997. Planctonologia na plataforma continental do Brasil. Fundacao

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. Nectonpequenos pelagicos. In Workshop para

Avaliacao e Acoes prior itarias para a Conservacao da Biodiversidade

das Zonas Costeira e Marinha do Brasil. Technical report (CD-ROM).

Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministerio do Meio Ambi-

ente, Braslia (in Portuguese).

Fernandes, F. C.,L. C. Rapagna, andG. B. D. Bueno. 2004. Estudoda pop-

ulacao do bivalve exotico Isognomon bicolor (C. B. Adams, 1845)

(Bivalvia, Isonomonidae) na Ponta da Fortalezaem Arraial do Cabo

RJ. Pages 133141 in J. S. V. Silva and R. C. C. L. Souza, editors. Agua

de lastro e bioinvasao. Editora Interciencia, Rio de Janeiro (in Por-

tuguese).

Fundacao Bio-Rio et al. 2002. Avaliacao e acoes prioritarias para a con-

servacao da biodiversidade das zonas costeira e marinha. Secretaria

de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministerio do Meio Ambiente, Braslia

(in Portuguese).

Haimovici, M., and S. Klippel. 2002. Diagnostico da biodiversidade

dos peixes teleosteos demersais marinhos e estuarinos do Brasil. In

Workshop para Avaliacao e Acoes prioritarias para a Conservacao da

Biodiversidade das Zonas Costeira e Marinha do Brasil. Technical re-

port (CD-ROM). Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministerio

do Meio Ambiente, Braslia (in Portuguese).

Hazin, F. H. V., J. R. Zagaglia, S. Hamilton, and T. Vaske-J unior. 2002.

Nectongrandes teleosteos pelagicos. In Workshop para Avaliacao

e Acoes prioritarias para a Conservacao da Biodiversidade das Zonas

Costeira e Marinha do Brasil. Technical report (CD-ROM). Secretaria

de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministerio do Meio Ambiente, Braslia

(in Portuguese).

Kempf, M. 1970. Notes on the benthic bionomy of N.E. Brazilian shelfs.

Marine Biology5:213214.Kempf, M., P. N. Coutinho, and J. O. Moraes. 1967. Plataforma continen-

taldo norte e nordestedo Brasil: nota preliminar sobre a naturezado

fundo. Trabalhos do InstitutoOceanograficoda Universidade Federal

de Pernambuco 9/11:926 (in Portuguese).

Lana, P. C., M. G. Camargo, R. A. Brongim, and V. J. Isaac. 1996. O ben-

tos da costa brasileira: avaliacao cr tica e levantamento bibliografico

(18581996). Fundacao de Estudos do Mar, Rio de Janeiro (in Por-

tuguese).

Lessa, R., F. M. Santana, G. Rincon, O. B. F. Gadig, and A. C. A. El-Deir.

2002. Biodiversidade de elasmobranquios do Brasil. In Workshop

para Avaliacao e Acoes prioritarias para a Conservacao da Biodi-

versidade das Zonas Costeira e Marinha do Brasil. Technical report

(CD-ROM). Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministerio do

Meio Ambiente, Braslia (in Portuguese).

Lewinsohn, T. M., and P. I. Prado. 2002. Biodiversidadebrasileira: sntesedo estado atual do conhecimento. Editora Contexto, Sao Paulo (in

Portuguese).

Marcgrave, J. 1942. Historia natural do Brasil. Museu Paulista da Univer-

sidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo (in Portuguese).

Migotto, A. E., and C. G. Tiago. 1999. Biodiversidade do estado de S ao

Paulo, Brasil: sntese do conhecimento ao final do seculo XX, 3:

invertebrados marinhos. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado

de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo (in Portuguese).

MMA( Ministerio do Meio Ambiente). 2003. Atlas dosrecifes de coral nas

unidades de conservacao brasileiras. A. P. L. Prates, editor. Ministerio

do Meio Ambiente, Braslia (in Portuguese).

Olmos, F., G. C. C. Bastos, and T. Neves. 2000. Estimatingseabird 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 Ornithology28:125152.

Pires-Vanin, A. M. S. 1993. A macrofauna bentica da plataforma conti-

nental ao largo de Ubatuba, Sao Paulo, Brasil. Publicacao Especial,

Instituto Oceanografico, Sao Paulo 10:137158 (in Portuguese).

Proenca, L. A. O., and L. F. Fernandes. 2004. Introducao de microalgas

no ambiente marinho: impactos negativos e fatores controladores.

Pages 7797 in J. S. V. Silva and R. C. C. L. Souza, editors. Agua de las-

tro e bioinvasao. Editora Interciencia,Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).

Rocha, J., J. D. Milliman, C. I. Santana, andM. A. Vicalvi.1975. In J.D. Mil-

liman and C. Summerhayes, editors. Upper continental margin sed-

imentation off Brazil. Contributions to Sedimentology4:111150.

Seeliger, U., C. Odebrecht, and J. P. Castello, editors. 1998. Os ecossis-

temas costeiro e marinho do extremo sul do Brasil. Editora Ecosci-

entia, Rio Grande, Brasl (in Portuguese).

Silva, P. P. 2004. From common property to co-management: lessons

from Brazils firstmaritimeextractivereserve. Marine Policy28:419

428.

Tavares, M., and J. B. Mendonca Jr. 2004. Introducao de crustaceos

decapodes exoticos no Brasil: uma roleta ecologica. Pages 5976

in J. S. V. Silva, and R. C. C. L. Souza, editors. Agua de lastro e bioin-

vasao. Editora Interciencia, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).



Documents

Amaral e Jablonski 2005