Journal of 22(2): 2H5-306 Winter 2002

ETHNOICHTHYOLOGY AND CONSERVATION IN THE PIRACICABA RIVER (BRAZILl

RENATO A. M. SILVA)\.1() and ALPINA BEGOSSI Nilcleo de Estudos e Pesquisas 11mbientais, University of Campitlas, C P. 6166, CPP: 13083 970, Campinas (SP),

ABSTRACT.~ The impounded portion of the Piradcaba River sustains a recently established smaU scale . The aims of this vlOrk are to \o"'€rity the knowledge of Piracicaba River fishennen about fish biology and behavior, and to compare this knowledge to scientific information. We interviewed 22 fishermen with ques­ tionnaires and photographs of ten fish species. The fishermen showed a detailed knowledge about fish diet predators, spatial and temporal distributions, repro­ duction and migratory patterns. Fishermen know better the common and com­ mercially valuable than the rare ones. Important factors influencing local ethnoichthyological knmvledge are the value and abundance of the fishes~ their usefulness in the fishery, and the frequency with which fishermen observe some of the biological attributes (such as feeding habits) of fishes. Much of the folk knmvledge agreed with observations from the scientifk literature, Fishermen un­ derstand the trophic relationships among native and exotic fish species, and they know the migratory patterns and the habitat preferences of the most valuable fishes, Such folk information may contribute to fishery management strategies, These results show that the folk knowledge held by small scale tropical fishermen is important for improving biological research. Key words: Ethnobiology, tropical freshwater fishes, fishery, reservoir! fresh\vater fishermen. RESUl'v10-A regHio represada do Rio Piracicaba sustenta uma pescaria comerdal de pequena escala~ estabeledda recentemente. Os objetivos deste trabalho eonsi.<;­ tern em: verifiear 0 conhecimento que os pescadores do Rio Piracicaba possuem sobre a biologia e comportamento dos peixes e comparar este conhecimento pop­ ular com as informac;:6es dentificas. Foram entrevistados 22 pescadores, atravCs de questionarios baseados em fotografias de dez especies de peixes, Os pescadores entrevistado5 apresentaram lim conhecimento detalhado sobre a diehl, preda­ dores, distribui<;ao espadai e temporat repr(xlu~ao e padroes migrat6rios dos peixes. Os pescadores conhecem melhor os peixes comuns e de "-'alar comeroal do que as espedcs raras. 0 valor e a abundiincia dos peixes, sua utilidade para o pescador, bem como a observa<;ao frequente pe]o pescador de atributos bio16­ gicos das €spccies abundantes, sao fatores importantes influendando 0 conheci­ mento etnoictiol6gico locaL Muitas das Informac;oes oriundas dos pescadores en~ contram-se de acordo com observa~oesregistradas na literatura cientifica. Os pes­ cadores conhffem bern as rela.;;oes alimentares entre espedes de peixes nativas e E'xotkas, bern como as padr5es migrat6rios e habitats preferendais dos peixes mais valiosos. Estas informa,Des populares podem contribuir para estrategias de mancjo da pesea. Estes resultados demonstram que mesmo pescarias tropkais de 286 SILVANO and IlEGOSSI Vol. 22, No.2

pequena escala e estabelecidas recentemente silo importantcs como um rcruTSQ cultural, que deve ser utilizado para guiar e auxiUar na pesquisa biol6gica.

RESUME.-La zone de retenue dl.l fleuve Piracicaba soutient une recente pecherie de petite echelle. Cette etude a pour but de determiner la (:oJUlaissance des pe­ meum du fIcuve Piracicaba en matiere de biologic et de comportement des pois­ sons ct de comparer ceUe connaissance populaire aux info.rmations scientifiques. NOlls avon'i interview€ 22 p&heurs en utiHsant des questionnaires et les photog­ raphies de dix especes de POis.."'ODS. Les pecbeurs interroges ont demontn? une connaissance detamee de I'alimentation des poissons, de leurs prcdateurs, de leur

repartition geographiques et temporellel et de leur mode de reproduction et de migration. Les pedleurs connaissent mieux Ies POisSDns ordinaires ct les poissons commerdaux qUE' les especes rares. L'etlmokhtyologif? loctlle depend essentielle­ ment de la valeur marchande et de Ifabondancc des poissons, de leur utilite pour

les pecheriesf et de )a frequence avec laqueUe ]es pecheurs observent <:ertains des attributs biologiques des poissons---'modes dfallmentation par exemple. Les con­ naissances papula-ires correspondent en grande partie aux observations scienti­ fiques, Les pecheurs comprennent 1es relations alimentaires entre Ie; especes in­ digenes et et les especes exotiques et Us connaisscnt les modes de migration et I'habitat prefere des poissons les plus prises, Les resultats de cettc etude mootrent que Ies connaissance populaire dans les pecheries tropicales de petite echelles peuvent contribucr aux strategies de gestion des pecheries et aux progres de la recherche biologique.

INTRODUCTION

Ethnobiological studies have been frnnishing new biological information about insects (Posey 1983), reptiles (Goodman and Hobbs 1994) and fish (Johannes 1981). Such informatiOfl, if properly interpreted using a biological sciences frame­ work, may be useful to biologists (Johannes 1993). Biological folk knowledge re­ mams little studied, and is being threatened by tbe disappearance of indigenous people or their customs, as well as by the influence of urbanization and market economy on resource-use strategIes (Joharnes 1978; Posey ]983; Wester and Yongvanit 1995), There are two ethnobiological theories dealing with tl'e basis of folk knowl­ edge. The utilitarian view argues tlu,t people should know useful organisms with more detail (Hunn 1982). The mentalistic view states that folk knowledge is pri­ marily influenced by factors other than the usefulness of the organisms, such as their ahundance in the environment (Berlin 1992). Ethnolchthyological research provides evidence that both river and marine small-scale fishermen have well established knowledge of fish biology and clas­ sifieation (Begossi and Caravello 1990; Johannes 1981; Paz and Begossi 1996). Comparative studies show that folk knowledge is usually in accord with scientific data (Marques 1991; Poizal and Baran 1997). For example, Pacifie island fisher­ men's information regarding marine helped scientists in the management of fish stocks (Johannes 198]). Northeastern Brazilian fishermen mentioned that the estuarine fish Arius herzbergii eats insecls (Ephemeroplera) during certain months of the year. This information was investigated and con- Winter 2002 IOURNAL OF ElliNOBIOLOGY 287

firmed by fish stomach content analysis, thus revealing a new food chain for tropical estuaries (Marques 1991). Biological research alone may not be sufficient to gather the amount of data required to manage most lropical nearshore marine , due to lack of time and money. In such cases, fishery management may be more successfully accom­ plished if it is also based on contributions from fishermen's knowledge (Johannes 1998). A similar situation occurs in tropical freshwater environments, such as South American rivers, where fishery management suffers from a scarcity of pub­ lished information on fish biology (Bayley and Petrere 1989; Bohlke et al. 1978; Petrere 1989). In this context, ethnoichthyological studies may be a useful man­ agement tool, bringing to light infomlation which may serve both as guidelines for biological research (Marques 1991; Poizat and Baran 1997) and as a quick and inexpensive way to assessing biological data (Chapman 1987; Johannes 1981, 1998). Southeastern Brazilian rivers and reservoirs drain industrialized regions and have been harvested by fishemlen, who typically live in small villages located near urban centers (Castro and Begossi 1995; Silvano and Begossi 1998; Vera et al. 1997). Such villages can be regarded as small "cultural units:' subject to a distinctive set of political, economic, social and ecological characteristics. The small scale commercial fishery at the impounded Piracicaba River Is of relatively recent origin, as it started around 1962 with the creation of the Barra Bonita ResL'fvoir (Torloni 1994). This fishery has been threatened by environmental mod­ ifications such as dam construction, pollution and deforestation (Silvano and Be­ gossi 1998). It is likely that the fishery will decline, with a concomitant loss of folk knowledge; this has already happened In the polluted upper Plracicaba River (Silvano 1997). We believe that such knowledge should be documented, consid­ ering its potential usefulness for fish conservation. The main objective of the pre­ sent study is to document the knowledge of Piracicaba River fishermen about fish biology and behavior. We also intend to investigate the basis for such knowledge, to compare it with ichthyological scientific data, and finally to point out some ethnolchthyologlcal information that may be applied to fishery management.

METHODS

The Piracicaba River in Southeastern Brazil is 115 km long, draining an ur­ banized region and receiving discharges of industrial effluents and domestic sew­ age. Barra Bonita Reservoir, created In 1962 with the damming of the lower Plr­ acicaba River, has small fishing villages with active fishermen living along Its banks (Silvano 1997). We carried out this study in two of these villages: Tanqua and Ponte de Santa Marla da Serra (Figure 1), inhabited by six and seven fisher families, respectively. These villages are located about 100 km from the city of Piracicaba, Sao Pau 10 State, southeastern BraziL fur details about the location of the study sites see Silvana and Begossi (1998). Many houses in both villages belong to tourists, being visited only during weekends and vacations (Silvana 1997). We interviewed men and women who fish now or had fished in the past. We developed a standardized questionnaire wilh six questions about fish diet, pred- 288 SILVANO and BEG()SSI VoL No,2

FIGURE of Brazil showing the Piracicaba River basin and the villages or Tanqua and Ponte de Santa Maria da Serra.

atorst seasonal occurrence, habitats, reproduction, and migratory movements, The ques.tions were asked in a manner understandable the interviewed fishermen, who were allowed to answer in as much time they wanted. For each fish, a color photograph was shown, in the same randomized order for all people interviewed. The questions were: 1) What is the name of this fish? 2} What does this fish 3) Which animals or other fishes prey on this fish? 4) Where does this fish live? TABLE L Fish useti for interviews, with their abundance and economic value. ------Abundance Economic Fish Conunon .ru\me n' % value' Astyanax bimoclilatus Characid"c lambari 21 10 (679) medium HoplilL'4 maiiWaricxis Erythrinidae traira 22 S (363) medium Liposarcus aff. anisH;;; Loricariidae cascudo (horn-scaled catfish) 22 11 (80l) mt"dium Pimdodus maculaius and P fur Pimelodidae mand! (catfish) 20 14 (955) low Plngioscion squ.a!1'1osissimus Sciaenidae coroina 21 18 (1289) medium Prochi1a{jus linel1lus Prochilodontidae corimbll 20 32 (2221 ) medium Rlwmdia sp_ Pimelodidae bagre (catfish) 22 0.1 (5) luw Salminus fflaxtllosu5 Characidae do.rado 22 0.8 (53) high Steindachnerina insculpta Curimatidae saguiru 22 0.6 (43) none Tilapia n""lalli Cichlidae tildpia 21 0.04 «5) low • n sa.mpJe si.lJ:" (number of interviewed fishermcf\)_ l'Values are percent of total fish tru'lSS landed in the two fishing villages, during 1994··1995 {SHvaoo 1997; Silv;;uto and Bcgossi 19981. ~ Economic value \V2lS assigned to the- following c;ltegoriQs~ none (dis

TABLE 2.--Comparison of the number of doubts amt-'ll"'lg ten fish species CX\. iHl~ 57; p < 0,01) and six biological attributes (X"'"" = 120; P < 0,01), ~--~~-~--~~-~ ....- Number Number Fish of doubts attributes of doubts .l1stymmx bimactdatus 9 diet 23 Haptia;; 11ffl/aixmcus 8 habitat 4 Lirrosarcus aff. anisitsi 11 migralion 23 Pimelodus spp. 9 predators 4 Pla::pO$cion squamosissimus 8 reproduction 66 Prochilodus lilU'atus 8 seasonal occurrence 13 Rllamdia sp. 23 Safmitlus maxillosus 12 Steinda.cJmerina insculpfa 9 rend

5) When is this fish found here? 6) Does this fish move along the river? To where'? Duration of interviews varied, depending on the knowledge and objectivity of the interviewed person. We selected ten fish species for study among the 43 reg~ i,tered in the Piraricaba River fish landings (Silvana 1997). They represent a wide range of fishes that are common and rare, native and exotic, great and small in size, valuable and discarded (Table 1), Comparisons along these gradients shauld prOVide some insight into factors influencing the acquisition and maintenance of fishermen's folk knowledge. 'The number of interviewed people varied slightly for the different fish species because some people could not complete the qllestion~ naire. We compared fishermen's information with data from the scientific litera­ ture, following Marques (1991). All fish mentioned in this study were callected and identified for verification,' The zoologist Ivan Sazima' identified the mammals and reptiles dted as fish predators, which were not collected. An..;wers given such as "I do not knowiJ (D~'K.) were considered uncertain knowledge, Considering that fishermen should best know the fish species ar bi­ ological aspects with the smallest number of DNK, we compared the number of DNK answers among the fish species and the biological attributes through a chi­ square test.

RESULTS

\AVe int€rvle\vcd 17 men and 5 women, corresponding to about 80°;;) of the resident fishers in the two villages. The common and scientific names, abundance, and economic value of the ten fish species sludied are listed in Table 1. Of these, the cascudo (horn~scaled catfish-Liposarcus afl. ilnisil5i, Loricariidae [Figure 2]), the corvilla (Plagioscion squamosissimus [Heckel], Sciaenidae [Figure 3]) and the tilapia (Till/pia rendalli [Baulenger], Cichlidae) are exotic to the Piracicaba River basin Considering the great variety of answers gathered, we show only those mentioned by at least 20% of interviewees. Faclors lnflll.Ctldng Folk Kllowledge.--Fishers showed mare doubts (less knowledge) about IIlapia rendoW and Rhanutia sp, (x' ,.oes = 57; P < 0.01; Table 2), which were Winter 2002 JOUR1'JAL OF ETHNOBIOLOCY 291

FCURE 2.-The ctlscudo, Lit'OslirrclJS afE iJ.nisitsi.

FIGURE 3.-The cotvin(/., Plagioscion squll11105lssimus. •

292 SILVANO and BEGOSSr Vol. No.2

otter fPhr)lfl,Ops ge,rfthouflus and (Lulra fon;!: fCl,/(d,'.~! l~)dr()mcdusa lecl!fera)

puanha (S"rrasalmtfS .fprfopleurUj

1'. squamo,.,ili'"imu.s H. malahmicU.> fish dna Insects (c) fjAn. crustaceous S, mm·iJfa.~Wf and insects (b1 fish {b}

36 piranha rSerrasallmts spi[op[euYa)

S. ir.sculpJI1 detritus (a} ___I [ insecLs J FIGURE 4.-~A simplified model of the food web in the Piradcllba River, following fish­ ermen's infonnation about sa,<:uiru diet and predators. Numbers inside small boxes corre­ spond to the percentage of interviewees that mentioned the respective trophic link Below the sdentific rmmes of some of the are fish diets reported in the scientific literature; letters refer to sources: (a) Fugi et 211. 1996; (b) Bistani et al. (c) 1995.

1 j :<: 5 Il !'5 S TABLE habits of the Piradcaba River fishes to the interviewed fishermen. Consumers Plagios" Steillda­ Lip<> cion Asf!fll' chnrr­ Prochi- sarcus Salmin- squama-- Harlia ::> Tilapia flax him­ ina in­ lodlLS arr Rharu- Pimclo- us max-- sissi- mala Piran- (5 Food items rcndalli aculntus slI/pla lineatus I1nisifsi di" sp. dus spp. i/losus mus baricfts Otter ha Turtles iii Z plant matter 33 29 23 ;» mud 48 55 85 86 36 65 r-' irt~ts 52 32 25 0 earthworms 40 "Ti en ur'lspedfied fishes 41 30 ~ Tilopia rcndalli 24 29 52 29 :=: Z Astyanax In'macuiatu..,;; 45 75 M 35 70 3S 0 Sfelndachnerinf1 insculptl1 36 45 64 41 73 23 Pmchilodus lilWatUS 20 80 65 35 5r Uposnrcus aff. anL'litsi 22

Rhamdia sp. 48 57 8-( Pime/odus 'pp. 45 70 75 40 Salminus maxi!losus 36 64 Plagioscion squamosissi1'fUiS 33 48 81 38 Hop/ias malabaricus 22 43 48 26 Note: The numbers correspond to the percentage of inl:crviewees who mentioned the respt:!ctivc trophic interaction. -_ __ _.__._------

294 SILVANO and BFGOSSI VoL 22, No, 2

rare and of low economic value (Table 1), Some of the best known fish species are of high economic value, such as the tra{ra (Hoplias malabaricus [Bloch], Ery­ thrinidae), Plagillsciml squamosissimus, the corimba (ProchilodllS lineatus Steindach­ ner, Prochilodontidae), and the lambari (Astyan,'x bimaculalus [Linnaeus], Chara­ cidae), or arc abundant in the fish landings, sud, as the mandi (catfish-Pimelodus spp" Pimelodidae; Tables 1 and 2), Considering biological aspects, fishermen had marc doubts about rCl'roduclion than about fish habitats and predators (X' ;,0,05 120; p < 0,01; Table 2), Cotnpllrison of Folk Knowledge with Biological Literature.-A simplified folk food web for thePiracicaba River fishes was constructed, based on fishermen citations re­ garding fish diets and predators, Eadl link of the food web, represented by ar­ rO\\'5,. corresponds to a certain proportion of fishermen's responses during inter­ views, The width of the arrows reflects the proportion of citations referring to a particular fceding relationship, In Figure 4 and Table 3, the fish diets according to scientific literature (letters referring to the sources) are presented below the fish scientific names, There are four levels in the food web: primary consumers, primary carnivores. secondary carnivores and top predators, allowing the assign­ ment of feeding guilds for the fishes, It was possible to distinguish food specialist (one or two kinds of food) from generalist (three or more kinds of food) fishes, Specialists were Plsclvorous (Plagioseion squmnesi!lsimas, Hoplias malabarieus, the dourado [Sa/minus maxillosus, Valenciennes]) and detritivorous (Procl1ilodlls Jinell1us, LiflOsarclLs aff. anisitsi) species, Generalists were omnivorous fishes such as Pime­ Icdus spp., the bagre (0 catfish-Rhamdia sp,. Pimelodidae), and Astyanax bimacu latus (CharacidaeJ, Fishermen mentioned about 23 species of fish predators, corresponding to 11 fishes, 5 birds, 4 reptiles and 3 mammals, the most cited being represented in figure 4, Accordingly with, respectively 35, 26 and 17% of fishermen, piranhas (Serrasalmus spllopleura [Kner], Characidae; Figure 5), otter (Liltra /ongiCiwdis [01­ fers]), and turtles (Pl1rynops geoffroamls ISchweigger] and Hydrmneduso tectifera [Copell usually attack fishes that are entangled in the nets, The piranha, the most cited predator, preys on all len fish species studied, Fishermen mentioned a great diversity of habitats occupied by the fishes, which could be separated inlo lacustrine (HOfllias ma/aharicw;, Liposarms aff, anis­ Itsi, Steindachnm'ilW i1Jscalpta, Tilapia rondalli), stream (Astyanax bimacu/ntus, Rhamdia sp,), and river (Prochilodus li1Jeatus, Salmi1Jus maxillosus, Pimelodus spp) species, with A bimllCulatus and Plagwscion squamos!ssimus being mentioned as habitat gen­ eralists (see Table 4), We observed that fishermen distingUished among migratory and sedentary fish species. and they recognized many kinds of fish migratory movements, from great longitudinal to short lateral migrations (Figure 6), According to fishermen's answers regarding seasonality, Pimelodus spp, occur mainly in the winter, H, mal­ abaril:us and P squanws1ssimus were common during spring, whereas P. linea/us and S, maxillosus were most abundant in summer. The seasonal occurrence of the migratory P. lineatus and $, maxillosus was associated with rainfall (Table 5). As mentioned in the section above, we had fewer answers about fish repro­ duction than about other biological characteristics, In spite of this, fishermen did I I ___l. Winter 2002 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 295

FIGURE :'5.-The piran1ta, Serrasa/mlls spi/op/eura. mention that the majority of Piracicaba River fishes repmduce during sum.mer, whicll generally agrees with published data (Table 6).

DISCUSSION

Foctors Influencillg Folk Knowledge.-··Dur indicate that the folk knowledge of Piradcaba River fishermen is more detailed for abundant and useful spE~ie:s, especially those that are commercially valued. Sim.ilarly';. river and maritime Bra­ zilian fishermen classify useful fish with more detail (Begossi and Figul~iredo 1995; Begossi and GaraveUo 1990). With regard to biological aSJ::)ect:s, information about fish reproduction may be difficult for Piradcaha River fishermen to acquire, since fish reproduce infrequently in time, Furthermore, knowing when fish lay eggs has no direct usefulness to the fishery. Conversely, information about fish habitat is inlportant for the Piradcaha River fishermen, as a good catch depetids 011 the fishermen's ability to set gillnets in appropriate places, Elsevvhere, researchers have shOVlin that knowledge about fish spatial distribution influences river, maritime and es­ tuarine fishing (Chapman 1987; Marques 1991; Petrere 1990). Tech­ niques of attracting wanted fish species by increasing aquatic habitat heteroge­ neity were documented for fishing communities from the northeastern Brazilian estuary (Martlues 1991), African lagoons (Hem and Avit 1994) and India maritime coast (Cruz et aL 1994). Such habitat manipulation does not occur in the Piradcaba River fishery, perhaps due to its recent nature. Piracicaba fishermen showed a good knowledge about the saguiru (Steirulach- TABLE 4.-Fish habitats accordingly to fi~hers' answers and scientific literature. Vaiw~s in parenthesis are percent of fishermen that quoted a narti,cul'ar habitat. (Numbers of fishermen intervievvcd for each fish are in Table 1.) Fish species l1abitat according to fishermen Habitat recorded in biological literature Astyanax biuUlculatus sLTC..1m (38), any hahitat (29), main river chan- wide distribution; streams, temporary pounds, reservoirs, nel (24), near the shore (24) quiet and fast waters, surface and l'niddle water (Uicda 1984; Agostinho et al. 1995) HOlllias malabaricus shallow walers (55), lagoon (50), among the lagoons, reservoirs, temporary pounds, shallow waters vegetation (50), on the bottom's mud (50), (Resende et aI. 1996), arnong the vegetation, on the bot­ near the shore (27) tom (Dieda 1984), near the shore during dry periods (Fink and Fink ]979) Liposarcus aff. anisitsi rocks (5S), lagoon (36), among the vegetation not fmmd (36) PitUi.~lodus spp. main river channel (60), on the hottom (50), main river channel, reservoirs (Agostinho et a1. 1995) on shallow waters (20) the bottom (Ba rella et at 1994) PlagioReion squamosissimus main river channel (38), On the bOllom (29), wide distribution; quiet water habitats, such as reservoirs any place (29), ncar the shore (24) and lagilims; among submerged rocks and gravel, open 'waters, near the shon~ (Torloni et a1. 1993) Prochilodus lineatus among submerged logs (60), lagoon (30), main adults occupy rivers, juveniles occurs in lagoons (Agos~ river channel (25) tinho et at 1995), feed on the bottom, among the vege­ tation and submerged logs (Fugi et at 19%) Rhamdia sp_ stream (45), main river channel (32), rocks (32) streams (Ag{.)Stinho et a!' 1995), on the bottorn near the shore (Costa 1987) Sa/minus maxillosus main river tnannel (59), fast waters (45), on Rivers, fast waters (Agostioho et at 1995) the bottom (36), shallow waters (27) Steindadmerina ittsL'Ulpta lagoon (36), shallow waters (32) near the shore Reservoirs, on the bottom and at middle waler (Agostin­ (32), main river channel (27) ho et at ]995) Tilapia renda/Ii lagoon (48), among the vegetation (38) Streams, reservoirs, lakes, (Uieda 1984; Romanini 1989), shoals of in shallow waters near the shore, among the vegetation (Uieda et aL 1989) Winrer 2002 JOU&'JAL OF ETHNOBIOLOCY 297

MlU~inlll LagDlms

Barra B...nita Resc.YV

dot, not nngrate

F',me!ov1ab ,pp.(65) h S ilIsculpla (55) A bimacul(l1W1 (52, L aft ams{tst f45) P squamo!JiJiSltHU,08) Rhamdi(1 $1', {32:, r. n':l1;iiJilt (24)

FIGURE 6.~Fish migratory movements according to Piradcaba River fishermen. Numbers in parentheses are the percentages of interviewees that pointed out the movement for the respel:t1\'e fish Letters refer to the scientific sources that with the information given by the (a) Vazzoler and Menezes (b) lY75; (cl Petrere 1985i (d) Agostinho et al. 1995. nerlna inseu/pta; Table 2). This fish has no commercial value and usually is dis­ carded. Saguiru (fishes from family, including S. insculpta) com­ prised about of the total catch in the Barra Bonita reservoir fishery during 1985 and 1986, declining afterwards (Silvano and Begossi 1998). This decrease in abundance suggests that saguiru could have been more abundant or important in the past. knowing the habits and behavior of a prey species like S. insculpta can help Piradcaba fishermen to find piscivorous and valuable such as Haplias malabari.cus .. Plagiosdon ,<;quamosissimus and SlIJminus l1U1Xil- Amazon fishermen usually track small prey fishes in order to find want- ed pisdvorous ones (Goulding 1979). Fishermen also kno1;v in detaiI fish diets and predators (Table 2), although such information may not be directly useful, as Piradcaba fishermen usually do not use bait. Information about fish feeding relationships may have an indirect value in the fi"hery, however, as the diet of a fish is usually r<~lated to its habitat. Furthermore, fishermen can minimize fish loss from predator attacks if they avoid setting gillnets in places ,·vith high predator abundance, Notwithstanding such proposed usefulness, the observed detailed folk knowledge regarding feeding l'elationships can be also merely due to a frequency of observation: fishermen frequently clean fish and see stomachs contents, and predators are also commonly observed eating fish erdangled in the gillnets, Concerning the conflict of mental­ istic versus utilitarian views in ethnobiology, Clement (1995) argued that both utility and observed such as color and morphology could influence folk biological being associated aspects of the same process. Perhaps this TABLE 5.·--·rish seasonal occurrence according with fishers answers and fish landing data (Silvano V"lucs in pal:'Cnth€~siSiilrt-' the pel'r<:llt of fishermen that a. 5l:'aoon. (Number of fishl:.'rmen interviewed for each fish are In 'Jable Season of abundance' Fish Fishermen answers A.styanax bimacull1tus summer (62), spring wet season (29), all the year (29) surnm€f, autumn, Hupllas miflllbariclls spring (73), low water se,lson (32), summer winter (27) winter, UtWS,,.U'U5 aff. tmisi!si wei ~ca,.(}n all Uw yl:,,1r (27), spring (27), winter (27), summer winter, spring Pimelodiltt> spp. ,·'!.'inter summer (20) winter spring summer (38), wint('f (33), all the year (29) autumn, spring spring summer (55), winter (20), Wt~t season (20) spring, summer l?hamdia sp. wet season summer (27), all the year (27), SCllrCt' (27) autumn, wintl;'r, spring (scarcr.:) Salminus maxillosus summer wet season (32), spring (32), scarCt, (27) summer (srflfCt') SIe1lldm:fmerinfl insct/itlt" summer all the year (36), (27) discarded rel'ldalli scarce winter (S(,lH'Ci.~)

"Seasons arc- deJint;d db follows: summer (I)ec?mber, or Febmary), spring October I}r Novefnbcr), wet season (from November to March), tow wal<"r :Wilson (from August to November), V,'1ntcr (June, July or August), auhm111 Mayor April}. TABLE 6.-·-Fish reproductive period according to the fishermen answers and from the scientific literature. Values in parentheses are percent of fishermen that quoted a particular sea<:on. (Number of fishermen interviewed for ea(n fish species ilTe in Table L Seasons are specified in 'lable 4.) Reproductive period Fisb fishermen answers literature AsfYllnax bimaculatus wet season (Godoy 1975) Hoplias malabtlricus September and October (Barmeri 1989) Liposarcu,s af£. anisitsi not found Pime/adu. spp. not found Plagioscion sqw.l11'lOsissinws Noven'\ber to~bruary (summer) (Braga 1997) f'rocltilodu5 lineal us spring (November), Slimmer (Agostinbo el at 1995) Rhamdia sr. spring~ summer (Narah<1.ra 1983) Salminus maxillvsus spring, summer (Godoy 1975) Steimlnchnerina insculpta not found renda11i" not found 300 SIL VANO and BEGOSSJ Vol. 22, No.2

condusion could be also applied to the Piradcaba River fishing villages studied. There, the acquisition of folk knowledge about fish may be associated with the frequency of observation of biological events, whereas diffusion and maintenance of this knowledge possibly depends on its direct usefulness for the fishermen. Besides exploiting a recent and constantly changing environment, Piradcaba River fishermen exhibited a developed knowledge about fish, even for exotic spe­ d€8, such as Plagioscion squamosissimu5 and LiposarCl-lS aff. anisitsi. This indicates that folk knowledge has been diffusing in qUick and efficient ways among such small fishing villages in southeastern BraziL

Comparison of Folk KnfYWledge with Biologica! Literalure.-Piracicaba River fishermen recognized several trophic relationships among fishes. Such relationships form a complex food web, with approximately four levels and several links. Marques (1991, 1995) also recognized complex food webs, with five levels, based on the information provided by estuarine and river fishermen of northeastern Brazil. Tropical river fishes have complex and diverse trophic relationships (Lowe­ McConnell 1987). At least some of this complexity is revealed through etlmobiol­ ogieal research, which indicates aspects deserving further investigation. Accord­ ing to the Piradcaba fishermen, detritus is at the basis of the food chain, being the main food for primary consumers and comprising the bulk of the diets of Prochilodus lineal us and UI'0sarcus aff. anisil.i (Figure 4, Table 3). This agrees with biological studies, which show that detritivorous fish, such as prochilodontids and loricariids, are the basis of many tropical aquatic food webs, being important in nutrient recyding (Bowen 1984; Catella and Petrere 1996; F1ecker 1996). Thus we can expect, based on our etlmoichthyological information, that detritus is an es­ sential energy source to Piracicaba River fish and fishery, as observed in other tropical, undisturbed wetlands (Duque et aL 1998). The Serrasalmus spilol'!eura was the main fish predator men­ tioned by the Piraeicaba River fishermen, who said lhat S. spilol'lPura bites off pieces of fish, preferring caudal fins (accordirlg to 17% of interviewees). The pro­ liferation of this fish may be an effect of Piradcaba River damming, as serrasal­ mids often increase in abundance after a river is dammed (Santos 1995; Sazirna and Zamprogno 1985). As mentioned by Piracicaba River fishermen, S. spilapleura was observed feeding opportunistically on a variety of other fish species, muti­ lating the fishes and biting off pieces of the caudal fins (Sazima and Machado 1990; Sazima and Pombal 1988). At the Pantanal Wetlands, t11e serrasalmids exert a great int1uence on aU fish communities, constraining the behavior and use of space of various fish spe<:ies (Sazima and ]\·1achado 1990). Our results suggest a similar effect of S. spilopleura predatory beluwior on the Piracicaba River fishes, which inhabited a dammed river. The otter, Lulra !ougiaJudis, was also quoted by most of the Piradcaba River fishermen as a fish predator. Emmons (1990) observed that L longicawIis is an aqnatic mammal that feeds ptt'dominantly on fish, with diurnal and nocturnal habits, inhabiting clear water and running rivers" Furthermore,. this species is currently threatened, mainly by habitat destruction, and its biology and ecology are poorly known (Fonseca et a!. 1994). Considering that 1. longicaudis is usually rare in silt-laden lowland rivers (Emmons 1990), such as the Piracicaba, fisher- \.'Vinter 2002 JOURNAL OF HHNOBIOLOGY 301

men's infonnation indicates that of this mammal species may still occur in the dammed and polluted Piradcaba River. This information may be useful in reinforcing the need to conserve and restore the ecological integrity of the Piracicaba River Basin, through reduction in water pollution and protedion of the riparian forests, Piracicaba River fishermen assodated the seasonal OCcurrence of large migra­ tory fishes with the rainfall period, thus using climatic clues to predict fish tem­ poral abundance, In fact, an increase in rainfall is one of the factors that releases the reproductive stimulus and migratory behavior of these fishes (AgDstinho et at. 1995; Welcomme 1985), Climatic factors, such as winds, floods and tides are essential clues to assess the migratory movements of the fishes that sustain es­ tuarine fisheries in northeastern Brazil (Cordell 1978; Marques 1991) and even for a maritime turtle fishery in Nicaragua (Nietschmann 1972), Piradcaba River fishermen also mentioned some unknoV','Il biological features, such as the timing of reproduction of Piffle/adus spp, and Tilapia rcndal/l, the mi­ gratory movements of Rltamdia sp, and T. remU/lIi, and all the biological charac­ teristics of Lipos1rcus aff, anisilsi. We also observed some contradictions between fishennen's answers and the biological literature, especially with respect to mi­ gratory behavior, an aspect poorly known to biologists, For example, fishermen mentioned Astynrtax binwcu/IlJus as migratory (Figure 6), although it has been re­ garded as sedentary (Vazzoler and Menezes 1992), In these cases, biological re­ seardl could be conducted at the Piracicaba River in order to verify whether fishermen's assertions match scientific observations,

CONCLUSIONS CONCERNtNG AND FISH CONSERVAIION

As dL.scussed previously, information acquired with Piradcaba River fisher­ men about fish biology is generally supported by the scientific literature, espe­ cially regarding fish diet and habitat. Even considering that biologists often deal vvith the same genus or species from other rivers, the observed concordance be­ tween folk and scientific knowledge indicates that folk knowledge probably ap­ proaches biological reality, and provides useful support for fishery management decisions. We thus could point out at least three areas where these results would be useful for fish conservation and fishery management actions on the Piradcaba and other rivers: seasonality, effects of exotic fishes, and and hab­ itat.

Quick Appraisal of Seasonal Fish Occurwue,-Folk information about the seasonal occurrence of fish at the Piradcaba River agreed with fishery data recorded dur­ ing one year (Table 5), This agreement indicates that an ethnoichthyoJogical survey may be a useful way to monitor fish species abundance when there is not suffi­ dent time or money to gather detailed fishery data or experimental fish samplmgs, Poizat and Baran (1997) also observed fishermen folk knowledge was consistent with the results of an experimental fishing survey concerning the spatial and temporal distribution of African estuarine fishes. 302 SILVANO and BEGOSSI Vol. 22, No, 2

Estimates of the Effects of Exotic Fishes on Naliue Fish Fauno,~lnvasion or introduction of fish into tropical rivers and reservoirs had been often prejudicial to the native ichthyofauna, which usually suffers the adverse effects of predation and compe­ tition from exotic species (lowe-McConnell 1993; Stiassny 1996). Human induced environmental changes, such as the damming of a river, could favor the prolif­ eration of exotic species (Crivelli 1995), Currently, there is lack of biological studies directed to the interactions with native and non-native fishes for the majority of Brazilian river basins wbere fish introductions have occurred. The corvino (Pla­ gioscion squamosissimus) and the coseudo (Liposarcus aft, anisitsi) are exotic to the Piracicaba River basin, originating, respectively, in the Brazilian Amazon and Up­ per Parana basins. While the fonner was intentionally introduced with the pur­ pose of enhancing fishery yields (Torioni 1994), the latter possibly had invaded the Piradcaba River. The abundance of the corvino and the ca.cudo in the fish catches on the Pirncicaba River increased respectively after 1986 and 1993 (Silvano and Begossi 1998), The dissemination of these exotic taxa probably had been af­ fE.cting the native fish community, yet we do not exactly know the nature and extent of those effects. Although Jl squarncsissimu5 was studied by Braga (1995), the biology of L aff. an;sils; remains unknown, In the present study we provided folk information about the biology 01 these two species. We believe that such information, if properly interpreted and checked with scientific findings, could help in the understanding of the interactions between exotic and native fish spe­ cies in the Piracicaba River basin. According to the majority of fishennen interviewed, detritus is a maio food sourCe for the exotic Liposareus aff, anisitsi and the native corimbata (Procltilodus li>1catus), suggesting that these two species may have been competing for food. This information should be tested through biological studies, considering the im­ portance of the corimbata to the Piracicaba River fishery (Silvano 1997). Small charadform fishes, such as Astymmx bimaculalus and Steindax:hnerina in­ sculpta, were mentioned by Piracicaba fishermen as important prey species for piscivorous fish, including the introduced Amazonian fish, Plugiasdon squamosis­ s;mus (Figure 4), Braga (1995) conducted a study of the P. squal1loslssimus diet through stomach contents analysis, observing that A. blmDeu/atus was one of its main food items. This feeding interaction was also mentioned by 75% of the Piracicaba River fishermen interviewed, Furthermore, respectively 80% and 45% of fishermen mentioned A. bimaeulatus as food for Hoplil15 malabaru:us and Salminus rnaxittosus, two native Piracicaba Rive, piscivorous fishes (fable 3). This study thus indicates that the introduction 01 P. squamosissimus may have been adversely af­ fecting the native Piradcaba River fish community, both through predation pres­ sure on the A. hinwculatus and competition for food with H. malabaru:us and S. maxillasus. In other tropical freshwater habitats, such as the African lakes, the introductioll of predatory fish species severely disrupted the fisheries and caused the extinction of many native fish species (Lowe-McConnell 1993).

In,ffmnation about Fish Habilats ami Migratory BeIUlVior.~Piracicaba fishermen fur­ nished information about fish habitat preferences and migratory routes, A con­ siderable amount of effort is necessary to assess this kind of data throllgh biolog­ ical research. Piradcaba River fishennen Inentioned that the aquatic vegetation is Winter 2002 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 303

a habitat for Hoplias malabaricus, Liposarcus aff. anisitsi and Tilapia retutalli Clable 4), plus Plagiosclon s'luamosissimus (19%), Proehiladus lineatlls (15%) and Steindach·· naina insellipta (18%). The aquatic vegetation is an important refuge and feeding ground for freshwater fishes (Junk et al. 19K1; Lowe-lvlcConneIl1987; Sazima and Zamprogno 1985), which reinforces the need for biological studies directed at corroborating or refuting the suggested importance of riparian and submerged vegetation for the Piracicaba River fishes. There is need for detailed studies of fish migration in the Piracicaba and in other Brazilian rivers. Our results may help in filling this gap, as Piracicaba fish­ ennen mentioned nine fish species as migrating up and down the river, especially Prochilodus linealus and Salminus maxilloslIs; P lineatus also moves betvveen the river and marginal lagoons (Figure 6). Both these species must migrate in order to reproduce (Vazzoler and Menezes 1992), and juveniles of P lineatlls grow in mar­ ginal lagoons, moving to the river when adults (Agostinho et al. 1995). Fisher­ mens answers indicate that P. lineatus and S. maxillosus may be undergoing mi­ grations in the Piracicaba River, in spite of the darn dowl18tream. This h}'P0thesis should be verified through migratory studies, in order to support management measures directed to ensure the continuity of the migrations and the reproduction of these two commercially important fish species. Our study demonstrates that ethnoichthyological knowledge is not only re­ stricted to indigenous fishing people, which harvest the same region over the course of centuries or millennia, Small-scale commercial fishermen also show a detailed folk knowledge, even over the course of a few generations. Tropical ar­ tisanal fisheries have been widely subjected to external influences, such as habitat degradation and market pressure, which have threatened not only the fish stocks, but also the fishing communities. It is an imperative task to document and inter­ pret fishermen's folk knowledge, especially in the tropics, for it could enable sci­ entists to work together with fishermen in devising measures aimed at conserving both the fish and fishing culture.

NOTES

Erratum. In this artide, the term "fishermen" designates both the men and the women interviewed in the Piracicaba River fishing communitics_

j Voucher specimens are deposited at the fish collection of the Museu de Zoologia da Univ­ ersidade de Sao Paulo (MZUSP), CP 42694, 04299-970, Sao Paulo (SP), BraziL Only Salmin"s maxillosus was not collected; it was identified \vith color photographs.

::' Dr. Ivan Sazima, D€partame-nto de Zoologia andI\,tuseu de Hist6ria Naturat Universidade Estadual de Campinas, c.P. 6109, 13083-970, Campinas (SP), Brazil.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are given to the fishermen from P(mte de Santa :rv'laria da Serri;l and Tanqua for their friendship and kindl.y collaboration for this work.. to L. Sanchez; 'v",ho introduced R.A.MS to the fishers; to 0. T. Oyakawa, for hetp with fish species identifications, to 1. Sazima, for help with fish species identifications and valuable suggestions, to M. Petrerc p ,

SILVANO and BEGOSSI Vol. 22, No.2

Jr. and M. M. Habib for valuable suggestions; to CAPES and FMB for scholarships 10 RAM.s., to CNI'Q for a research productivity scholarship to A.B., and to FAPESI' and I'AOCT-Finep for financial support of the fieldwork.

REFEl

Agostlnho~ Angelo Antonio~ Anna Emilia Bowen, S.H.19S4. Detritivory in neotropi­ de Amato Moraes Vazzoler, and Sidinei cal fish communities. In Eoolutionary Magela Thomaz. 1995. The high river Ecology of Neotropical Fresfnrnter Fishes, Parana basin: limnological and khthy­ ed. T. M. Zaret, PI'. 59--66. Dr. W. Junk ologieal aspects. In Limnology i1'1 Brazil" Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands. eds. J.G Tundisi, CE.M. Bkudo, and Braga, Francisco l\l1.anuel de Souza. 1995. M. Matsumura-Tundisi, PI" 59-10. Biologia e pesca da COfvina Piagioscion ABC/SBL, Rio de Janeiro, BrazH. squamosissimus (Te1eostei, Sciaenidae) Barf?ierir Geraldo. 1989. Dinamica da re­ na represa de Barra Bonita, Rio Piraci­ prodw;:ao e crescimento de Hoplias mal­ caba (51'). Ph.D. Dissertation (Zoology) abaru:lIS (Bloch, 1794) (, Er­ Universidade EstaduaI Paulista, Rio ythrinidae) da represa do Monjolinho, Claro, sao Paulo, Brazil. Sao Carlos (51'). &'Visla Brasileira de -'~'-. 1997. Biologia reprodutiva de 1'1.1­ b1ologia 6:225-233. gioscivl1 squamosissimus (Teleostei, BarrelJa, ·Walter, Antonio Carlos Beaumord, Sciaenidae) na Represa de Barra Bonita, and Miguel Petrere, Jr. 1994. Compari­ Rio I'iracicaba (51'). Revista UNIMAR son between the fish communities of (lv!£lringii) 19:447-460. Manso River (MT) and Jacare Pepira Castro, Fabio de and Alpina Begossi. 1995. River (51'), Brazil. Acta blOlagica L~I1eZUe .. Ecology of fishing at Rio Grande (Bra­ lana 15:11-20. zil): technology and territorial rights. Bayley, Peter B. and Miguel Petrere Jr. 1989. Fisheries Research 23:361-373. Art'l.azon fishedes: assessment methods, Catella, AC. and M. Petrere, Jr. 1996. Feed­ current status and management options. ing patterns in a fish community of Baia Canadian Special Publicatii.ms it! Fisheries da On<;a, a floodplain lake of the Aqui­ and A1!lIatic Sciences 106:385-·398. dauana River, Pantanal, Brazil. Fisheries Begoss!, Alpina and JUlio c. Garavello. lVlanagemmt ilnd Ecology 3:229-237. 1990. Notes on the ethnoicthyology of Chapman, Margaret D. 1987. Women's fish­ fishers from the Tocantins River {Bra­ ing in Oceania. 15:267~ zil). Acta Amazonica 20:341-351. 288. Begossi, Alpina and Jose L. Figueiredo. Clement, Daniel. 1995. Why is taxonomy 1995. Ethnoichthyo10gy of southern utilitarian? coastal fishers: cases from Bt1zios Island joumal of Elhflobiology15:1­ and Sepetiba Bay (Brazil). Bulletin of 44. Marhu' Science 56:710-717, Cordell, J. 1978. Carrying capacity analysis Berlin, Brent. 1992. Ethnobiolvgiml Classifi­ of fixed-territorial fishing. 17: cation. Principles of Categorization of 1-24. Plants arid Animals in Traditional Sodetes. Costil, Wilson J.E.M. 1987. Feeding habits Princeton Universit\-' Press, Princeton. of a fish community in a tropical coa.,;;t­ Bistoni, Maria de los A~geles, Jose Gustavo 81 stream, Rio IVfato Grosso, Brazil. Haro and Mercedes Gutierrez, 1996, Studies on Neotropical Fauna and EJrviron~ AmUisis comparativo de la dieta de Ho~ ment 22:145-153. pUas malabarieus y Salminus maxillosus Crivelli, A.I. 1995. Are fish introductions a (Pisces: Characidae) en los bafiados del threat to endemic freshwater fishes in rio Duke (Cordoba, Argentina). NeDtr6­ the northern Mediterranean region? Bi~ pica 42:17-21. ologicai Consern?tion 72:311-319. Bohlke, lames Eo, Stanley H. Weitzman and Cruz, Tillo d'. Steve Creech and John rer­ Naercio A. l>1enezes. 1978. Estado atllill nandez. 1994, Cornparison of catch rates da sistematica dos peixes de agua doce and species composition from artificial

da America do SuI. Acta Amazonica 8: and natural reefs in Kerala r India. Buf­ 657-677. feti" of MaritIR Science 55:1029-1037. -1

Winter 2002 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBJOLOCY 305 I

Duque, Aniello Barbarino, Donald C Ta­ ~'~-~', 1993. Integrating traditional eco­ phorn, and Kid 0. Winemiller. 1998. logical knowledge and Ecology of the coporo, Pmchilodus mat­ with environmental impact aSSt'Ssment. We (Charadformes, Prochilndontldae) [n Traditional Ecohrgical Knowledge: Con­ and status of annual migrations in cepts and ed. J.T. Inglis, pp. 33--39. Western\ienezucla. Environmental Biol­ Canadian Museum of Nature, Canada, ogy of Fishes 53:33-46. 1998. The case for data-less marine Emmons, Louise II. 1990. Neotropical Rain­ resource management: examples from fares! Mammals, A field Guide. Universi­ tropical nearshore finfisheries. Tretlds in ty of Chicago Press, Chicago. Ecology and £wlution 13:243-246, Fink William L. and Sara V. Fink 1979. Cen­ Junk, Wolfgang L Gerdlia M. Soares, and tral Amazonia and its fishes. C'omparatillIJ Francisco M. Carvalho. 1983. Distribu­ Biochemi'ltr!l PhysiolJJgy 62A:13-29. tion of fish species in a lake of the am­ Fleckr, Alexander S. 1996. Ecosystem en­ a:wn river tloodplain near Marums ¢neering bv a dominant deti·itivore in (lago Camaleao), with reference a diverse tropical stream. 77: to extreme oxygen Altll1Zmi- 1845-1854. iana 7:397-431- Gustavo A B., Anthony B. Ry­ Lowe-McConnelL RH. 1987. Ecological lands! Claudia M.R Ricardo R Studies in Communties, Machado, and Yuri L.R Leite (cds.). Cambridge University Press, Cam­ 1994. Liprc; Vermelfw dos Mamlf€;rQs Bras­ bridge. ileiros Amea~"dos de Extilll,:iio. Funda.;;ao --. 1993. Fish fatmas of the African Biodiversitas, Belo Brazil. Great Lakes: and vul­ Rosemara, Norma Segatti Hahn, and nerability. Omsertt

306 SILVANO and BEGOSSI Vol. 22, No. 2

Kayap6 da aldeia de Gorohre, Rio Fres­ de Campinas, Instituto de Biologia, co, Para. Bo/ctim do Museu Paraense Em­ Carnpinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil. ~ ma Goddi.. S{'ric Anfropo16gica (Belem) 6: Silvano, Renato A.M. and Alpina Begossi. 6-17. 1998. The artisanal fishery of Piracicaba Poizat, G and E. Baran, 1997. Fishermen's River (sao Paulo, Brazil): fish landing knowledge as background information in composition and environmental alter­ tropical fish ecology: a quantitative com­ ations. Italian Journal of Zoology 65:527­ panson with fish sampling results. Erwi· 531. ronmel1tal Biology of Fishes 50;435--449. Stiassnv, ~M.L.J. 1996. An overview of fresh­ Posey, D.A. 1983. Indigenous knowledge wat'er biodiversity: with some lessons fish~s. :7~13. and development: an ideological bridge from African FfsJten'es 21 to the future. CWrn:ia e Cult"ra 35;877­ rorlom, c.E. 1994. !>1anagement of the fish­ 894. ing resources in CESrS reservoirs. In ftVork.'~h()p: Resende, E.K" RA,C. Pereira" VL.L Al­ Brazilir/fl PrQgramlJU' 011 Om­ sertution i1n+tManagem,,"'J'It of Inland ~'\il­ meida. and AG Silva. J996. Alimenta"lo tel'S, ed. FA Barbosa, pp. 177-186. Acta de peixes carniiufOS da plan/cie inundavel do rio Aiiramie, Pantanal do Mato Grosso Urn.nologka Brasiliensia V, FWlda<;ao Biodivi.-"rSitas, Belo-Horizonte, Brazil. do Sui, Brasil. EMBRAPA-CPAP (Boletim Torlon;, C.E c., J.J Santo&, A.AC Junior, de Pesquisa 03), Corllmlla, !>1ato Grosso and A.RA Correa. 1993. A pescada do do SuI, Brazil. Piaut Plagiosc:ion squamosissimu.s (Heck­ Romaninj. r.u. 1989. Distribui.;ao e ecolo­ el, J840) (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) nos fe­ gia alimentar de peixes no Reservi1torio senXt!i'wio$ ria Conlpat1hiu Energctim de sao de Americana, Sao Paulo, Ph.D. DlSser­ Paulo-CESP serie Pesqtlisa e DeseDvol­ billion (Biology) Universidade de sao vimento,084, CESP, sao Paulo, Brazil Paulo, lnstituto de Biociencias, Sao Pau­ Uieda, Virginia Sanches. 1984. Ocorrencia e lo, Brazil. distribui,ao dos pcixes em urn riacha Santos, Geraldo Mendes. 1995. Impaclos da de agua doce. Reolsta brasileira de biologia hidreletrica SaI'Huel sobre as COITtuni­ 44:203-2J3. dades de peixes do rio Jamari (Rondon­ Uieda, Virginia S" \,Vilson Uieda, Otavio ia, Brasil). Acta Amazon;ca 25;247-280. Froelich and Maria Eugenia C AmaraL Sazima, Ivan and Jose P. Pombal, Jr. 1988. 1989. Oro-aniza,ao de carduInE's em Ti~ lvfutila~o de nadadeiras em acarasj lapitl renZm na represa de Americana.. Geophagu5 brasWensis, por piranhas, $er­ sao Paule. Rcvista brasileira de biologia 49: rasalmus spilop!cura. Revis/a brasildra de 749-756. biologia 48:477-483. Vazzoler, Anna Em:llia A. de M. and Naer­ Sazima, Ivan and Francisco A. MachZldo, do A, Iv!enezes. 1992. Sintcsc de Cl}[l­ 1990. UndeTW'ater observations of pira­ hecimentos sobre 0 comportamento re­ nhas in western Brazil EmJiromw.:nta! produtivo dos Characifurmes da Amer­ Biology of Fishc5 28:17-31. ica do Sui (Telcustei, Ostariophysi). Re­ Sazima, Ivan dnd Claudio Zamprogno. "trista brasi!eira de biologia 52:627-640. Vera, C.V.M., S.A. Camargo, AP.M. Bubel, J985. Use of water hyacinths as shelter, and 1\1. Peh"cre, fr. 1997, Artisanal fish­ foraging place, and transport by young eries in a urh,m'reservoir: Billings case piranhas, Serra..;;almus spilopltura. Envi· (metropolitan region of sao Paulo). Bra­ ronmental BioltWY of Fishes 12:23?-240, zilian ]aunw! of Ecology (Rio Claro) I: Schroeder-Araujo, LT, 1980. Alimenta,ao 143-147. dos peixes da represa de Ponte Nova, Wekomme, Rt. 1985, River Fisheries. Fao Alto Tiet~. Ph.D. Dissertation (Biology) Fisheries Technical Paperj Food and Ag­ Universidade de sao Paulo, Instituto de riculture Organization of the United Biocicncias, S2io Paulol" Brazil. , Rome. Sihrano, Renato Azevedo :l\latias. 1997. Wester, Lyndon and Sekson Yongvanit. Ecologia de tres comunidades de pes­ 1995, Biologica I diversity and commu­ cadores no rio Piracicaba {SP), Masters nity lore in northeastern Thailand. Jour­ Thesis (Ecology) Universfdade Estadllal nal of Ethnobiology 15:71-88.