Next Article in Journal
Alert and Flight Initiation Distances of the Coot in Response to Drones
Previous Article in Journal
Syringophilid Quill Mites Obey Harrison’s Rule
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 9
10.3390/d16090517
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Updated Checklist, Traits and Conservation Status of the Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Eastern Brazil

by
Diego V. Medeiros
1,
Marcelo A. Dias
1,2,
Camila C. Cordeiro
3 and
Gustavo F. de Carvalho-Souza
1,*,†
1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Conservação e Manejo da Biodiversidade, Universidade Católica do Salvador (UCSal), Campus de Pituaçu, Av. Prof. Pinto de Aguiar, Pituaçu, Salvador 41.740-090, BA, Brazil
2
Lacerta Consultoria, Projetos e Assessoria Ambiental Ltd.a. (LACERTA AMBIENTAL), Avenida Tancredo Neves, n 939, edf. Esplanada Tower, sala 907, Caminho das Árvores, Salvador 41.820-021, BA, Brazil
3
Terminal Portuário Cotegipe (TPC), Estrada da Ponta do Fernandinho, 3142, São Tomé de Paripe, Salvador 40.800-168, BA, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Current address: Instituto de Ciencias Marinas de Andalucía (ICMAN-CSIC), Campus Universitario Río San Pedro, 11519 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain.
Diversity 2024, 16(9), 517; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090517
Submission received: 22 July 2024 / Revised: 23 August 2024 / Accepted: 27 August 2024 / Published: 29 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Marine Diversity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Coastal environments, such as bays, are essential to the development of fishery resources due to their economic and ecological importance. This paper presents an updated checklist of coastal marine fishes as part of a long-term monitoring program in Aratu Bay (2014–2024), Bahia state, eastern Brazil. A total of 109 species belonging to 58 families and 24 orders were cataloged. Five endemic species and ten species listed as at risk according to the IUCN criteria (from Vulnerable onwards) were identified. The Carangidae was the most representative family in terms of species number, followed by Gobiidae and Sciaenidae. The ichthyofauna was dominated by mobile invertebrate feeders and macrocarnivores. Two non-native species were observed in the region: the Muzzled blenny, Omobranchus sewalli and the mud sleeper Butis koilomatodon. Aratu Bay supports a diverse ichthyofauna with diverse trophic guilds and habitats, rendering it an important area for the feeding and development of economically valuable species, including those facing threats.

1. Introduction

Coastal environments, like estuaries, lagoons and bays are essential for the development of fishery resources due to their ecological and economic importance; they act as nurseries and feeding habitats for numerous commercial fish species, particularly during their early life stages [1,2]. The biodiversity within these ecosystems serves as a substantial food source for human communities, with fish playing a primary role in the energy flow of these systems [1,3,4].
The Todos os Santos Bay (TSB) (13° S and 38° W) is one of the largest tropical bays in Brazil, covering an area of 1223 km2 (Figure 1), located in the state of Bahia. This bay is heavily influenced by the presence of a large metropolitan area (the city of Salvador, with a population of 2,400,000 inhabitants) and industrial activities, including chemical and petrochemical plants, as well as an oil refinery and harbor operations situated in the North and Northeastern regions of the bay. Additionally, TSB serves as an important hub of tourism and shell-fishing activities that occur throughout its entirety [5].
Aratu Bay is a small system that includes the bay itself and a 4-km long channel (known as the Cotegipe channel, linking the central part of the bay to the TSB (Figure 1). Positioned at 12°48′ S and 38°28′ W, the bay has maximum dimensions of approximately 7 km in width and 4 km in length. Shallow in nature, it has an area-weighted depth of 1.8 m, with intertidal depths constituting 24% (5.7 km2) of the total bay area. In addition, 85% of the bay is shallower than 5 m, while deeper areas exceeding 10 m are primarily confined to the Cotegipe channel, reaching a maximum depth of 40 m [6]. Moreover, Aratu Bay encompasses numerous peninsulas featuring dense Atlantic Forest vegetation, along with areas of bare sand and pebble beaches, sparsely vegetated mangroves, and inlets subjected to tidal fluctuations [7].
Despite numerous studies on the benthic and planktonic diversity in Aratu Bay [8,9,10,11,12,13], the ichthyofauna of this bay remains poorly understood, despite its importance to local fishermen. Information regarding the fish fauna is primarily available for other areas within the TSB, such as the shallow waters of Itaparica Island [3,14,15], Itapema region [16], Paraguaçu River estuary [15,17], and the northern part of the bay [4,18].
Information concerning the structure of fish communities plays a fundamental role in ecosystem management, conservation planning, and environmental impact assessment by providing comprehensive insights into biodiversity and aiding in the efficient distribution of conservation resources [19]. This paper provides an updated checklist of costal marine fishes from Aratu Bay, Bahia state, eastern Brazil. We provide additional information about geographic distributions, size, trophic categories, and conservation status.

2. Materials and Methods

From 2014 to 2024, fish were caught during biannual sampling campaigns, encompassing both the dry and wet seasons at eight sampling sites within Aratu Bay. A combination of fishing techniques and underwater census was employed, tailored to specific habitat types. The fish were collected using three gill nets for each mesh size—20 mm (n = 3), 30 mm (n = 3), and 35 mm (n = 3)—each net measuring 150 m in length and 2.50 m in depth, and equipped with an upper hoop floating apparatus. These nets were deployed at the same sampling stations using a 36-foot boat, with harvesting conducted every two hours over a 12-h period of nocturnal sampling. Additionally, three minnow traps per station were deployed, using fresh fish meat as bait, and left in place for 12 h [20]. In areas with hard bottoms, visual censuses were carried out using the Roving Diver Technique [21], which involves intensive random searches to record the maximum possible numbers of fish species along each station during the entire duration of a dive (typically 30–40 min each, n = 160). Data collected during these samplings were recorded using standardized tables and PVC plates; digital photographs were taken where possible. The specimens were collected under a license from the Institute of Environment and Water Resources in the state of Bahia (INEMA; authorization n°. 17.731).
Measurements of metric characteristics and meristic counts were performed on the collected specimens, which were then identified according to the current taxonomic references [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The checklist is organized in taxonomic order, in accordance with [29], unless specified otherwise. Species names are alphabetized within each family. The authority is included based on current usage in the “Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes” [30].
The traits of each species, such as trophic guilds, body size, geographic distribution, and conservation status, were described based on the literature [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Trophic categories included herbivores/detritivores, macrocarnivores, mobile invertebrate feeders, omnivores, planktivores, and sessile invertebrate feeders. The conservation status of each species was determined following the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species’ categories.

3. Results

A total of 109 fish species belonging to 58 families and 24 orders were recorded in Aratu Bay, comprising 4 elasmobranchs and 104 actinopterygians (Table S1). Acanthuriformes had the largest number of families (n = 11), followed by Carangiformes (n = 7) and Perciformes (n = 5) (Figure 2, left). The five most species-rich families were Carangidae (n = 9), Gobiidae (n = 7), Sciaenidae (n = 6), Haemulidae, and Gerreidae (each with n = 5) (Figure 2, right). Five endemic species were registered: the Brazilian snapper, Lutjanus alexandrei Moura and Lindeman, 2007 (Figure 3A), the Muckraker, Gobionellus stomatus Starks, 1913, the Gray Parrotfish, Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner, 1878) (Figure 3B), the pufferfish, Sphoeroides camila Carvalho-Filho, Rotundo, Pitassy and Sazima, 2023 (Figure 3C) and the Brazilian Flounder Paralichthys brasiliensis (Ranzani, 1842 (Figure 3D). In addition, our monitoring identified the presence of two non-native species: the Muzzled blenny, Omobranchus sewalli (Fowler, 1931) and the Mud sleeper, Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849) (Figure 3E).
Regarding size classes, there was an equivalence between the large (n = 35) and medium (n = 34) species categories, followed by the medium–small (n = 30) and small (n = 10) species categories. The feeding habits of the specimens were as follows: mobile invertebrate feeders (n = 56), macrocarnivores (n = 34) herbivores (n = 7), planktivores (n = 5) omnivores (n = 4) and sessile invertebrate feeders (n = 3) (Figure 4).
Considering the IUCN assessments at the global level [28], 84.3% of the species are classified as “least concern”, 4.6% as “not evaluated”, 3.7% as “near threatened”, 2.7% as both “data deficient” and “endangered”, and 1.9% as “vulnerable” (Figure 5). According to the Brazilian red list [26,31], 75% of the species are classified as “least concern”, 9.3% as “data deficient”, 5.6% as both “not evaluated” and “vulnerable”, 3.7% as “near threatened”, and only 0.9% are classified as “critically endangered” (Figure 5). Among the species most at risk are elasmobranchs such as Pseudobatos percellens (Walbaum, 1792), Hypanus marianae (Gomes, Rosa and Gadig, 2000), Hypanus americanus (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928), and Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790), as well as actinopterygians including Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, 1766), Ophidion holbrookii Putnam, 1874, Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933 (Figure 3G), S. axillare, Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier, 1828) (Figure 3H), and Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Figure 3I) (Table S1).

4. Discussion

The fish species composition of Aratu Bay, situated within the TSB ecosystem, exhibited a similarity to the ichthyofauna typically found in other tropical estuarine environments in Brazil [3,17,32,33]. In other studies of ichthyofauna conducted in areas of TSB, between 71 and 124 species were found (Table 1). Among these studies, 152 fish species were identified in shallow environments, across marine and estuarine beaches in TSB [3,17,33,34,35]. However, this number is likely an underestimation of the true species richness in these habitats [35]. Official fisheries production data from 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006, along with a case study from northern TSB between 2003 and 2005, identified 134 fish species from 52 families [36,37,38,39]. More recently, Oliveira-Silva et al. compiled data on the presence of up to 414 species across various environments in TSB [40]. The ichthyofauna of TSB is highly diverse (see references in Table 1), reflecting the varied habitats within the bay, including coral reefs, rocky shores, estuaries and mangroves [41,42,43,44].
However, these variations in the structure of tropical estuarine fish fauna depend on the type of estuary [45] and differences in spatial and temporal patterns of the community [46,47], as well as variations in sampling and fishing gear methods [48]. In Aratu Bay, the richest families in terms of species were Carangidae, Gobiidae, Scianidae, and Gerreidae. Similarly, these families emerged as the most representative in other locations of TSB [3,14,17,34,49,50], which aligns with patterns observed in some other bays and estuaries in Brazil [32,33,45,47].
Table 1. Number of fish species found in studies carried out in estuarine zones of the Todos os Santos Bay (Actinopteri and Elasmobranchii).
Table 1. Number of fish species found in studies carried out in estuarine zones of the Todos os Santos Bay (Actinopteri and Elasmobranchii).
Number of SpeciesActinopteriElasmobranchiiReference
107--[18]
85841[14]
70--[16]
37–5637–551[34]
40–6340–63-[3]
1241177[17]
1331312[51]
36351[49]
88826[4]
62--[52]
5353-[50]
44431[18]
1081044Present study
The presence of non-native fishes is another relevant concern (see [53]), as observed with the identification of two non-native species in Aratu Bay. The Muzzled blenny, O. sewalli, previously observed in Bahia state by [54] and [55] (cited as O. punctatus; [56]), and the Mud sleeper, B. koilomatodon, first described in the western Atlantic Ocean in Venezuela by [57] and subsequently reported along the Brazilian Coast by [58,59,60,61,62]. The invasive success of these fishes is attributed to their cryptic behavior, as both species seek refuge and lay eggs in small holes, which may predispose them to inhabit areas inside and around ports. These characteristics, combined with their tolerance to salinity variation, enable them to exploit ballast-intake holes, ship hulls, and offshore oil rigs [51,54,57,63].
Although the size classes revealed a greater composition of species ranging from large- to medium-sized fish, the majority of these specimens were juveniles and subadults, with very few exceeding 25 cm TL. This indicates that this area of this estuarine bay serves as an important nursery and essential habitat for fish, as is widely recognized globally [1,2,3,17,49]. These environments are extremely important for conservation, given the ecological and economic importance of ichthyofauna in this zone [4]. Conversely, the area experiences intense fishing activity (line and pole, nets), including prohibited practices such as fishing with explosives (Environmental Crimes Law 9605/98; [64]), the effects of which on the particular fish community remain unknown.
In Aratu bay, there is a dominance of predators, the category of mobile invertebrate feeders, followed by macrocarnivores (Figure 5). In accordance with findings from the coast of Paraíba [65] and Abrolhos-BA [66], mobile invertebrate feeders were also the most dominant group (56 species). Regarding the classification of carnivores, other studies conducted in Brazil found similar results, with the dominance of category carnivores, 38.6% in Guaratuba Bay [67], 37.4% in the estuary of the Rio Formoso [68], represented by consumers of benthic invertebrates and fish. The heterogeneity of estuarine environments supports the diversification of microhabitats, offering refuge and protection for species across different phyla, which increases fish access to invertebrates [69,70,71].
Knowledge of the trophic web helps in understanding the structure and allows us to describe the energy flow in ecosystems and the ecological relationships among organisms [72]. The trophic guilds structure in this study is similar to ichthyofauna of Brazilian estuaries, where the feeding habits of fish is quite diverse, herbivores are represented by few species and there is dominance by predatory species [44,64,73]. But most are not specialized, consuming several groups of invertebrates and vertebrates [44].
In terms of conservation status, three Elasmobranchii species are classified as Endangered by the IUCN: P. percellens, H. marianae, and A. narinari. Additionally, P. percellens and H. marianae, together with H. americanus, are listed as Vulnerable in the Brazilian Red Book of Threatened Fauna, whereas A. narinari is categorized as Data Deficient [26]. These species are facing population declines due to intensive fishing activities in their habitats [74]. For the Actinopteri, O. holbrookii Putnam, 1874 is listed as Critically Endangered in Brazil [26], yet it is globally considered Least Concern according to the latest IUCN [28] assessment. Three other species in the Brazilian Red List—H. reidi, S. axillare, and L. cyanopterus—are classified as Vulnerable, with L. cyanopterus also sharing this status globally. The snappers constitute one of the most representative groups (31.8%) in line fishing landings of this coastal zone, and their populations already show signs of over-exploitation [75,76,77].
This emphasizes the importance of recording and monitoring fish species occurrences over time. The data provide a baseline on the composition of coastal marine fish communities in Aratu Bay, an ecologically and commercially significant area, gathered from a decade-long monitoring program. This expands our understanding of the fish community in this ecosystem, offering insights into species composition, size, trophic categories, and conservation status—crucial data for the effective management of local species as ecological and economic resources.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d16090517/s1, Table S1: Checklist of the fish species collected in the Aratu Bay and their ecological and distributional traits. Length Groups (LG: SMALL = 0–10 cm; MEDSMALL = 10–25 cm; MED = 25–50 cm; LARGE ≥ 50 cm); Trophic category (TG: HERB = Herbivores/Detritivores; MCAR = macrocarnivores; MINV = mobile invertebrate feeders; OMNI = omnivores; PLANK = planktivores; SINV = sessile invertebrate feeders); Geographic distribution (GD: WA = Western Atlantic; EA = Eastern Atlantic; MAR = Mid Atlantic Ridge; OIB = Oceanic Islands of Brazil; BR = Brazilian Province; SA = Southwestern Atlantic; EP = Eastern Pacific; CT = Circumtropical); International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) status and national red list status (NE = Not Evaluated, DD = Data Deficient, LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, CR = Critically Endangered).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.; methodology, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.; formal analysis, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.; resources, C.C.C.; data curation, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.; writing—review and editing, D.V.M., M.A.D., C.C.C. and G.F.d.C.-S.; supervision, G.F.d.C.-S.; project administration, M.A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Terminal Portuário Cotegipe (TPC; Finance Code 001).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Lacerta Consultoria, Projetos e Assessoria Ambiental Ltd.a. for the logistic support in the development of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Elliott, M.; Whitfield, A.K.; Potter, I.C.; Blaber, S.J.M.; Cyrus, D.P.; Nordlie, F.G.; Harrison, T.D. The guild approach to categorizing estuarine fish assemblages: A global review. Fish Fish. 2007, 8, 241–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. de Carvalho-Souza, G.F.; González-Ortegón, E.; Baldó, F.; Vilas, C.; Drake, P.; Llope, M. Natural and anthropogenic effects on the early life stages of European anchovy in one of its Essential Fish Habitats, the Guadalquivir estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2019, 617–618, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Oliveira-Silva, J.T.; Peso-Aguiar, M.C.; Lopes, P.R. Ictiofauna das praias de Cabuçu e Berlinque: Uma contribuição ao conhecimento das comunidades de peixes na Baía de Todos os Santos–Bahia–Brasil. Biotemas 2008, 21, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Soares, L.; Lopez, J.; Muto, E.; Giannini, R. Capture fishery in northern Todos os Santos Bay, tropical southwestern Atlantic, Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 2011, 59, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Amado-Filho, G.M.; Salgado, L.T.; Rebelo, M.F.; Rezende, C.E.; Karez, C.S.; Pfeiffer, W.C. Heavy metals in benthic organisms from Todos os Santos Bay, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2008, 68, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Pereira, M.A.G.; Lessa, G.C. Varying Patterns of Water Circulation in Canal de Cotegipe, Baía de Todos os Santos. Rev. Bras. De Geofísica 2009, 27, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. de Carvalho-Souza, G.F.; Neto, J.R.S.; Aleluia, F.T.; Nascimento, I.A.; Browne-Ribeiro, H.; Santos, R.C.; Tinôco, M.S. Occurrence of isopods ectoparasites in marine fish on the Cotegipe Bay, northeastern Brazil. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2009, 2, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Peixinho, V.M.C. Estudos Preliminares sobre o Fitoplâncton da Baía de Aratu (Bahia). Master’s Dissertation, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 1972; 94p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cowgill, U.M. Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus and phytoplankton composition during the past decade in the Bay of Aratu, Salvador (Bahia). Braz. Arch. Hydrobiol. 1987, 111, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. de Castro Manso, C.L.; de Souza Alves, O.F.; Martins, L.R. Echinoderms from Todos os Santos Bay and Aratu Bay (Bahia, Brazil). Biota Neotrop. 2008, 8, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Marins, B.V.; Brasileiro, P.S.; Barreto, M.B.B.; Nunes, J.M.C.; Yoneshigue-Valentin, Y.; Amado-Filho, G.M. Subtidal benthic marine algae of Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia state, Brazil. Oecol. Bras. 2008, 12, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ferreira, A.N.; Beretta, M.; Mafalda-Júnior, P.O. Avaliação do impacto da dragagem sobre associação fitoplanctônica do porto de Aratu, Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia. Arq. De Ciências Do Mar 2012, 45, 30–46. [Google Scholar]
  13. Maltez, L.C.; Mafalda Junior, P.O.; Neumann-Leitão, S. Influence of oceanographic seasonality and dredging activities on the fish larvae assemblage in the Port of Aratu, Todos Os Santos Bay. Braz. J. Aquat. Sci. Technol. 2014, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lopes, P.R.D.; Oiveira-Silva, J.T.; Ferreira-Melo, A.S.A. Contribuição ao conhecimento da ictiofauna do Manguezal de Cacha Pregos, Ilha de Itaparica, Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia. Rev. Bras. Zool. 1998, 15, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oliveira, R.L.; Moraes, L.E.; Santos, A.C.d.A. Diet composition of abundant fish species in the shallow waters of the Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil. Acta Scientiarum. Biol. Sci. 2021, 43, e52230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lopes, P.R.D.; Oliveira-Silva, J.T.; Sena, M.P.; Silva, I.S.; Veiga, D.C.M.; Silva, G.R.; Santos, R.C.L. Contribuição ao conhecimento da ictiofauna da Praia de Itapema, Santo Amaro da Purificação, Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia. Acta Biol. Leopoldensia 1999, 21, 99–105. [Google Scholar]
  17. Reis-Filho, J.A.; Nunes, J.A.C.C.; Ferreira, A. Estuarine ichthyofauna of the Paraguaçu River, Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil. Biota Neotrop. 2010, 10, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Almeida, V.G. Caracterização taxonômica ecológica e anatômica da ictiofauna. In Programa de Monitoramento dos Ecossistemas ao norte da Baía de Todos os Santos; Relatório Técnico Final; Universidade Federal da Bahia, Projeto 5: Salvador-Bahia, Brazil, 1996; 61p. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lo Brutto, S. Zoological Checklists: From Natural History Museums to Ecosystems. Diversity 2023, 15, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Carvalho-Filho, A.; Marcovaldi, G.; Sampaio, C.L.S.; Paiva, M.I.G.; Duarte, L.A.G. First report of rare pomfrets (Teleostei: Bramidae) from Brazilian waters, with a key to Western Atlantic species. Zootaxa 2009, 2290, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schmitt, E.F.; Sullivan, K.M. Analysis of a volunteer method for collecting fish presence and abundance data in the Florida Keys. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1996, 59, 404–416. [Google Scholar]
  22. Carvalho-Filho, A. Peixes: Costa Brasileira, 3rd ed.; Melro: São Paulo, Brazil, 1999; 320p. [Google Scholar]
  23. Humann, P.; Deloach, N. Reef Fish Identification: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas; New World Publications: Jacksonville, FL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferreira, C.E.L.; Floeter, S.R.; Gasparini, J.L.; Ferreira, B.P.; Joyeux, J.C. Trophic structure patterns of Brazilian reef fishes: A latitudinal comparison. J. Biogeogr. 2004, 31, 1093–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pinheiro, H.T.; Rocha, L.A.; Macieira, R.M.; Carvalho-Filho, A.; Anderson, A.B.; Bender, M.G.; Di Dario, F.; Ferreira, C.E.; Figueiredo-Filho, J.; Francini-Filho, R.; et al. South-western Atlantic reef fishes: Zoogeographical patterns and ecological drivers reveal a secondary biodiversity centre in the Atlantic Ocean. Divers. Distrib. 2018, 24, 951–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. ICMBio. Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção: Volume VI—Peixes. In Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (Org.). Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção; ICMBIO: Brasília, Brazil, 2018; 1232p. [Google Scholar]
  27. Froese, R.; Pauly, D. (Eds.) FishBase. World Wide Web Electronic Publication. 2024. Version (02/2024). Available online: https://fishbase.de/ (accessed on 15 July 2024).
  28. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2024. Version 2024-1. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 16 July 2024).
  29. Nelson, J.S. Fishes of the World, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; 601p. [Google Scholar]
  30. Van der Laan, R.; Eschmeyer, W.N.; Fricke, R. Family-group names of Recent fishes. Zootaxa Monogr. 2014, 3882, 1–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. MMA. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Portaria MMA Nº 300, de 13 de dezembro de 2022, Anexo II. Diário Oficial da União 234, 14 de dezembro de 2022, Seção 1, p. 75. Available online: https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-gm/mma-n-300-de-13-de-dezembro-de-2022-450425464 (accessed on 13 July 2024).
  32. Andrade-Tubino, M.F.; Ribeiro, A.L.R.; Vianna, M. Organização espaço-temporal das ictiocenoses demersais nos ecossistemas estuarinos brasileiros: Uma síntese. Oecolgia Bras. 2008, 12, 640–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Paiva, A.C.G.; Chaves, P.T.C.; Araújo, M.E. Estrutura e organização trófica da ictiofauna de águas rasas em um estuário tropical. Rev. Bras. De Zool. 2008, 25, 647–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Barbalho, L.T. Variabilidade Espaço-Temporal da Ictiofauna e Influência de Fatores Hidrográficos nas Praias de Ponta da Ilha (ilha de Itaparica) e São Tomé de Paripe (Salvador), Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia, Brasil. Master’s Dissertation, Ecologia e Biomonitoramento. Universidade Federal da Bahia, 2007. 66p. Available online: https://repositorio.ufba.br/bitstream/ri/12674/1/Luiza%20Teles%20Barbalho.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2024).
  35. Santos, A.C.A.; Moraes, L.E.; Duarte, L.A.G. Peixes De Zona Rasas da BTS. Coleção de Cartilhas-Projeto Baía de Todos os Santos–Bahia-Brasil; INCT Energia e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal da Bahia: Salvador-Bahia, Brasil, 2015; 36p. [Google Scholar]
  36. PETROBRAS/FUSP. Programa de Monitoramento Ambiental na Área de Influência da Refinaria Landulpho Alves (PROMARLAM); Relatório Final; Fundação de Apoio à Universidade de São Paulo: São Paulo, Brasil, 2005; Volume 6, pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  37. PETROBRAS/FUSP. Programa de Monitoramento Ambiental na Área de Influência da Refinaria Landulpho Alves (PROMARLAM); Produtividade Pesqueira; Relatório Complementar; Fundação de Apoio à Universidade de São Paulo: São Paulo, Brasil, 2005; 18p. [Google Scholar]
  38. CEPENE. Boletim Estatístico da pesca Marítima e Estuarina do Nordeste do Brasil 2005; Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão de Recursos Pesqueiros do Litoral Nordeste: Tamandaré, Brazil, 2007; 211p. [Google Scholar]
  39. IBAMA. Monitoramento da atividade pesqueira no litoral nordestino–Projeto Estatpesca. In Boletim da Estatística da Pesca Marítima e Estuarina do Nordeste do Brasil–2006; Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão de Recursos Pesqueiros do Litoral Nordeste: Tamandaré, Brazil, 2008; 385p. [Google Scholar]
  40. Oliveira-Silva, J.T.; Olavo, G.; Lopes, P.R.D. Documenting the ichthyofauna and the current conservation status of one of the largest Brazilian bays. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2024, 77, 103646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bittencourt, A.C.S.P.; Ferreira, Y.A.; Di Napoli, E. Alguns aspectos da sedimentaçăo na Baía de Todos os Santos. Rev. Bras. Geoci. 1976, 6, 246–263. [Google Scholar]
  42. Cruz, I.C.S.; Kikuchi, R.K.P.; Leão, Z.M.A.N. Caracterização dos Recifes de Corais da Área de Preservação Ambiental da Baía de Todos os Santos para Fins de Manejo, Bahia, Brasil. Rev. Da Gestão Costeira Integr. 2009, 9, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barros, F.; Costa, P.C.; Cruz, I.; Mariano, D.L.S.; Miranda, R.J. Habitats Bentônicos na Baía de Todos os Santos. Rev. Virtual Quim. 2012, 4, 551–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. de Carvalho-Souza, G.F.; González-Ortegón, E. Scavenging behavior by Phyllonotus oculatus (Gastropoda: Muricidae) in a South Atlantic reef. Mar. Biodivers. 2022, 52, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Blaber, S.J.M. Tropical Estuarine Fishes: Ecology, Exploitation and Conservation; Blackwell Science: Cleveland, QLD, Australia, 2000; 372p. [Google Scholar]
  46. Spach, H.L.; Santos, C.; Godefroid, R.S. Padrões temporais na assembléia de peixes na gamboa do Sucuriú, Baía de Paranaguá, Brasil. Rev. Bras. De Zool. 2003, 20, 591–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Loebmann, D.; Vieira, J.P. Distribuição espacial e abundância das assembléias de peixes no Parque Nacional da Lagoa do Peixe, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Rev. Bras. De Zool. 2005, 22, 667–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lamas, R.A.; Rossi-Wongtschowski, C.L.D.B.; Contente, R.F. Checklist of the fish fauna of the Araçá Bay, São Sebastião Channel, northern coast of São Paulo, Brazil. Check List. 2016, 12, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dias, J.F.; Gonçalves, A.M.; Fernandez, W.S.; Silbiger, H.L.; Fiadi, C.B.; Schmidt, T.C.S. Ichthyofauna in the Mataripe Area, Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 2011, 59, 75–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duarte, L.A.G. Composição e Estrutura de Comunidade de Peixes em Diferentes Praias da Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia, Brasil. Master’s Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Brazil, 2013; 52p. [Google Scholar]
  51. Barreto, A.F. Composição e Estrutura da Ictiofauna Capturada por Rede de Calão na Praia de Cabuçu, Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia, Brasil. Master’s Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Brazil, 2010; 49p. [Google Scholar]
  52. Nascimento, F.P. Caracterização da ictiofauna de zonas de arrebentação em praias com diferentes graus de exposição às ondas. Master’s Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Brazil, 2012; 55p. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bueno, M.L.; Magalhães, A.L.B.; Andrade Neto, F.R.; Alves, C.B.M.; Rosa, D.M.; Junqueira, N.T.; Pessali, T.C.; Pompeu, P.S.; Zenni, R.D. Alien fish fauna of southeastern Brazil: Species status, introduction pathways, distribution and impacts. Biol. Invasions 2021, 23, 3021–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gerhardinger, L.C.; Freitas, M.O.; Andrade, A.B.; Rangel, C.A. Omobranchus punctatus (Teleostei: Blenniidae), an exotic blenny in the Southwestern Atlantic. Biol. Invasions 2006, 8, 941–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wonham, M.J.; Carlton, J.T.; Ruiz, G.M.; Smith, L.D. Fish and ships: Relating dispersal frequency to success in biological invasions. Mar. Biol. 2000, 136, 1111–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cabezas, M.P.; Lasso-Alcala, O.M.; Quintero-T, E.; Xavier, R.; Giarrizzo, T.; Nunes, J.L.; Machado, F.S.; Gómez, J.; Silva Pedroza, W.; Jowers, M.J. Clarifying the taxonomy of some cryptic blennies (Blenniidae) in their native and introduced range. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 9514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lasso-Alcalá, O.; Nunes, J.; Lasso, C.; Posada, J.; Robertson, D.R.; Piorski, N.; van Tassell, J.; Giarrizzo, T.; Gondolo, G. Invasion of the Indo-Pacific blenny Omobranchus punctatus (Perciformes: Blenniidae) on the Atlantic Coast of Central and South America. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 2010, 9, 571–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cunningham, P.T.M.; Gondolo, G.F. Peixes. In Informe Sobre as Espécies Exóticas Invasoras Marinhas do Brasil; Lopes, R.M., Ed.; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília-DF, Brazil, 2009; pp. 375–394. [Google Scholar]
  59. Macieira, R.M.; Giarrizzo, T.; Gasparini, J.L.; Sazima, I. Geographic expansion of the invasive mud sleeper Butis koilomatodon (Perciformes: Eleotridae) in the western Atlantic Ocean. J. Fish Biol. 2012, 81, 308–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Contente, R.F.; Brenha-Nunes, M.R.; Siliprandi, C.C.; Lamas, R.A.; Conversani, V.R. A new record of the non-native fish species Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker 1849) (Teleostei: Eleotridae) for southeastern Brazil. Biotemas 2016, 29, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bonfim, M.; Martins, A.; Carvalho, G.; Piorski, N.; Nunes, J. Non-native mud sleeper Butis koilomatodon (Bleecker, 1849) (Perciformes: Eleotridae) in Eastern Amazon Coastal region: An additional occurrence for the Brazilian coast and urgency for ecological assessment. BioInvasions Rec. 2017, 6, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Guimarães, E.C.; Brito, P.S.; Ottoni, F.P. First record of Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849) (Gobiiformes: Eleotridae) for the Maranhão state, northeastern Brazil: A case of bioinvasion. Cybium 2017, 41, 299–300. [Google Scholar]
  63. de Carvalho-Souza, G.; Gómez, C.; González-Ortegón, E. A non-native fish species reaches the south-western European waters: The Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus (Acanthuriformes, Sciaenidae) and its invasion history in Europe. Biodivers. Data J. 2024, 12, e120736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. BRASIL. Lei no 9.605 de 12 de Fevereiro de 1998. Dispõe Sobre as Sanções Penais e Administrativas Derivadas de Condutas e Atividades Lesivas ao Meio Ambiente, e dá Outras Providências. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, 1998. Brasília, DF, 13 fev. Available online: https://legislacao.presidencia.gov.br/atos/?tipo=LEI&numero=9605&ano=1998&ato=dd5kXRE1EeNpWTdda (accessed on 13 June 2024).
  65. Honório, P.P.F.; Ramos, R.T.C.; Feitoza, B.M. Composition and structure of reef fish communities in Paraíba State, North-Eastern Brazil. J. Fish Biol. 2010, 77, 907–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Moura, R.L.; Francini-Filho, R.B. Reef and Shore Fishes of the Abrolhos Region, Brazil; RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 38, pp. 40–55. [Google Scholar]
  67. Chaves, P.T.C.; Bouchereau, J.-L. Trophic organization and functioning of fish populations in the bay of Guaratuba, Brazil, on the basis of a trophic contribution factor. Acta Adriat. 2004, 45, 83–94. [Google Scholar]
  68. Paiva, A.C.G.; Lima, M.F.V.; Souza, J.R.B.; Araújo, M.E. Spatial distribution of the estuarine ichthyofauna of the Rio Formoso (Pernambuco, Brazil), with emphasis on reef fish. Zoologia 2009, 26, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bertocci, I.; Sousa-Pinto, I.; Duarte, P. Spatial variation of reef fishes and the relative influence of biotic and abiotic habitat traits. Helgol. Mar. Res. 2017, 71, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Thomsen, M.S.; Altieri, A.H.; Angelini, C.; Bishop, M.J.; Bulleri, F.; Farhan, R.; Frühling, V.M.; Gribben, P.E.; Harrison, S.B.; He, Q.; et al. Heterogeneity within and among co-occurring foundation species increases biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. González-Ortegón, E.; de Carvalho-Souza, G.F.; Vilas, C.; Baldó, F.; Cuesta, J.A. Trends in the decapod crustacean community at the southernmost estuary of the Atlantic coast of Europe. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Adams, D.C.; Gurevitch, J.; Rosenberg, M.S. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 1997, 78, 1277–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Caberty, S.J.; Bouchereau, J.; Chaves, P.T. Organisation et fonctionnement trophiques de l’assemblage ichtyque d’um écosystème lagunaire à mangrove antillais au moyen de l’indice trophique de contribution. Cah. De Biol. Mar. 2004, 45, 243–254. [Google Scholar]
  74. MMA. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Espécies ameaçadas. 2024. Available online: https://antigo.mma.gov.br/mmanoforum/item/15154-espécies-ameaçadas-pesca.html (accessed on 13 June 2024).
  75. Costa., P.A.S.; Martins., A.S.; Olavo., G. (Eds.) Pesca e Potenciais de Exploração de Recursos vivos na Região Central da Zona Econômica Exclusiva Brasileira; Museu Nacional: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005; pp. 57–70. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sá-Nunes, A. A Utilização da Geologia na Identificação dos Hábitats mais adequados para o estabelecimento de Áreas Marinhas Protegidas na Costa do Dendê, Bahia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil, 2009; 178p. [Google Scholar]
  77. Soares, L.S.H.; Salles, A.C.R.; Lopez, J.P.; Muto, E.Y.; Gianini, R. Pesca e Produção Pesqueira. In Baía de Todos os Santos: Aspectos Oceanográficos; Hatge, V., Andrade, J.B., Eds.; Edfuba: Salvador, Brazil, 2009; pp. 157–206. [Google Scholar]
Diversity 16 00517 g001
Figure 1. Map of Aratu Bay within Todos os Santos Bay. Red circles indicate the sampling stations throughout the monitoring, performed from 2014–2024. Known pressures, such as port operations, industrial activities, marinas, and an oil refinery, are shown, as well as important coastal habitats like coral reefs and mangroves.
Figure 1. Map of Aratu Bay within Todos os Santos Bay. Red circles indicate the sampling stations throughout the monitoring, performed from 2014–2024. Known pressures, such as port operations, industrial activities, marinas, and an oil refinery, are shown, as well as important coastal habitats like coral reefs and mangroves.
Diversity 16 00517 g001
Diversity 16 00517 g002
Figure 2. Number of families per orders (left); and Number of species per families recorded from Aratu Bay (right), shows the 11 most representative families.
Figure 2. Number of families per orders (left); and Number of species per families recorded from Aratu Bay (right), shows the 11 most representative families.
Diversity 16 00517 g002
Diversity 16 00517 g003
Figure 3. Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Brazil, as documented during fish monitoring campaigns from 2014 to 2024: (A) Lutjanus alexandrei Moura and Lindeman, 2007; (B) Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner, 1878); (C) Sphoeroides camila Carvalho-Filho, Rotundo, Pitassy and Sazima, 2023; (D) Paralichthys brasiliensis (Ranzani, 1842); (E) Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849); (F) Hypanus marianae (Gomes, Rosa and Gadig, 2000); (G) Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933; (H) Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier, 1828); (I) Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758); (J) Rypticus randalli Courtenay, 1967; (K) Ogcocephalus vespertilio (Linnaeus, 1758); (L) Serranus flaviventris (Cuvier, 1829).
Figure 3. Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Brazil, as documented during fish monitoring campaigns from 2014 to 2024: (A) Lutjanus alexandrei Moura and Lindeman, 2007; (B) Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner, 1878); (C) Sphoeroides camila Carvalho-Filho, Rotundo, Pitassy and Sazima, 2023; (D) Paralichthys brasiliensis (Ranzani, 1842); (E) Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849); (F) Hypanus marianae (Gomes, Rosa and Gadig, 2000); (G) Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933; (H) Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier, 1828); (I) Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758); (J) Rypticus randalli Courtenay, 1967; (K) Ogcocephalus vespertilio (Linnaeus, 1758); (L) Serranus flaviventris (Cuvier, 1829).
Diversity 16 00517 g003
Diversity 16 00517 g004
Figure 4. Proportion of species per trophic category. HERB = Herbivores/Detritivores; MCAR = macrocarnivores; MINV = mobile invertebrate feeders; OMNI = omnivores; PLANK = planktivores; SINV = sessile invertebrate feeders.
Figure 4. Proportion of species per trophic category. HERB = Herbivores/Detritivores; MCAR = macrocarnivores; MINV = mobile invertebrate feeders; OMNI = omnivores; PLANK = planktivores; SINV = sessile invertebrate feeders.
Diversity 16 00517 g004
Diversity 16 00517 g005
Figure 5. The conservation status of the fish species (including both bony and cartilaginous fishes) listed for Aratu Bay according to the list of threatened species of the International Union for Nature Conservation—IUCN (left; [28]) and Brazilian National Red List (right; [26]). NE: Not Evaluated, DD: Data Deficient, LC: Least Concern, NT: Near Threatened, VU: Vulnerable, EN: Endangered and CR: Critically endangered.
Figure 5. The conservation status of the fish species (including both bony and cartilaginous fishes) listed for Aratu Bay according to the list of threatened species of the International Union for Nature Conservation—IUCN (left; [28]) and Brazilian National Red List (right; [26]). NE: Not Evaluated, DD: Data Deficient, LC: Least Concern, NT: Near Threatened, VU: Vulnerable, EN: Endangered and CR: Critically endangered.
Diversity 16 00517 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Medeiros, D.V.; Dias, M.A.; Cordeiro, C.C.; de Carvalho-Souza, G.F. Updated Checklist, Traits and Conservation Status of the Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Eastern Brazil. Diversity 2024, 16, 517. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090517

AMA Style

Medeiros DV, Dias MA, Cordeiro CC, de Carvalho-Souza GF. Updated Checklist, Traits and Conservation Status of the Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Eastern Brazil. Diversity. 2024; 16(9):517. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090517

Chicago/Turabian Style

Medeiros, Diego V., Marcelo A. Dias, Camila C. Cordeiro, and Gustavo F. de Carvalho-Souza. 2024. "Updated Checklist, Traits and Conservation Status of the Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Eastern Brazil" Diversity 16, no. 9: 517. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090517

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop