Recursos Pesqueiros Utilizados Pela Comunidade Local Do Arquipélago De Fernando De Noronha (Pe, Brasil): Preferências, Tabus Alimentares E Uso Medicinal

Abstract

The archipelago of Fernando de Noronha is divided into a National Marine Park, intended for the protection of natural resources and an Environmental Protection Area, where human occupation is permitted. Tourist use has caused changes in the island lifestyle, mainly in relation to economic activities and contact with nature. Thus, the present study aimed to analyze the local knowledge and eating habits of the people of Noronha, their preferences and aversions regarding the consumption of fish in the Archipelago of Fernando de Noronha/PE. Data collection was carried out through individual interviews using a script and these were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. It was found, in the research carried out with 81 interviewees, that the preferred fish for consumption are black syrup (Caranx lugubris), piraúna (Cepholopholis fulva), yellowfin (Thunnus albacares), barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), anchovy (Pomatomus saltatrix), red snapper (Lutjanus spp.) and mackerel (Acantocybium solandri). The relationship between popular knowledge and consumed food resources indicates an important contribution to regional and local conservation initiatives, which are essential to reduce environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity and socioeconomic consequences for local communities. Aversion to reymosed fish was confirmed, such as cangulo (Melichthys niger) and barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), corroborating with the knowledge found in the literature. Thus, the use of fish in the diet of the residents of Fernando de Noronha showed patterns already indicated in research with other fishing communities where preference, taboos and medicinal use are the main purposes and indicate the knowledge they have about the environment and the available resources

Food taboos and animal conservation: a systematic review on how cultural expressions influence interaction with wildlife species

“…This perspective is recurrent in riverside communities in the Amazon (Basil), where some reptiles such as the Jabutis ( Peltocephalus dumerilianus ), ( Mesoclemmys raniceps ) and the jabuti-tinga ( Chelonoidis denticulatus ) are not eaten because they are oily, because they are “offensive to anyone eats,” causing “allergic reactions” [ 14 ]. Several other cases of segmental taboos are cited in this review [ 1 , 4 , 11 , 14 , 31 , 34 – 38 ]. These examples of segmental taboos point out how cultural factors and the phases of a person's natural life cycle can interfere in the dynamics of animal consumption in a community, and this instrument ends up being an important factor for the conservation of animal species.…”

“…The studies found are mostly from South America, reinforcing the perspective that this continent is one of the main scientific productions related to Ethnobiology [ 40 ]. It can be noticed that regarding taboo game species in South America, the vast majority of studies are focused on the fish group, with case studies being carried out with indigenous and riverside peoples, mainly in the Brazilian Amazon, in addition to caiçaras (mixture ethnocultural heritage of indigenous, European and African peoples) from the coastal portion of Brazil [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 11 , 25 , 30 , 38 ]. On the other hand, no studies were found that portrayed taboos associated with fish in Asia, Oceania and Africa.…”

The challenges and opportunities of using small drones to monitor fishing activities in a marine protected area

“…However, the extent and localization of priority areas for conservation and fishing have been debated between community and PARNAMAR (Dominguez et al, 2016). Since the creation of this MPA system, involvement of local inhabitants in discussions about biodiversity conservation and natural resources harvest have been critically important (IBAMA & Funatura, 1990;Lopes & Villasante, 2018;Bassan et al, 2020). For instance, the main goal of the APA was to manage the sustainable use of natural resources to guarantee local communities' livelihood and conservation of resources (Lopes & Villasante, 2018).…”