Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.

1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021

ICES Journal of Marine Science (2021), doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsab074

Alternative data sources can fill the gaps in data-poor fisheries

Alexandre M. S. Machado 1,2,3, Eduardo L. Hettwer Giehl 4
, Luiza Pacheco Fernandes1,
Simon N. Ingram 5, and Fábio G. Daura-Jorge 1,*
1
Laboratório de Mamı́feros Aquáticos, Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, CCB/ECZ, Florianópolis, SC
88010-970, Brazil
2
Programa de Pós-Graduaç~ao em Ecologia, Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC
88010-970, Brazil
3
Department of Collective Behaviour, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behaviour, Konstanz, Germany
4
Laboratório de Diversidade e Conservaç~ao, Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC
88010-970, Brazil
5
School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
*Corresponding author: e-mail: daura.jorge@ufsc.br.
Machado, A. M. S., Giehl, E. L. H., Fernandes, L. P., Ingram, S. N., and Daura-Jorge, F. G. Alternative data sources can fill the gaps in data-
poor fisheries. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsab074.
Received 25 August 2020; revised 7 March 2021; accepted 8 March 2021.

Assessing fish stocks harvested by small-scale fisheries is challenging. The lack of official fisheries data constrains the proper management of
such fisheries. Thus, alternative sources of information are crucial to enrich data-poor fisheries. Here, we evaluated different sources of data
for the mullet (Mugil liza) fishery, one of the most important but overexploited fisheries in Brazil. We gathered three alternative sources of
catch data by artisanal fisheries: 14 years of self-reported catches by artisanal fishers across 24 municipalities; 16 years of catches by traditional
beach seines mined from news outlets; and 13 years from a single community monitoring their beach seine catches. We tested whether alter-
native data sources follow the same trends of landing reports from systematic, official monitoring of the industrial fleet. We fitted Bayesian
time-series models to test if environmental changes and stock abundance can predict these data. We found that only self-reported catches
matched the official reporting trends, thereby improving our understanding of changes in the mullet stock. These findings reveal that self-
reported catches by fishers provide reliable additional data useful for management. Self-reporting data are cost-effective, deals with the com-
plexity of small-scale fisheries, and welcomes fishers as key stakeholders in management practices.
Keywords: Artisanal fisheries, Data-limited, Data mining, Mugil liza, Newspaper, Self-report, Self-sampling

Introduction 2020), making these stocks vulnerable to overexploitation

Effective fish-stock management depends on the challenging task
of gathering reliable data. The assessments of commercially valu-
able fish stocks in developed countries are often based on de-
tailed longitudinal datasets (e.g. de Lestang et al., 2012).
Fisheries scientists can therefore fit population-dynamics models
to these data to estimate stock trends, to determine stock status
and to recommend sustainable harvesting quotas. However,
gathering reliable data to evaluate population trends and status
can be both expensive and time-consuming (Bland et al., 2015).
Hence, the assessment of many harvested fish stocks remains
data-limited, thus potentially imprecise and biased (Free et al.,
C International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 2021. All rights reserved.
V
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
(Costello et al., 2012).
Small-scale fisheries in developing countries are difficult to
track and manage, thus invariably data-deficient. Artisanal fishers
typically use small vessels varying in technological capability, fish-
ing gear, and target species. Landings can also occur anywhere
along the coast rather than being concentrated at large, regional
fishing ports. These factors often result in the misconception that
small-scale fisheries account for small and widespread catches
with negligible consequences to the fish stocks (Pauly, 2006).
Partially as a consequence, small-scale fisheries are often over-
looked by governments, while catches continued to increase and
2 A. M. S. Machado et al.
have been underreported worldwide (Zeller et al., 2015; Pauly
and Zeller, 2016; Canty et al., 2019). Small-scale fisheries can col-
lectively reach operational scales similar to industrial fisheries
(Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2010), but because they tend to be con-
centrated in nearshore habitats they present potential threats to
sensitive coastal ecosystems and vulnerable species (Shester and
Micheli, 2011). Neglecting underreported small-scale fisheries
can, therefore, misinform fish-stock management (Rudd and
Branch, 2017), and mask the risks for biodiversity and successful
conservation (Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2010).
Recent effort lies in finding and validating alternative sources
to compensate for the absence of official data on small-scale fish-
eries. To cite a few, historical ecology, ethnoecology, and citizen
science emerge as potential alternatives. Historical abundances
and distribution of marine species can be reconstructed from log-
book data and catch records (e.g. Lotze and Worm, 2009).
Historical baselines in fisheries can be identified from media
reports (e.g. Francis et al., 2019). Catch reports can also be esti-
mated by accessing traditional knowledge (e.g. Castello, 2004;
Damasio et al., 2015), or from self-management practices such as
local community records of their own catches (Mion et al., 2015).
Recently, the widespread adoption of technologies such as GPS,
mobile phones, and social media has facilitated the collection,
processing and sharing of information on fisheries (e.g. Venturelli
et al., 2017; Sbragaglia et al., 2020).
These alternative sources of information can be integrated
with quantitative techniques to enrich data on small-scale fisher-
ies (Kindsvater et al., 2018). In Brazil, small-scale fisheries are
overlooked, even though they provide livelihoods for many peo-
ple. However, since 2011, due to political and economic changes,
there has been no official fishery statistics for large or small-scale
fisheries in Brazil (MPA, 2011). This lack of official monitoring
poses a significant challenge for fisheries management and hin-
ders the reversal of declining fish stocks. A remarkable example is
the mullet (Mugil liza) fishery.
The mullet fishery is one of the most important target species
of the Brazilian fisheries. Every year during the mullet season
(from May to July), both large and small-scale fisheries target the
southern mullet stock along the south and southeast of Brazil.
Large-scale fisheries are dominated by the purse seine fleet, while
small-scale fisheries are more diverse, comprising gillnets, drift
nets, beach seines, and even artisanal cast net fishers. Almost
10000 fishers rely on this fishery, with an estimated annual receipt
of over US$9 million (MPA/MMA, 2015). However, the mullet
stock in southern Brazil has been considered threatened by over-
exploitation since 2004. A management plan for sustainable fish-
ing of mullet stocks was only established in 2015, proposing catch
quotas, specific fishing periods for the industrial fleet and arti-
sanal fisheries, spatial restrictions, and satellite vessel-tracking sys-
tems for the industrial fleet (MPA/MMA, 2015). A recent study
combined data from multiple fishing grounds and of different
fishing gear in a stock assessment (Sant’Ana et al., 2017). More
than just raising a flag about the sustainability of the mullet stock,
this assessment raised concerns about a data crisis, as some data
from mullet fisheries are intermittent and unreliable (Sant’Ana
et al., 2017). Therefore, the reliability of alternative datasets must
be assessed.
Here, we evaluated the validity of three alternative sources of
data on artisanal mullet fisheries in southern Brazil. We tested
whether data from (i) self-reported catches by artisanal fishers,
(ii) catches by traditional beach seines mined from news outlets,
and (iii) catches from detailed logs of a beach seine fishing com-
munity were correlated with the official landing reports of the in-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021
dustrial fleet, which was considered to be the most systematic in
the historical dataset. All these data sources covered fisheries har-
vesting the same stock, but each fishery has different dynamics in
terms of spatial scale, catchability and number of fishers involved.
We then modelled how sensitive these data sources are to changes
in environmental conditions and stock abundance, using sea-sur-
face temperature (SST) and the catches per unit effort (CPUE) of
the industrial fleet as explanatory variables, respectively. Finally,
we used our fitted model—accounting for the influence of SST
and CPUE of the industrial fleet—to forecast catches after 2013—
when official systematic monitoring of the industrial fleet became
only partial, but still provided CPUE for part of the total catches,
as a sub-sample. A high correlation between official and non-offi-
cial data would suggest that alternative data could fill the gaps
necessary to model population dynamics and generate predictions
that can inform decision-makers.
Material and methods
Mullet
The mullet (Mugil liza) is a pelagic species that migrate to the sea
to reproduce, but depend on estuaries and lagoons to feed and
grow (Menezes et al., 2003). The southern stock shoals migrate
from Uruguay and Argentina towards the waters of southern and
south-eastern Brazil (Sadowski and Dias, 1986; Mai et al., 2014).
This reproductive migration occurs from May to July. The peak
of spawning occurs along with the southern Brazilian states (Rio
Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Paraná) and is associated
with the decrease of sea-water temperature and frequent southern
winds (Herbst and Hanazaki, 2014; Lemos et al., 2014). Thus,
fishers are fishing the same cohort within a given year. Across
years, fishers are fishing different cohorts but at the same stage—
i.e. sexually mature mullets migrating to spawn (Garbin et al.,
2014). Most of the mullet catches (ca. 45%) occur along the coast
of Santa Catarina (Lemos et al., 2016), where the mullet fishery is
a recognized feature of cultural heritage (state law number
15.922, 2012). Rules defining fishing zones can vary with vessel
size and location, but most catches occur in the sea water after
mullet shoals leave the estuaries and lagoons. In most estuarine
systems, only traditional artisanal cast net fishers are allowed (e.g.
Peterson et al., 2008; Santos et al., 2018). Such cultural aspects are
strengthened by media coverage in newspapers and on TV,
reporting the start of the mullet season every year, and following
catches in each season.
Datasets
We assessed four datasets of mullet fisheries in the state of Santa
Catarina. First, we assessed the industrial and artisanal fisheries
datasets that comprised part of the data used in a recent mullet
stock assessment (see Sant’Ana et al., 2017). Data from the indus-
trial fleet comprise official landing reports from systematic moni-
toring conducted by the Fishery Studies Group from the
University of Vale do Itajaı́ (UNIVALI/GEP; available at http://
pmap-sc.acad.univali.br/). Landings from purse seine, bottom
gillnets and trawlers were fully assessed from 2000 to 2012, but
only partially reported after 2013. From this source of data, we
only assessed data from purse seines, which contribute to the ma-
jority of industrial fleet catches.
Filling data gaps with self-reported catches
Artisanal fisheries data came from three sources: self-reporting
catches, media reports, and logs of a beach seine fishing commu-
nity. The first source was an official effort maintained since 2003
by the Federation of Fishermen of Santa Catarina (FEPESC) that
integrates catches self-reported by fishers. From 2003 to 2016,
fishers from 24 municipalities reported catches from beach seines
and small vessels—lengths varying from 5 to 10 m, powered by
10 to 50 HP engines—along the coast of the state of Santa
Catarina, southern Brazil. In each municipality, individual fishers
reported daily catches directly to the FEPESC during the mullet
season, from May to July. These raw data were provided by
FEPESC upon request.
The second alternative source of data came from data mining
media reports of beach seines found in local newspapers at the
Florianópolis Public Library, Santa Catarina. We focused on the
newspaper with the highest state-wide circulation—Diário
Catarinense—searching for articles on beach seining catch
reports. We manually searched for articles in hard copies of news-
papers published from 2000 to 2016, in every issue from the first
day of April to the last day of July, encompassing the mullet sea-
son in southern Brazil (Vieira and Scalabrin, 1991; Lemos et al.,
2016). When available, we retrieved information on catch sizes
(number of fish or biomass in tons), date, and location.
The last alternative source of data were daily logs maintained
and provided by fishers from a traditional beach seine fishing
community at the Estaleirinho beach, in the state of Santa
Catarina (27.048 S, 48.587 W). This community self-orga-
nized in maintaining daily records of beach seine catches from
2004 to 2016.
Data analysis
As the industrial fleet and self-reporting data were reported in
terms of weight, to correlate all datasets, we converted the num-
ber of fish captured in each of the alternative datasets to catch in
metric tonnes, considering each mullet to weigh 1.6 kg on aver-
age. This figure was based on 11 newspaper articles that reported
both the number of fish and tonnes captured. Although this sim-
plified conversion presumes a time-invariant individual average
weight, the mean size of mullets caught by the industrial fleet in
the last decade was consistent across years (SEAP/PR and MMA,
2018). Then, we summarized catch data to tonnes per year, using
only catches that occurred from May to July, when mullet migrate
northwards to spawn—the peak of the mullet season (Herbst and
Hanazaki, 2014; Lemos et al., 2016). To check for correlation be-
tween the three alternative catch datasets, we used Pearson corre-
lation tests, truncating the time series from 2004 to 2012, the
period when all datasets overlapped.
Because all datasets reported catches from the same stock,
trends in all sources should depend on the same changes in envi-
ronmental conditions and stock abundance. Thus, we also fitted
models to account for artisanal fisheries trends related to changes
in SST and stock abundance. We obtained SST data from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Environmental Research Division’s Data Access Program server
(ERDDAP). We chose SST data to match time (mullet season,
from May to July) and space (the coastline of the state of Santa
Catarina) of all the four sources of mullet catch data. We calcu-
lated the mean daily SST in grid cells of 0.25 latitude by 0.25
longitude (25 km2), ranging from latitude 25.875 to 28.875
and longitude 47.875 to 49.875. For each cell, we calculated
3
the mean SST per day, from May to July (92 days). Then, we cal-
culated the spatial and temporal suitability for each year, consid-
ering the number of days at the optimal condition (19–21 C; see
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021
Lemos et al., 2016). Mullet migration is regulated by SST; sea-wa-
ter temperature triggers the ovarian maturation by affecting vitel-
logenesis, which stimulates the spawning migration of the species
(Whitfield et al., 2012; Lemos et al., 2014). Hence, the amount of
mullet available for fishing may depend both on the time window
of optimal SST conditions and the extent of the coast under opti-
mal conditions. To account for this, we summarized the influence
of SST in both space and time by summing the daily sea-surface
area within the optimal conditions for each year (hereafter opti-
mal SST). Next, we used CPUE from the industrial purse seine
fleet as our proxy for trends in stock abundance. CPUE of the in-
dustrial fleet was calculated as catches over the number of fishing
trips and converted to tonnesyear1. Due to our short time se-
ries, and the absence of significant technological innovations or
changes in how the industrial fleet behaves, we assumed a con-
stant catchability throughout the study period.
Trends in the artisanal catch data were related to optimal SST
and CPUE of the industrial fleet using Bayesian structural time-
series models, a useful class of forecasting time-series models that
generalizes many standard time-series processes in a Bayesian
framework to account for uncertainty (Scott and Varian, 2014).
We fitted models using the annual total catch of each alternative
dataset as the response variable, and optimal SST and CPUE from
the industrial purse seine fleet as predictors. Since all datasets had
different start dates, we adjusted predictors to match the length
of each response until 2012. In addition, we included terms for
autoregressive and for a local linear trend (moving average) in
the models. Autoregressive terms aim to account for the depen-
dence of stock abundance on the abundance of previous years.
Here, we used only a 3-year-lag because of our short time series.
However, as mullet reach sexual maturity at around 6 years
(Garbin et al., 2014), other values should be tested when longer
time series become available in the future. The local linear trend
was included as a proxy for stochastic or unknown processes that
could cause further fluctuations in stock abundance.
Combining either predictors, autoregressive or local linear
trends resulted in seven models for each of the three artisanal
fishing data. Model terms were combined as follows (i) predictors
þ autoregressive þ local linear trend; (ii) predictors þ autore-
gressive; (iii) predictors þ local linear trend; (iv) autoregressive
þ local linear trend; (v) predictors, (vi) autoregressive; and (vii)
local linear trend. This set of models allow us to test the effect of
SST and our proxy of stock size (CPUE of the industrial fleet) on
catch data of the three alternative small-scale datasets, accounting
for time-dependence and/or stochastic processes in stock abun-
dance. In all cases, we ran a Markov Chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) algorithm for 10000 iterations and discarded the first
1000 as burn-in. We then compared models by their ability to fit
response variables using cumulative absolute prediction errors
calculated step-by-step for the observation in the step ahead. The
smallest cumulative errors indicate good candidate models. In ad-
dition, we used the best model to forecast catches from 2013 to
2016, when only a subset of the industrial fleet landings was
reported. If observed empirical data fell outside the forecasted
95% credible interval, then we considered the model to be inade-
quate to predict trends in catches. For chosen models including
optimal SST and CPUE of the industrial fleet, the relative
4 A. M. S. Machado et al.

importance of each variable was calculated from posterior proba- 2000. From 2001 to 2016, newspaper articles reported a total of
bility distributions for their coefficients. 885.4 t of mullet landed (mean ¼ 55.3 6 46.4 SD t per year),

We carried out all the analyses in the R environment (R
Development Core Team, 2019). We used the corrplot R package
(Wei and Simko, 2017) to test the correlation between datasets
and the bsts R package (Scott, 2019) to fit Bayesian structural
time-series models.
Results
The industrial fleet landed a total of 39555 t (metric tonnes) of
mullet in the state of Santa Catarina, from 2000 to 2016 (mean ¼
2326 6 1409 SD t per year). Fishing operations had a median fleet
size of 82 (6 31.14 SD) and a median of 139 (6 56.56 SD) fishing
trips per year. From 2000 to 2012, when the industrial fleet was
systematically assessed, the average catch per unit of effort
(CPUE) was 16.27 t (6 5.87 SD) per fishing trip, ranging from
6.92 in 2002 to 27.71 t per fishing trip in 2007.
Self-reported data to FEPESC amounted 1316 monthly reports
from 2003 to 2016, comprising catches landed in 24 municipali-
ties in the state of Santa Catarina, including 24 fishing communi-
ties in the Santa Catarina Island (Figure 1). Fishers self-reported a
total of 16224.9 t of mullet landed (mean ¼ 1158.9 6 811.3 SD t
per year), ranging from 425.7 in 2013 to 3543.2 t in 2016. Media
reports comprised 288 newspaper articles published from 2001 to
2016, of which 70 reported mullet beach seines (median ¼
3.5 6 2.6 SD, ranging from 1 to 11 newspaper articles per year).
We found no media reports of mullet beach seining published in
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021
ranging from 4.9 in 2014 to 154 t in 2003. Throughout the years,
most of the newspaper articles were published in May (36%;
n ¼ 25) and June (60%; n ¼ 42). Only one catch was reported in
April (25 April 2003) and two in July (05 July 2001 and 17 July
2002). Catches from 11 municipalities were reported in newspa-
per articles. Most of the catches reported occurred in Santa
Catarina Island (64%; n ¼ 45), with other municipalities ranging
from 1 to 6 reports. Fishers from the beach seine fishing commu-
nity registered 273 beach seines from 2004 to 2016. During this
period, fishers landed 109.5 t (mean ¼ 5.1 6 8.9 SD t per year),
ranging from 0.6 in 2011 to 34.66 t in 2016.
Catches reported by the self-reporting approach correlated
with catches from the industrial fisheries fleet (r ¼ 0.77, p < 0.05).
All other correlation coefficients were not statistically clear
(Figure 2). The validity of this self-reporting approach was rein-
forced when accounting for spatial and temporal suitability of en-
vironmental conditions and stock abundance (Table 1). All
artisanal fisheries datasets were predicted by optimal SST and
stock abundance, but we found industrial fleet CPUE had the
highest posterior inclusion probability (0.67) in the model for the
self-reporting data. We found higher coefficients and posterior
inclusion probabilities for the proxy of stock abundance than for
SST, but this relationship reverses in the beach seine fishing com-
munity dataset (Table 1). These models with autoregressive terms
and predictors accumulated errors at a lower rate than other

Brazil

Self−reporting Media reports Beach seine community

25.875°S

N
0 50 100km
Latitude

ean
tic Oc
Atlan
28.875°S

100 12 40
50 6 20
0 0 0
2004 2010 2016 2004 2010 2016 2004 2010 2016

49.875°W 47.875°W 49.875°W 47.875°W 49.875°W 47.875°W

Longitude
Figure 1. Spatial and temporal scales of the alternative catch data sources. Each map indicates fishing spots in the state of Santa Catarina.
The self-reporting dataset comprises mullet catches from 24 municipalities, from 2003 to 2016 (each orange dot is a report in a given month
in each year); the media reports dataset was mined from 70 media reports from 2001 to 2016 (each dark blue dot is a media report); the
community self-monitoring dataset is a daily log of a traditional, artisanal beach seine fishing community (light blue dot) from 2004 to 2016.
Density plots on the left side of the panels show the distribution of self-reports and media reports along the coast of the state of Santa
Catarina. Bar plots show the number of self-reports, newspaper articles and successful beach seines reported by year.
Filling data gaps with self-reported catches 5

2007
2000

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021
Self−reporting
2006
2009
1000
2004
2010
2008 2005
2011
2012 r = 0.77
0 p = 0.0159

2011 2009 2009

2011
100 2010
2010
Media reports

2007 2007
2004
2004
2008
2008 2006
50 2006

2012 2012
r = 0.54 r = 0.45
2005 2005
0 p = 0.1309 p = 0.2194
Beach seine community

2004
2009
2004 r = 0.41 2004
2009
2009
p = 0.2706
2007
10 2007
2007
2008 2008 2008
2006 2006
2006 2010
5 2010 2010
2012
2012 r = 0.30
2005 2012
r = 0.47
2005

0 2011 p = 0.4388 2011 p = 0.1964 2005

2011

0 2000 4000 6000 0 1000 2000 0 50 100

Industrial fleet Self−reporting Media reports

Figure 2. Correlation between official and alternative mullet catch data (tonnesyear1) in southern Brazil. The official catches come from a
systematic monitoring of the industrial fleet, while the alternative sources include self-reporting by artisanal fishers, data mined from media
reports, and community-based self-monitoring from a traditional beach seine fishing community. For comparison, the datasets were
truncated to the period during which data were available from all sources (from 2004 to 2012). Orange line and black dots indicate the only
significant correlation, between the official data (industrial fleet) and self-reported catches.

Table 1. Coefficients and inclusion probabilities (in brackets) from Discussion

Bayesian structural time-series models with the lowest accumulated We found that self-reported catches of mullet by small-scale fish-
error for each dataset. eries can enrich formal fisheries data. The self-reported catches
Dataset Intercept SST CPUE are mostly explained by our proxy of stock abundance—the
Self-reporting 819.945 (0.376) 10.038 (0.124) 52.061 (0.67) CPUE from the industrial data—but also by greater extents in
Media reports 16.665 (0.182) 1.041 (0.19) 3.52 (0.529) space and time of optimal SST—an important trigger for the
Beach seine community 7.603 (0.305) 0.155 (0.189) 0.275 (0.139) mullet migration. Modelling self-reported catches led to accurate
predictions, following the same trends of the industrial fleet offi-
cial data. Combined, these findings demonstrate that self-
reported catches can provide robust information about mullet
stocks and compensate the lack of institutional data collection at
candidate models (Figure 3). When forecasting with models in- the regional scale.
cluding both autoregressive terms, and optimal SST and CPUE, Mullet fisheries have noticeable variations in space and time.
catches from 2013 to 2016 were mostly well-predicted (Figure 4). The industrial fleet can follow the migrating shoals northwards
This was found for self-reporting (Supplementary Figures S1–S3 while optimal climatic conditions push the migration (Lemos
and Supplementary Table S1) and media reports (Supplementary et al., 2016), and still concentrate landings at large, regional fish-
Figures S4–S6; Supplementary Table S2) datasets, with values ing ports. Conversely, small-scale fisheries must wait for the mi-
falling within the credible interval, with only one marginal grating shoals to approach the coast (Herbst and Hanazaki,
value. The beach seine fishing community dataset was, however, 2014). When assessing coastal fishing communities, conventional
poorly predicted (Supplementary Figures S7–S9; Supplementary monitoring systems in developing countries fail to address such
Table S3). spatiotemporal variability of small-scale fisheries (Gill et al.,
6 A. M. S. Machado et al.

Self−reporting
6000

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 Model
Cumulative absolute error

Media reports Linear Trend + AR + PRED

500 Linear Trend + PRED
400
Linear Trend + AR
300
200 AR
100 PRED
0
Linear Trend
Beach seine community
AR + PRED
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Figure 3. Cumulative absolute one-step-ahead errors for each set of candidate Bayesian structural time-series models. Lines show the
cumulative absolute errors for each model, colour coded by the combination of terms—linear trend (moving average), autoregressive (AR),
and predictors (PRED)—included in the model. Small cumulative errors indicate good candidate models. In models with predictors, annual
total catch of each alternative data from artisanal fisheries were fitted as the response variable (see original series in Figure 4) to the number
of days in optimal SST (19–21 C) and CPUE of the purse seine industrial fleet as predictors.

2019). Alternative catch data from small-scale fisheries can cap-
ture such variation at the fine scale and provide valid information
on mullet stocks, as well as details on fishers’ behaviour and
the fisheries dynamics. Among the three alternative catch data
sources we explored here, self-reporting showed the most similar
pattern to the official data. Self-reported catch data better
accounted for the variations in space and time, as it relies on
reports from fishers using beach seines and small vessels that to-
gether account for a significant fishery harvest along the 500 km
coast of the state of Santa Catarina. In contrast, our findings sug-
gest neither newsworthy catches nor fine-scale data from a single
beach seine fishing community can capture the variation in space
and time of mullet fisheries.
Media reports provide limited information to be used as a
proxy of stock abundance. Despite covering catches during a sim-
ilar period and along with a similar extent of the coast than the
self-reporting dataset, media reports are only a small sample of all
beach seines. Catches around more urbanized and accessible areas
may be disproportionally more reported in the media. Also, not
every catch is newsworthy, with unusually large catches more
readily making headline news. Media reports may also be biased
by logistical limitations (e.g. reporters are close to specific fishing
spots) or editorial decision (e.g. publish only large or early
catches). Hence, media reports are unlikely to represent a reliable
sample of mullet catches. But media reports might still play a role
in reinforcing the regional cultural relevance of mullet fisheries
and shaping peoples’ perceptions of wildlife (Silk et al., 2018;
Francis et al., 2019).
The detailed catch logs from a single community also present a
key limitation: catch data are highly spatially constrained.
Although a local community can provide detailed, fine-scale tem-
poral data, it reports only the catches of a single fishing spot,
making this data source unable to account for spatial variation.
That is, catch data from a fine spatial scale (here a single commu-
nity) might be disconnected from environmental processes at a
large scale. However, this bias could be reduced by incorporating
networks of multiple, local communities along the coast into a
single, integrated, citizen-science project. A citizen-science ap-
proach could broaden the spatiotemporal scale of this alternative
data source, especially if coupled with new technologies and in-
formation systems, such as webcams in fishing spots, and online
social networks and reporting apps whereby fishers could share
information on fishing activities along the coast (Devos et al.,
2019).
Self-reporting by small-scale coastal fisheries provides the most
reliable information, partially because self-reporting includes doz-
ens of fishing communities across a large geographical range and
can effectively account for environmental conditions that influ-
ence stock abundance. Therefore, self-reporting data coped with
the challenges of sampling small-scale fisheries (e.g. variation in
landing spots and fishing gear), often overlooked by fisheries
management and stock-assessment models. This is notably im-
portant for the maintenance of the mullet fishery in southern
Brazil, which since 2004 has been under threat due to poor man-
agement, lack of law enforcement and intermittent data collection
(Abreu-Mota et al., 2018). Despite such difficulties, fishers main-
tained their continuous self-report monitoring since 2003 provid-
ing long-term data. Fine spatial and temporal-scale data provide
sufficient resolution for improved detection of changes in mullet
abundance and distribution, and fisheries effort at local and
Filling data gaps with self-reported catches 7

(a) Industrial fleet CPUE

50 90

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021
CPUE (ton/fishing trips)
Fleet size

Days in optimal SST

40 25
75
60
30 125

20
30

10
Partial
monitoring
0 0

(b) Self-reporting
4000 90
Predicted catches

Days in optimal SST

Credible interval
3000
Yield (ton)

60

2000

30
1000

0 0

(c) Media reports

300 90
Predicted catches

Days in optimal SST

Credible interval
Yield (ton)

200 60

100 30

0 0

(d) Beach seine community

50 90
Predicted catches
Days in optimal SST

Credible interval
40
Yield (ton)

60
30

20
30

10

0 0
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015

Figure 4. Catch time series of mullet fisheries in southern Brazil. Background histograms show the number of days (maximum ¼ 92) in
optimal conditions of mean daily SST from 19 C to 21 C. Temperatures from 19 C to 21 C are considered the best conditions for the mullet
catches. (a) Data generated by an official landing monitoring program of the industrial fleet. Solid line and points show catch per unit of
effort (CPUE), calculated as tonnes by fishing trips. Landings were only partially assessed after 2013, represented by the grey dashed line in
panels (a)–(d). In panels (b)–(d), lines and squares show annual catches from 2000 to 2016, colour coded by each alternative data source.
Lines and diamonds in black show the predicted catches and shaded areas the credible interval estimated from each Bayesian model (see the
full posterior distribution in Supplementary Figures S3, S6, and S9). (b) Catch data from an integrated self-reported approach conducted by
fishers from 24 municipalities in the state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil; (c) Catch data mined from media reports in the state of Santa
Catarina; (d) Catch data from self-organized and maintained daily records by fishers of only one traditional beach seine fishing community.
8 A. M. S. Machado et al.
regional spatial scales. This is of particular relevance given climate
change, since increasing SST might disrupt the timing and routes
of the mullet migration, forcing changes in fishers’ behaviour and
in their ability to follow high biomass concentrations. These fine-
scale data will also help to identify local changes in mullet abun-
dance and the consequences for their trophic interactions. As
mullet is a key prey species for top predators, such as the bottle-
nose dolphins Tursiops truncatus gephyreus (Teixeira et al., 2021),
this needs to be accounted for in fisheries management and in
conservation plans.
We recommend implementing policies that encourage the self-
reporting by artisanal fishing communities and include self-
reporting data into a more comprehensive, dynamic, and inte-
grated management approach that could lead to a very-welcomed
paradigm shift in fisheries management. For instance, the cultural
aspects of the mullet fishery are the key to this paradigm shift and
to the success of self-reporting, or even other alternative
approaches relying on data from artisanal communities.
Reinforcing such cultural aspects will likely motivate fishers to
engage in data collection (Newman et al., 2017), thereby facilitat-
ing their inclusion in more sustainable and participative manage-
ment plans. Therefore, given that the mullet is a culturally
important species in southern Brazil, by integrating alternative
data sources, managers not only benefit from a more detailed de-
scription of the fishing system, but this also welcomes fishers to
become key stakeholders in co-management schemes (Freitas
et al., 2020), boosting their sense of stewardship and their role in
the species conservation for future generations.
Supplementary data
Supplementary material is available at the ICESJMS online ver-
sion of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We thank Ivo da Silva and the collaborators of the Federation of
Fishermen of Santa Catarina (FEPESC) for sharing the data; the
staff from the Public Library of the State of Santa Catarina for the
help with newspapers archives; Leonardo Viera and Jo~ao Campos
for sharing the detailed logs from Estaleirinho beach seines. We
thank Mauricio Cantor for thoroughly reviewing the manuscript
text. This study was financed in part by the Coordenaç~ao de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nı́vel Superior—Brasil (CAPES) -
Finance Code 001 (A.M.S.M.; E.L.H.G). Figures were designed
with icons from flaticon.com.
Author contributions
F.G.D.J. and A.M.S.M. conceived the study; L.P.F. performed
data mining on newspapers; A.M.S.M. and E.L.H.G. explored and
analysed the data; A.M.S.M., E.L.H.G. and F.G.D.J. interpreted
the data; A.M.S.M., F.G.D.J. and S.N.I. wrote the original draft of
the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and gave fi-
nal approval for publication
Data and code availability
The raw data underlying this article were provided upon request.
Data will be shared on request to the corresponding author upon
permission of the third parties. The formatted dataset and R code
used here are available at https://github.com/machadoams/mul
let-alternative-data.
References
Abreu-Mota, M. A., Medeiros, R. P., and Noernberg, M. A. 2018.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021
Resilience thinking applied to fisheries management: perspectives
for the mullet fishery in Southern-Southeastern Brazil. Regional
Environmental Change, 18: 2047–2058.
Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mangel, J. C., Pajuelo, M., Dutton, P. H.,
Seminoff, J. A., and Godley, B. J. 2010. Where small can have a
large impact: structure and characterization of small-scale fisher-
ies in Peru. Fisheries Research, 106: 8–17.
Bland, L. M., Orme, C. D. L., Bielby, J., Collen, B., Nicholson, E., and
McCarthy, M. A. 2015. Cost-effective assessment of extinction
risk with limited information. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52:
861–870.
Canty, S., Funes, M., Box, S., Zylich, K., Derrick, B., Divovich, E.,
Lindop, A., et al. 2019. The hidden value of artisanal fisheries in
Honduras. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 26: 249–259.
Castello, L. 2004. A method to count pirarucu Arapaima gigas: fish-
ers, assessment, and management. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management, 24: 379–389.
Costello, C., Ovando, D., Hilborn, R., Gaines, S. D., Deschenes, O.,
and Lester, S. E. 2012. Status and solutions for the world’s unas-
sessed fisheries. Science, 338: 517–520.
Damasio, L. d. M. A., Lopes, P. F. M., Guariento, R. D., and
Carvalho, A. R. 2015. Matching fishers’ knowledge and landing
data to overcome data missing in small-scale fisheries. PLoS One,
10: e0133122.
de Lestang, S., Caputi, N., How, J., Melville-Smith, R., Thomson, A.,
and Stephenson, P. 2012. Stock assessment for the west coast rock
lobster fishery. Fisheries research Report, 217. Department of
Fisheries, Western Australia. 200 pp.
Devos, R. V., Barbosa, G. C., and Vedana, V. 2019. Fish news: percep-
tual skills, technique and distributed cognition in mullet fishing.
Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 16: 1–23.
Francis, F. T., Howard, B. R., Berchtold, A. E., Branch, T. A., Chaves,
L. C. T., Dunic, J. C., Favaro, B., et al. 2019. Shifting headlines?
Size trends of newsworthy fishes. PeerJ, 7: e6395.
Free, C. M., Jensen, O. P., Anderson, S. C., Gutierrez, N. L., Kleisner,
K. M., Longo, C., Minto, C., et al. 2020. Blood from a stone: per-
formance of catch-only methods in estimating stock biomass sta-
tus. Fisheries Research, 223: 105452.
Freitas, C. T., Lopes, P. F. M., Campos-Silva, J. V., Noble, M. M.,
Dyball, R., and Peres, C. A. 2020. Co-management of culturally
important species: a tool to promote biodiversity conservation
and human well-being. People and Nature, 2: 61–81.
Garbin, T., Castello, J. P., and Kinas, P. G. 2014. Age, growth, and
mortality of the mullet Mugil liza in Brazil’s southern and south-
eastern coastal regions. Fisheries Research, 149: 61–68.
Gill, D. A., Oxenford, H. A., Turner, R. A., and Schuhmann, P. W.
2019. Making the most of data-poor fisheries: low cost mapping
of small island fisheries to inform policy. Marine Policy, 101:
198–207.
Herbst, D. F., and Hanazaki, N. 2014. Local ecological knowledge of
fishers about the life cycle and temporal patterns in the migration
of mullet (Mugil liza) in Southern Brazil. Neotropical
Ichthyology, 12: 879–890.
Kindsvater, H. K., Dulvy, N. K., Horswill, C., Juan-Jordá, M.-J.,
Mangel, M., and Matthiopoulos, J. 2018. Overcoming the Data
Crisis in Biodiversity Conservation. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 33: 676–688.
Lemos, V. M., Varela, A. S., Schwingel, P. R., Muelbert, J. H., and
Vieira, J. P. 2014. Migration and reproductive biology of Mugil
liza (Teleostei: mugilidae) in south Brazil. Journal of Fish Biology,
85: 671–687.
Lemos, V. M., Avila Troca, D. F., Castello, J. P., and Paes Vieira, J.
2016. Tracking the southern Brazilian schools of Mugil liza during
reproductive migration using VMS of purse seiners. Latin
American Journal of Aquatic Research, 44: 238–246.
Filling data gaps with self-reported catches
Lotze, H. K., and Worm, B. 2009. Historical baselines for large ma-
rine animals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24: 254–262.
Mai, A. C. G., Mi~ no, C. I., Marins, L. F. F., Monteiro-Neto, C.,
Miranda, L., Schwingel, P. R., Lemos, V. M., et al. 2014.
Microsatellite variation and genetic structuring in Mugil liza
(Teleostei: mugilidae) populations from Argentina and Brazil.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 149: 80–86.
Menezes, N. A., Buckup, P. A., Figueiredo, J. L., De, and Moura, R. L.
and De, 2003. Catálogo Das Espécies de Peixes Marinhos Do
Brasil. Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de S~ao Paulo, S~ao
Paulo. 160 pp.
Mion, M., Piras, C., Fortibuoni, T., Celic, I., Franceschini, G.,
Giovanardi, O., Belardinelli, A., et al. 2015. Collection and valida-
tion of self-sampled e-logbook data in a Mediterranean demersal
trawl fishery. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 2: 76–86.
MPA/MMA. 2015. Plano de gest~ao para o uso sustentável da tainha,
Mugil liza Valenciennes, 1836, no Sudeste e Sul do Brasil.
Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura (MPA), Ministério do Meio
Ambiente (MMA): 238.
MPA. 2011. Statistical Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquaculture from
Brazil (Boletim estatı́stico da Pesca e Aquicultura do Brasil).
Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura (MPA): 60. Brası́lia, DF, Brazil.
Newman, G., Chandler, M., Clyde, M., McGreavy, B., Haklay, M.,
Ballard, H., Gray, S., et al. 2017. Leveraging the power of place in
citizen science for effective conservation decision making.
Biological Conservation, 208: 55–64.
Pauly, D. 2006. Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with em-
phasis on developing countries, and some implications for social
sciences. Maritime Studies, 4: 7–22.
Pauly, D., and Zeller, D. 2016. Catch reconstructions reveal that
global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and de-
clining. Nature Communications, 7: 10244.
Peterson, D., Hanazaki, N., and Sim~ oes-Lopes, P. C. 2008. Natural re-
source appropriation in cooperative artisanal fishing between fish-
ermen and dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Laguna. Brazil. Ocean
Coast. Manag, 51: 469–475.
R Development Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment
for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/.
Rudd, M. B., and Branch, T. A. 2017. Does unreported catch lead to
overfishing? Fish and Fisheries, 18: 313–323.
Sadowski, V., and Dias, E. R. A. 1986. Migraç~ao da tainha (Mugil
cephalus Linnaeus, 1758, sensu latu) na costa sul do Brasil.
Boletim Do Instituto de Pesca, 13: 31–50.
Sant’Ana, R., Gerhard Kinas, P., Villwock de Miranda, L., Schwingel,
P. R., Castello, J. P., and., and Paes Vieira, J. 2017. Bayesian
9
state-space models with multiple CPUE data: the case of a mullet
fishery. Scientia Marina, 81: 361.
Santos, M. L., Lemos, V. M., and Vieira, J. P. 2018. No mullet, no
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsab074/6231554 by Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina user on 17 April 2021
gain: cooperation between dolphins and cast net fishermen in
southern Brazil. Zoologia, 35: 1–13.
Sbragaglia, V., Correia, R. A., Coco, S., and Arlinghaus, R. 2020. Data
mining on YouTube reveals fisher group-specific harvesting pat-
terns and social engagement in recreational anglers and spear-
fishers. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 77: 2234–2244.
SEAP/PR, MMA 2018. Relatório final do comitê de acompanha-
mento das cotas de tainha - Safra 2018. Secretaria Especial da
Aquicultura e da Pesca da Presidência da República (SEAP/PR),
Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA): 91. Brası́lia, DF, Brasil.
Scott, S. L. 2019. bsts: Bayesian structural time series. R package ver-
sion 0.9.1. https://cran.r-project.org/package¼bsts.
Scott, S. L., and Varian, H. R. 2014. Predicting the present with
Bayesian structural time series. International Journal of
Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation, 5: 4–23.
Shester, G. G., and Micheli, F. 2011. Conservation challenges for
small-scale fisheries: bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gill-
nets. Biological Conservation, 144: 1673–1681.
Silk, M. J., Crowley, S. L., Woodhead, A. J., and Nuno, A. 2018.
Considering connections between Hollywood and biodiversity
conservation. Conservation Biology, 32: 597–606..
Teixeira, C. R., Botta, S., Daura-Jorge, F. G., Pereira, L. B., Newsome,
S. D., and Sim~ oes-Lopes, P. C. 2021. Niche overlap and diet com-
position of three sympatric coastal dolphin species in the south-
west Atlantic Ocean. Marine Mammal Science, 37: 111–126.
Venturelli, P. A., Hyder, K., and Skov, C. 2017. Angler apps as a
source of recreational fisheries data: opportunities, challenges and
proposed standards. Fish and Fisheries, 18: 578–595.
Vieira, J. P., and Scalabrin, C. 1991. Migraç~ao reprodutiva da tainha
(Mugil platanus Gunther, 1980) no sul do Brasil. Atlântica, 13:
131–141.
Wei, T., and Simko, V. 2017. corrplot: visualization of a correlation
matrix. R package version 0.84. https://cran.r-project.org/pack
age¼corrplot.
Whitfield, A. K., Panfili, J., and Durand, J.-D. 2012. A global review
of the cosmopolitan flathead mullet Mugil cephalus Linnaeus 1758
(Teleostei: mugilidae), with emphasis on the biology, genetics,
ecology and fisheries aspects of this apparent species complex.
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 22: 641–681.
Zeller, D., Harper, S., Zylich, K., and Pauly, D. 2015. Synthesis of
underreported small-scale fisheries catch in Pacific island waters.
Coral Reefs, 34: 25–39.
Handling editor: Sarah Kraak