MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 35 (3): 373-385 (2022)
https://doi.org/10.47193/mafis.3532022010904
ABSTRACT. A ghost fishing experiment was conducted using gillnets in a rocky reef off the
state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Scuba divers monitored changes in the structure of the nets
and catches for 92 days. One hundred and twenty-six entangled animals were observed, including
target and non-target fishing species: 13 teleosts (N =52; 43%) and four crustaceans (N =74; 57%).
The crab Menippe nodifrons was the most frequently entangled species (N =36; 28%). Entangle-
ment rates decreased over time following a logarithmic model for fishes and crustaceans, and an
exponential model for both taxa combined, attributed to the degradation, and tangling of the nets
and biofouling. The area of the net decreased linearly over time, collapsing after 92 days. This study
provides the first experimental evaluation of the impacts of ghost fishing caused by gillnets in
Brazilian rocky reefs.
Key words: Derelict gillnets, entangled, marine litter.
Estudio experimental sobre pesca fantasma en arrecifes costeros rocosos del sur de Brasil
RESUMEN. Se realizó un experimento de pesca fantasma utilizando redes de enmalle en un
arrecife rocoso frente al estado de Santa Catarina, en el sur de Brasil. Los buzos monitorearon los
cambios en la estructura de las redes y las capturas durante 92 días. Se observaron ciento veintiséis
animales enmallados, entre especies de pesca objetivo y no objetivo: 13 teleósteos (N =52; 43%)
y cuatro crustáceos (N =74; 57%). El cangrejo Menippe nodifrons fue la especie más frecuente-
mente enmallada (N =36; 28%). Las tasas de enmalle disminuyeron con el tiempo siguiendo un
modelo logarítmico para peces y crustáceos, y un modelo exponencial para ambos taxones combi-
nados, atribuidos a la degradación y enredo de las redes y bioincrustaciones. El área de la red dis-
minuyó linealmente con el tiempo, la cual colapsó después de 92 días. Este estudio proporciona la
primera evaluación experimental de los impactos de la pesca fantasma causada por redes de enmalle
en los arrecifes rocosos de Brasil.
Palabras clave: Redes de enmalle abandonadas, enmallado, basura marina.
373
*Correspondence:
gecely@uesc.br
Received: 2 April 2022
Accepted: 27 June 2022
ISSN 2683-7595 (print)
ISSN 2683-7951 (online)
https://ojs.inidep.edu.ar
Journal of the Instituto Nacional de
Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero
(INIDEP)
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
International License
Marine and
Fishery Sciences
MAFIS
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
An experimental study on ghost fishing in rocky coastal reefs in southern
Brazil
JOHNATAS ADELIR-ALVES1, PEDRO C. PINHEIRO1, KÁTIA M. F. FREIRE2, LUIS FELIPE A. DUARTE3and
GECELY R. A. ROCHA4, *
1Universidade da Região de Joinville, Rodovia Duque de Caxias, km 8, 89240-000 - São Francisco do Sul, Brazil. 2Laboratório de Ecologia
Pesqueira, Departamento de Engenharia de Pesca e Aquicultura, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Cidade Universitária Prof. José Aloísio de
Campos, Rua Mal. Rondon s/n, Jardim Rosa Elze, 49100-000 - São Cristóvão, Brazil. 3Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Centro de Ciências
Biológicas e da Saúde, Rua dos Suindaras, 13565-905 - São Carlos, Brazil. 4Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Departamento de Ciências
Biológicas, Rodovia Jorge Amado, km 16, 45662-900 - Ilhéus, Brazil; johnatas_alves@yahoo.com (JAA), pinheiro.pc@terra.com.br (PCP),
kmffreire2018@gmail.com (KMFF), duarte.mepi@gmail.com (LFAD). ORCID Johnatas Adelir-Alves https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8882-4009,
Pedro C. Pinheiro https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1459-8042, Kátia M. F. Freire https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-3532,
Luis Felipe A. Duarte https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4658-4684, Gecely R. A. Rocha https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6333-8584
INTRODUCTION
Reports of abandoned, lost, or otherwise dis-
carded fishing gears (ALDFG), also called
derelict fishing gears, first appeared in the scien-
tific literature in the early 1970s (Smolowitz
1978). However, it was not until the 1990s that
this issue was recognized as an emerging threat
(Shomura and Yoshida 1985; Goldberg 1995).
Fishing, and derelict gears, have direct and indi-
rect impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems
(Macfadyen et al. 2009). The inappropriate dis-
posal of solid waste indirectly damages aquatic
populations, leading to economic losses to the
fishing activity (Dayton et al. 1995). Hundreds of
marine species have been affected by fishing gear
entanglement and ingestion (NOAA 2014).
Weather, operational fishing factors and gear
conflicts are probably the most significant
aspects causing the loss or discard of fishing
gears at sea (Macfadyen et al. 2009), where they
can entangle, trap, or kill fishes and other aquatic
animals, a phenomenon called ‘ghost fishing’
(Kura et al. 2004).
Commercial and non-commercial species of
fishes and crustaceans, birds, marine mammals,
and turtles are affected by ghost fishing around
the world (Matsuoka et al. 2005; Brown and Mac-
fadyen 2007; Beneli et al. 2020), a phenomenon
that has worsened with the use of synthetic, slow-
degrading material, which might persist for
decades in the environment. The subject has
gained increasing attention in the last two
decades (Gilman et al. 2012, 2016) and is current-
ly well documented (Gilman et al. 2021). Derelict
gillnets represent one of the highest risks amongst
marine commercial fishing gears due to their
global adverse effects (Gilman et al. 2021).
Direct measurements of fishing capacity of lost
gill and trammel nets by diving observations date
back to the 1990s (Kaiser et al. 1996; Erzini et al.
1997). When nets are lost, they continue to fish
before becoming physically damaged or heavily
colonized by incrusting biota, thus losing their
catching ability. Catch rates and the evolution of
lost gillnets would allow for estimating total mor-
tality of marine life due to derelict gears (Ayaz et
al. 2006; Akiyama et al. 2007; Baeta et al. 2009).
A quantitative assessment of the direct impact of
derelict gears on marine resources must take into
account the rate of loss of such species, the effec-
tive impact lifespan of the gear, and the market
value of the species caught (Gilardi et al. 2010).
A growing concern about litter in aquatic sys-
tems has also been observed in Brazil, with
reports for freshwater (Iriarte and Marmontel
2013; Azevedo-Santos et al. 2022), oceanic (San-
tos et al. 2012; Grillo and Mello 2021), and
coastal regions (Mascarenhas et al. 2008; Macha-
do and Fillmann 2010; Vieira et al. 2011;
Andrades et al. 2020; Pinheiro et al. 2021), and its
subsequent impacts on estuarine fauna (Possatto
et al. 2011; Dantas et al. 2012). There are also a
few studies on derelict fishing gears and ghost
fishing (Chaves and Robert 2009; Adelir-Alves et
al. 2016), including a review of ALDFG (Link et
al. 2019) and the negative impacts of ghost nets
on Brazilian marine biodiversity revealed by dig-
ital media (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2021). Howev-
er, till now, a quantitative assessment of the direct
impact of derelict fishing gears on marine
resources had not been conducted in Brazil.
This study simulated ghost fishing by derelict
gillnets aiming at quantifying entanglement rates
for fish and crustaceans, and at assessing net col-
lapse over time in shallow rocky reefs off the
state of Santa Catarina, in southern Brazil.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study site
The coast of the state of Santa Catarina is 531
km long (Figure 1), corresponding to 7% of the
374 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 35 (3): 373-385 (2022)
Brazilian coast, and belongs to the biogeograph-
ical province of the Southwest Atlantic or Brazil-
ian Province (Floeter and Gasparini 2000). The
region is influenced by two main atmospheric
systems, the South Atlantic Subtropical Anticy-
clones (SASH) and the Atlantic Polar Migratory
Anticyclone. These anticyclones are the generat-
ing sources of the Atlantic Tropical Mass (ATM)
and the Atlantic Polar Mass (APM), respectively.
The Atlantic Polar Front (APF), resulting from
the contact between these two air masses, is
responsible for part of the local precipitation,
controlled by the presence of the mountains of
Serra do Mar, Eastern Santa Catarina, and Serra
Geral. Total annual rainfall is higher on the
northern coast of the state (1,800 mm). The aver-
age number of cold fronts is quite similar in all
seasons, with a slight decrease in the summer
and a slight increase in the winter. SASH and
APM anticyclones lead to an alternate prevailing
wind regime between northeast (SASH) and
south (cold fronts) (Carvalho et al. 1998; Pereira
et al. 2009).
Experiment and data analysis
The experiment was set up in rocky reefs, 7 km
(4 nm) off the northern coast of the state of Santa
Catarina (Figure 1). An echosounder was used to
check local depth and slope to subsequently
deploy four gillnets. Nets were arranged vertically
in 12 m deep areas, fixed on the rocky bottom
with anchors on both sides, flagged with a surface
buoy, and georeferenced (G1 26° 31'11.88"S, 48°
33'56.16"W; G2 26° 31'11.82"S, 48° 33'55.20"
W; G3 26° 31'10.98"S, 48° 33'54.48"W; G4 26°
31'14.22"S, 48° 33'54.78"W). Rectangular gill-
nets (20 m long and 2 m high) of green polyamide
monofilament (diameter =0.7 mm; mesh size = 10
cm between opposite knots), placed around 50 m
375
ADELIR-ALVES ET AL.: GHOST FISHING IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL
Figure 1. Location of gillnets (G1, G2, G3, G4), near Lobos Island, northern coast off the state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil.
Map: Diogo A. Moreira.
26° 30 S'
Lobos Island
G3
G1 G2
G4
26° 31 S'
48° 34 W'
1 km
Brazil
Santa Catarina
Atlantic Ocean
N
apart from each other, were used with floaters on
the top line and lead sinkers on the bottom line,
like those used by local fishers.
Two scientific divers conducted visual census
on the nets using scuba diving (Heine 1999;
Donohue et al. 2001; Pollock and Godfrey 2007).
All nets were surveyed from March 29th to July
1st, 2012, with different time intervals (1, 9, 29,
55, 75, and 92 days after deployment). Each net
was monitored for 30-40 min and the resulting
data were recorded on a PVC clipboard using
pencil; underwater photos and/or videos were
taken. All entangled animals were identified to
the lowest taxonomic level (Figueiredo and
Menezes 1978, 1980, 2000; Fonteles-Filho 1999;
Melo 1996; Menezes and Figueiredo 1980, 1985;
Menezes et al. 2003), counted, and tagged with
plastic clamps to prevent double counting.
To assess the entanglement, all divers followed
the same procedure in each subsequent dive,
recording the condition of previously observed
entanglements and registering new entangle-
ments. To evaluate the structural evolution of
nets, the height between the top and bottom lines
of each gillnet was measured along their length
(0, 2.5, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5, 15.0, 17.5, 20.0 m) to cal-
culate the area of the net over time. A linear
model was fitted to the rate of reduction in area,
and consequently in fishing capacity, due to the
collapse of the net (% original area =-a ln(day +
b). Sketches of each gillnet were drawn to show
the reduction of the net area throughout the time.
All nets were removed immediately after the
final survey.
Entanglement rates (ER: number of entangled
animals/day/net) were calculated by taxa (crus-
taceans, fishes) by counting the number of ani-
mals newly entangled between surveys and divid-
ing by the number of days between observations
(Gilardi et al. 2010). Nonlinear models (logarith-
mic: ER =a ln(Day) +b, and exponential: ER =a
ebDay) were checked for fishes, crustaceans, and
total quantity (fishes and crustaceans) (Faraway
2002; Zar 2010).
The local market price of target species (USD
kg-1) was used as a proxy to indicate commercial
importance. The recreational importance was
defined based on personal observation (JAA).
RESULTS
A total of 126 animals were observed entangled
in all four gillnets: four species of crustaceans (n =
74; 57%) and 13 species of fish (n =52; 43%)
(Table 1). The stone crab Menippe nodifrons
Stimpson, 1859 was the most frequent species (n =
36; 28%). Eight of the entangled fish species and
one crustacean Panulirus laevicauda (Latreille,
1817) have commercial importance (Table 1).
The number of entangled fishes surpassed the
number of crustaceans in the first two dives,
reaching 59% of total catches in Day 9 (Figure 2).
After this period, the percentage of entangled fish-
es decreased until reaching zero, 92 days after the
deployment of the nets. Crustacean entanglements
increased over a longer period and decreased later.
Entanglement rates for fishes [ER =-0.269
ln(Day) +1.1715] and crustaceans [ER =-0.164
ln(Day) +0.826] showed higher coefficients of
determination in logarithmic models (R2=0.91
and 0.90, respectively) (Figure 3 A). When fishes
and crustaceans were combined, the entangle-
ment rate [ER =1.3748 e-0.032Day] had a higher
coefficient with an exponential model (R2 =0.98)
(Figure 3 B).
The fishing area of the nets decreased over
time, due to the accumulation of detritus, biofoul-
ing, and damages such as broken meshes (Figure
4 A and 4 B). Their physical fishing capacity was
reduced to 26% of the original value after 75 days
of immersion (Figure 5). The rate of loss of fish-
ing capacity was fitted to a linear model (% orig-
inal area =-0.938Day +88.112; R2 =0.96). Thus,
it is expected that gillnets are totally collapsed
within 94 days, on average, under the experimen-
tal conditions.
376 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 35 (3): 373-385 (2022)
DISCUSSION
This study estimated entanglement rates and
the mean time of collapse of the derelict gillnets
under experimental condition for the first time in
Brazil. Crustaceans and fishes were the groups
most affected, as has been observed around the
world (Gilman et al. 2016), with the highest pro-
portion corresponding to crustaceans (Kaiser et
al. 1996; Revill and Dunlin 2003; Akiyama et al.
2007; Gilardi et al. 2010; Queirolo and Gaete
2014). In other ghost fishing experiments, the
capture of mollusks was reported (Akiyama et al.
2007; Baeta et al. 2009; Queirolo and Gaete
2014), but it was not observed here. Ghost fishing
is thought to be more problematic in passive fish-
ing gears after being set and subsequently lost or
abandoned, as they continue capturing animals
for some time (Gilman 2015).
A temporal pattern was observed, with ghost
catches initially showing a high proportion of
fishes, before becoming dominated by crus-
taceans, as observed in other areas (Kaiser et al.
1996; Erzini et al. 1997; Akiyama et al. 2007;
Brown and Macfadyen 2007; Baeta et al. 2009).
The later predominance of crustaceans has been
associated with their proximity to the seabed and
with their scavenger habit, using dead and
decomposing individuals trapped in the nets as
food, resulting in cyclical catching by the fishing
gear (Macfadyen et al. 2009). Thus, crustaceans
are easily turned into targets for entanglement,
377
ADELIR-ALVES ET AL.: GHOST FISHING IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL
Table 1. List of taxa (class, family, species) caught in the ghost experiment conducted off the coast of Santa Catarina in 2012,
total number of individuals caught per species (N), relative abundance (%), fishing importance (FI) in price per unit
of weight (P-USD kg-1), fished by recreational fishers (RF), and no commercial or recreational importance (―).
Class Family Species N % FI
Crustacea Xanthidae Menippe nodifrons Stimpson, 1859 36 28 RF
Majidae Mithrax hispidus (Herbst, 1790) 20 15 RF
Portunidae Cronius ruber (Lamarck, 1818) 17 13 ―
Palinuridae Panulirus laevicauda (Latreille, 1817) 1 1 RF/P-7.00
Teleostei Haemulidae Anisotremus virginicus (Linnaeus, 1758) 17 13 ―
Anisotremus surinamensis (Bloch, 1791) 4 3 RF/P-1.06
Pomacentridae Abudefduf saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) 7 6 ―
Epinephelidae Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) 2 2 RF/P-3.82
Mycteroperca acutirostris (Valenciennes, 1828) 3 2 RF/P-2.27
Scaridae Sparisoma frondosum (Agassiz, 1831) 2 2 RF
Monacanthidae Stephanolepis hispida (Linnaeus, 1766) 1 1 RF/P-1.06
Holocentridae Holocentrus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765) 1 1 ―
Priacanthidae Priacanthus arenatus Cuvier, 1829 1 1 RF/P-1.06
Sparidae Diplodus argenteus (Valenciennes, 1830) 2 2 RF
Carangidae Chloroscombrus chrysurus (Linnaeus, 1766) 3 2 RF/P-1.06
Caranx crysos (Mitchill, 1815) 1 1 RF/P-1.68
Caranx latus Agassiz, 1831 1 1 RF/P-1.68
Not identified* ― 7 6 ―
*Animal in advanced state of decomposition.
even after the nets present a reduction in their
fishing area (Revill and Dunlin 2003; Baeta et al.
2009). Ghost fishing is often cyclical, with its
duration and extent depending on the gear type,
water depth, currents, and local environment,
among other factors (Macfadyen et al. 2009).
Even though the analyzed nets may have been
exposed to different environmental conditions,
their catching efficiency followed similar pat-
terns, with exponential models indicating rapid
declines in catch rates after a few weeks (Brown
and Macfadyen 2007; FAO 2009). Our study
found a higher value of catch rate (e-0.032t ) com-
pared to those reported in Izmir Bay, Turkey
378 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 35 (3): 373-385 (2022)
Figure 3. Entanglement rates (ER, animals/day/net) and fitted nonlinear models during the experiment conducted off the coast
of Santa Catarina. A) Fishes and crustaceans (logarithmic model). B) Total (exponential model).
Figure 2. A) Number of individuals caught by each gillnet (G1, G2, G3, and G4). B) Total number of fishes and crustaceans
caught in all four nets during the experiment.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
Number of individuals
Days
20 40 60 80 100
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
Number of individuals
20 40 60 80 100
Days
G1
G2
G3
G4
Fishes
Crustaceans
AB
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
00
Days
20 40 60 80 100
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
00 20 40 60 80 100
Days
AB
Entanglement rate (animals/day/net)
Entanglement rate (animals/day/net)
ER = 1.3748e -0.032Day
R = 0.98
2
Total
Fishes
ER = -0.269ln(Day) + 1.1715
R = 0.91
2
Crustaceans
ER = -0.164ln(Day) + 0.8267
R = 0.90
2
(e-0.0127t ), in Tateyama Bay, Japan (e-0.0154t ), and
in Laguna Verde, Chile (e-0.0158t ) (Ayaz et al.
2006; Akiyama et al. 2007; Queirolo and Gaete
2014, respectively), but smaller than the ones
observed in Algarve, Portugal (e-0.0542t ) (Erzini et
al. 1997). The catching efficiency of ghost gill-
nets is determined by their vertical profile, grad-
ually declining with the exposure to storms and
fouling. Biofouling, and subsequent increase in
visibility, might occur rapidly in subtropical con-
ditions, contributing to a faster decline in entan-
glement rates (catching efficiency) observed in
our study.
A sharp decrease in the functional area of the
experimental gillnets in the first weeks after
deployment appears to be the pattern, followed by
a gradual decline until stabilization near the bot-
tom. Reductions to 21% of the original area after
17 weeks (Erzini et al. 1997), to 18% after 10
weeks (Revill and Dunlin 2003), and to less than
10% after 64 days of immersion (Queirolo and
Gaete 2014) were reported. Thereafter, in most
379
ADELIR-ALVES ET AL.: GHOST FISHING IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL
Figure 4. Fishing area of gillnets (G1, G2, G3, and G4) over a 92-day-period. A) Sketches were based on measurements of the
net height (initially 2 m) and length (20 m). B) Images of the gillnet structural deterioration over the experiment period.
G1 G2
G3
G4
1
9
29
55
75
92
A
B
studies, the rate of loss of fishing capacity
decreased till reaching zero after 115 days
(Queirolo and Gaete 2014), 15-20 weeks (Erzini
et al. 1997), one year (Ayaz et al. 2006), or even
two years of abandonment (Revill and Dunlin
2003; Tschernij and Larsson 2003). In contrast to
the exponential models reported by some authors
(Erzini et al. 1997; Queirolo and Gaete 2014), the
fishing capacity loss rate in our experiment fol-
lowed a linear model (b =-0.9387), resulting in
an estimated total collapse of the nets after about
94 days. This shorter time, revealed by the linear
model fitted, might have been influenced by the
smaller length (and, consequently, area) of our
nets, compared to those used in other experi-
ments, making the nets more vulnerable to dam-
ages and collapse.
Degradation of the structural integrity of the
net seems to be the primary cause of collapse.
Some abandoned or lost gillnets may collapse
immediately and have lower fishing efficiencies.
Conversely, longer nets, fleets of nets, or nets
snagged on rock, coral, or wrecks might be slow
to collapse, or even be stretched again and contin-
ue killing for a longer time (Macfadyen et al.
2009). Length of individual nets used in the
experiments around the world varied from 10 m
(Akiyama et al. 2007) to 100 m (Erzini et al.
1997; Revill and Dunlin 2003). Additionally,
some of the experiments used individual nets,
keeping one side free or united to others by ropes,
and some used fleets of 52-65 m nets, resulting in
lengths of 200-250 and 378-480 m (Tschernij and
Larsson 2003). The time elapsed between aban-
donment and total collapse of the nets varied from
three months to two years and might be related to
these differences in total net size, besides local
environmental conditions observed. In one of the
experiments with the longest collapse time report-
ed, large fleets were employed (Tschernij and
Larsson 2003); in another, the collapse time was
very long when nets were deployed in wrecks, but
similarly short when deployed in open areas
(Revill and Dunlin 2003), as in the present study.
In both cases, very few animals were caught after
nine months of immersion.
In this study, all entangled crustaceans are reef-
associated and have nocturnal habits (Fonteles-
Filho 1999; Rieger and Girald 2001). The entan-
gled fishes, pelagic or demersal, were also con-
sidered reef-associated, as they are included in
local lists of reef fishes (Adelir-Alves and Pin-
heiro 2011) and depend on rocky reefs for at least
part of their life cycle (Carvalho-Filho 1999). The
stone crab (M. nodifrons), the most commonly
entangled species, also inhabits reef environ-
ments (Melo 1996). Even though this species is
not commonly used for human consumption in
the state of Santa Catarina, probably due to its
small size in relation to other commercially
exploited species, it is occasionally caught by
recreational fishers for their own consumption or
to prepare traditional dishes for tourists (Oshiro
1999). Crabs are amongst the most abundant ani-
mals caught by ghost fishing, with Cancer porteri
Rathbum, 1930 reaching ∼82% in Laguna Verde,
Chile (Queirolo and Gaete 2014).
Ghost fishing is undesirable from both the eco-
nomic and conservation standpoints. Eight of the
380 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 35 (3): 373-385 (2022)
Figure 5. Reduction of fishing capacity (area) of the experi-
mental gillnets (G1, G2, G3, and G4) over time, and
linear model fitted.
100
80
60
40
20
00 20 40 60 80 100
Days
% original area (OA)
OA (%) = -0.9387Day + 88.112
R = 0.96
2
G1
G2
G3
G4
species entangled during our experiment are tar-
geted by local fishers, including species of high
market price, such as the dusky grouper (E. mar-
ginatus) and the smooth-tail spiny lobster (P. lae-
vicauda). Fishes are amongst the main resources
globally caught in total weight, representing 85%
of the total catch but only 66% of the value, while
crustaceans reach the highest market value,
resulting in 22% of the total global value (FAO
2020). The dusky grouper is considered overex-
ploited or threatened in Brazil (MMA 2016) and
is categorized as vulnerable by the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (Pollard et al.
2018). No marine turtle, bird, or mammal was
captured during our experiment, but the risk of
these species being entangled should not be disre-
garded, as it has been documented elsewhere
(NOAA 2014). Marine mammals, reptiles, and
elasmobranchs from 40 different species were
recorded as entangled in, or associated with,
ghost gears (Stelfox et al. 2016).
The accumulation of nets on the sea floor rais-
es concern, as they often cover previously estab-
lished benthic communities (Saldanha et al.
2003). On the other hand, fragments of gillnets
colonized by sessile organisms can also act as
artificial reefs, providing shelter, food, and sup-
port for fishes and invertebrates (Watters et al.
2010; Mordecai et al. 2011). Ringneck blenny
Parablennius pilicornis (Cuvier, 1829) and yel-
lowline arrow crab Stenorhynchus seticornis
(Herbst, 1788) were also observed using gillnets
in a similar way (JAA, personal observation).
Seahorse Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933 has
been observed using fragments of gillnets as sub-
strate (Mai and Rosa 2009), but not in our study.
Weak monitoring and surveillance prevent the
proper implementation of governance frame-
works, including measures to monitor, prevent,
and remediate ALDFG and ghost fishing (Gilman
2015). Effective management measures are
required to augment compliance and reduce a
growing worldwide threat. Experimental studies
with ghost fishing are important to give support
to the decision-making process on required regu-
lations. Measures to reduce the impact of ghost
fishing have been debated, including ways to pre-
vent loss or even retrieval of derelict gears and
the development of fishing gears made of
biodegradable materials (Matsuoka et al. 2005;
McElwee et al. 2011; Morishige and McElwee
2012). Gear retrieval programs could minimize
the impact on aquatic animals. However, the most
effective measure to reduce the impact of ghost
fishing may be to directly inform fishers about
the impact of their derelict gears and discuss
mechanisms to prevent it. Thus, the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995)
could be effectively implemented.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the scientific diving team of the
Instituto Conservação Marinha do Brasil and Pro-
jeto Meros do Brasil for their help with fieldwork,
logistics, and diving equipment. We thank Institu-
to Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversi-
dade (ICMBio) for the license (SISBIO 31065-1)
to conduct this experiment. We would like to
thank Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, and
Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão de Recursos
Pesqueiros do Litoral Sudeste e Sul (CEPSUL/
IBAMA) for all support provided to this research,
and to the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de
Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for the Mas-
ter scholarship granted to the first author.
REFERENCES
ADELIR-ALVES J, PINHEIRO PC. 2011. Peixes reci-
fais das ilhas costeiras do Balneário Barra do
Sul - Santa Catarina - Brasil. Rev CEPSUL,
Biodiversidade Conservação Marinha. 2: 10-
21.
381
ADELIR-ALVES ET AL.: GHOST FISHING IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL
ADELIR-ALVES J, ROCHA GRA, SOUZA TF, PINHEI-
RO PC, FREIRE KMF. 2016. Abandoned, lost,
or otherwise discarded fishing gears in rocky
reefs of Southern Brazil. Braz J Oceanogr. 64
(4): 427-434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S
1679-87592016124806404
AKIYAMA S, SAITO E, WATANABE T. 2007. Rela-
tionship between soak time and number of
enmeshed animals in experimentally lost gill
nets. Fish Sci. 73: 881-888. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2007.01409.x
ANDRADES R, PEGADO T, GODOY BS, REIS-FILHO
JA, NUNES JLS, GRILLO AC, MACHADO RC,
SANTOS RG, DALCIN RH, FREITAS MO, et al.
2020. Anthropogenic litter on Brazilian beach-
es: baseline, trends, and recommendations for
future approaches. Mar Pollut Bull. 151:
110842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol
bul.2019.110842
AYAZ A, ACARLI D, ALTINAGAC U, OZEKINCI U,
KARA A, OZEN O. 2006. Ghost fishing by
monofilament and multifilament gillnets in
Izmir Bay, Turkey. Fish Res. 79: 267-271.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2006.
03.029
AZEVEDO-SANTOS VM, HUGHES RM, PELICICE
FM. 2022. Ghost nets: a poorly known threat
to Brazilian freshwater biodiversity. An Acad
Bras Cienc. 94 (1): e20201189. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202120201189
AZEVEDO-SANTOS VM, MARQUES LM, TEIXEIRA
CR, GIARRIZZO T, BARRETO R, RODRIGUES-
FILHO JL. 2021. Digital media reveal negative
impacts of ghost nets on Brazilian marine bio-
diversity. Mar Pollut Bull. 172: 112821. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112
821
BAETA F, COSTA MJ, CABRAL H. 2009. Trammel
nets’ ghost fishing off the Portuguese central
coast. Fish Res. 98: 33-39. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fishres.2009.03.009
BENELI TM, PEREIRA PHC, NUNES JACC, BAR-
ROS F. 2020. Ghost fishing impacts on hydro-
corals and associated reef fish assemblages.
382 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 35 (3): 373-385 (2022)
Mar Environ Res. 161: 105129. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.105129
BROWN J, MACFADYEN G. 2007. Ghost fishing in
European waters: impacts and management
responses. Mar Policy. 31: 488-504. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.10.007
CARVALHO JLB, SCHETTINI CAF, RIBAS TM. 1998.
Estrutura termohalina do litoral centro-norte
catarinense. Notas Tec FACIMAR. 2: 181-197.
CARVALHO-FILHO A. 1999. Peixes da costa brasi-
leira. São Paulo: Melro. 320 p.
CHAVES PT, ROBERT MC. 2009. Extravio de petre-
chos e condições para ocorrência de pesca fan-
tasma no litoral de Santa Catarina e sul do
Paraná. Bol Inst Pesca. 35 (3): 513-519.
DANTAS DV, BARLETTA M, COSTA MF. 2012. The
seasonal and spatial patterns of ingestion of
polyfilament nylon fragments by estuarine
drums (Sciaenidae). Environ Sci Pollut R. 19:
600-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
011-0579-0
DAYTON PK, THRUSH SF, AGARDY MT, HOFMAN
RJ. 1995. Environmental effects of marine
fishing. Aquat Conserv. 5: 205-232.
DONOHUE MJ, BOLAND RC, SRAMEK CM, ANTO-
NELIS GA. 2001. Derelict fishing gear in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: diving sur-
veys and debris removal confirms threat to
coral reef ecosystems. Mar Pollut Bull. 42
(12): 1301-1312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0025-326X(01)00139-4
ERZINI K, MONTEIRO CC, RIBEIRO J, SANTOS MN,
GASPAR M, MONTEIRO P, BORGES TC. 1997. An
experimental study of gill net and trammel net
“ghost-fishing” off the Algarve (southern Por-
tugal). Mar Ecol Progr Ser. 158: 257-265.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps158257
[FAO] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF
THE UNITED NATIONS. 1995. Code of conduct
for responsible fisheries. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Rome:
FAO. 14 p.
[FAO] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF
THE UNITED NATIONS. 2020. The state of world
fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Sustainability
in action. Rome: FAO. 206 p. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en
FARAWAY JJ. 2002. Practical regression and
Anova using R. 212 p. http://cran.r-project.
org/doc/contrib/Faraway-PRA.pdf.
FIGUEIREDO JL, MENEZES NA. 1978. Manual dos
peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. II.
Teleostei (1). São Paulo: Museu de Zoologia,
Universidade de São Paulo. 110 p.
FIGUEIREDO JL, MENEZES NA. 1980. Manual dos
peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. III.
Teleostei (2). São Paulo: Museu de Zoologia,
Universidade de São Paulo. 90 p.
FIGUEIREDO JL, MENEZES NA. 2000. Manual dos
peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. VI.
Teleostei (5). São Paulo: Museu de Zoologia,
Universidade de São Paulo. 116 p.
FLOETER SR, GASPARINI JL. 2000. The southwest-
ern Atlantic reef fish fauna: composition and
zoogeographic patterns. J Fish Biol. 56: 1099-
1114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-
8649.2000.tb02126.x
FONTELES-FILHO AD. 1999. Síntese sobre distri-
buição, abundância, potencial pesqueiro e bio-
logia lagosta-vermelha Panulirus argus
(Latreille) e a lagosta-verde Panulirus laevi-
cauda (Latreille) do Nordeste do Brasil. Ava-
liação do Potencial Sustentável de Recursos
Vivos na Zona Econômica Exclusiva MMA -
REVIZEE. Análise/Refinamento dos Dados
Pretéritos Sobre Prospecção Pesqueira.
FROESE R, PAULY D, editores. 2020. FishBase.
[accessed 2021 January 4]. http://www.fish
base.org.
GILARDI KVK, CARLSON-BREMER D, JUNE JA,
ANTONELIS K, BROADHURST G, COWAN T.
2010. Marine species mortality in derelict
fishing nets in Puget Sound, WA, and the
cost/benefits of derelict net removal. Mar Pol-
lut Bull. 60: 376-382. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.10.016
GILMAN E. 2015. Status of international monitor-
ing and management of abandoned, lost, and
discarded fishing gear and ghost fishing. Mar
Policy. 60: 225-239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.marpol.2015.06.016
GILMAN E, CHOPIN F, SUURONEN P, KUEMLANGAN
B. 2016. Abandoned, lost, and discarded gill-
nets and trammel nets: methods to estimate
ghost fishing mortality, and the status of
regional monitoring and management. FAO
Fish Aquacult Tech Pap. 600. 80 p.
GILMAN E, MUSYL M, SUURONEN P, CHALOUPKA
M, GORGIN S, WILSON J, KUCZENSKI B. 2021.
Highest risk abandoned, lost, and discarded
fishing gear. Sci Rep-UK. 11: 7195. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86123-3
GILMAN E, PASSFIELD K, NAKAMURA K. 2012.
Performance assessment of bycatch and dis-
cards. Governance by Regional Fisheries
Management Organizations. IUCN, Switzer-
land, 484 p.
GOLDBERG ED. 1995. Emerging problems in the
coastal zone for the twenty-first century. Mar
Pollut Bull. 31: 152-158. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/0025-326X(95)00102-S
GRILLO AC, MELLO TJ. 2021. Marine debris in
the Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, a
remote oceanic marine protected area in trop-
ical SW Atlantic. Mar Pollut Bull. 164:
112021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol
bul.2021.112021
HEINE JN. 1999. Scientific diving techniques: a
practical guide for the research diver. Best
Publishing Company. p. 225.
IRIARTE V, MARMONTEL M. 2013. River dolphin
(Inia geoffrensis,Sotalia fluviatilis) mortality
events attributed to artisanal fisheries in the
Western Brazilian Amazon. Aquat Mamm. 39
(2): 116-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1578/A
M.39.2.2013.116
KAISER MJ, BULLIMORE B, NEWMAN P, LOCK K,
GILBERT S. 1996. Catches in ‘ghost fishing’ set
nets. Mar Ecol Progr Ser. 145: 11-16. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps145011
KURA Y, REVENGA C, HOSHINO E, MOCK G. 2004.
Why care about fish? In: KURA Y, REVENGA C,
383
ADELIR-ALVES ET AL.: GHOST FISHING IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL
HOSHINO E, MOCK G, editors. Fishing for
answers, making sense of global fish crisis.
Washington: World Resources Institute. p. 1-
6.
LINK J, SEGAL B, CASARINI LM. 2019. Aban-
doned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing
gear in Brazil: a review. Perspect Ecol Con-
serv. 17: 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.pecon.2018.12.003
MACFADYEN G, HUNTINGTON T, CAPPELL R. 2009.
Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fish-
ing gear. FAO Fish Aquacult Tech Paper. 523.
115 p.
MACHADO AA, FILLMANN G. 2010. Estudo da
contaminação por resíduos sólidos na ilha do
Arvoredo, Reserva Biológica Marinha do
Arvoredo - SC, Brasil. Rev Gestão Costeira
Integrada. 10: 381-393. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.5894/rgci215
MAI ACG, ROSA IML. 2009. Aspectos ecológicos
do cavalo-marinho Hippocampus reidi no
estuário Camurupim/Cardoso, Piauí, Brasil,
fornecendo subsídios para a criação de uma
Área de Proteção Integral. Biota Neotrop. 9:
85-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06
032009000300007
MASCARENHAS R, BATISTA CP, MOURA IF, CAL-
DAS AR, COSTA-NETO JMC, VASCONCELOS
MQ, ROSA SS, BARROS TVS. 2008. Lixo mari-
nho em área de reprodução de tartarugas mari-
nhas no Estado da Paraíba (Nordeste do Bra-
sil). Rev Gestão Costeira Integrada. 8: 221-
231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci138
MATSUOKA T, NAKASHIMA T, NAGASAWA N. 2005.
A review of ghost fishing: scientific approach-
es to evaluation and solutions. Fisheries Sci.
71: 691-702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14
44-2906.2005.01019.x
MCELWEE K, DONOHUE MJ, COURTNEY CA,
MORISHIGE C, RIVERA-VICENTE A. 2011. A
strategy for detecting derelict fishing gear at
sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 65: 7-15. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.006
MELO GAS. 1996. Manual de identificação dos
Brachyura (caranguejos e siris) do litoral bra-
sileiro. São Paulo: Editora Plêiade. 603 p.
MENEZES NA, BUCKUP PA, FIGUEIREDO JL,
MOURA RL. 2003. Catálogo das espécies de
peixes marinhos do Brasil. São Paulo: Museu
de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo. 160
p.
MENEZES NA, FIGUEIREDO JL. 1980. Manual de
peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. IV.
Teleostei (3). São Paulo: Museu de Zoologia,
Universidade de São Paulo. 96 p.
MENEZES NA, FIGUEIREDO JL. 1985. Manual de
peixes marinhos do Sudeste do Brasil. V.
Teleostei (4). São Paulo: Museu de Zoologia,
Universidade de São Paulo. 105 p.
[MMA] MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. 2016.
Livro vermelho da fauna brasileira ameaçada
de extinção. Brasilia: MMA. 142 p. https://
www.icmbio.gov.br/ran/images/stories/Noti
cias/sumario_executivo_livro_vermelho_ed_
2016.pdf.
MORDECAI G, TYLER PA, MASSON DG, HUVENNE
VAI. 2011. Litter in submarine canyons off the
west coast of Portugal. Deep-Sea Res (II Top
Stud Oceanogr). 58: 2489-2496. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2011.08.009
MORISHIGE C, MCELWEE K. 2012. At-sea detec-
tion of derelict fishing gear in the North Pacif-
ic: an overview. Mar Pollut Bull. 65: 1-6. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.017
[NOAA] NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM.
2014. Report on the entanglement of marine
species in marine debris with an emphasis on
species in the United States. Silver Spring,
MD. 28 p.
OSHIRO LMY. 1999. Aspectos reprodutivos do
caranguejo guaia, Menippe nodifrons Stimp-
son (Crustacea, Decapoda, Xanthidae) da Baía
de Sepetiba, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Rev Bras
Zool. 16: 827-834. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15
90/S0101-81751999000300019
PEREIRA MD, SCHETTINI CAF, OMACHI CY. 2009.
Caracterização de feições oceanográficas na
384 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 35 (3): 373-385 (2022)
plataforma de Santa Catarina através de ima-
gens orbitais. Braz J Geophysics. 27: 81-93.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-261X20
09000100007
PINHEIRO LM, LUPCHINSKI-JUNIOR E, DENUNCIO
P, MACHADO R. 2021. Fishing plastics: a high
occurrence of marine litter in surf-zone tram-
mel nets of Southern Brazil. Mar Pollut Bull.
173: 112946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2021.112946
POLLARD DA, AFONSO P, BERTONCINI AA, FEN-
NESSY S, FRANCOUR P, BARREIROS J. 2018.
IUCN Grouper and Wrasse Specialist Group.
Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T7859A100
467602.en
POLLOCK NW, GODFREY JM. 2007. Diving for
Science. Proceedings of the American Acade-
my of Underwater Sciences. University of
Miami.
POSSATTO FE, BARLETTA M, COSTA MF, IVAR DO
SUL JA, DANTAS DV. 2011. Plastic debris
ingestion by marine catfish: an unexpected fis-
heries impact. Mar Pollut Bull. 62: 1098-1102.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.20
11.01.036
QUEIROLO D, GAETE E. 2014. Experimental study
of ghost fishing by gillnets in Laguna Verde
Valparaíso, Chile. Lat Am J Aquat Res. 42 (5):
1189-1193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3856/vol
42-issue5-fulltext-22
REVILL AS, DUNLIN G. 2003. The fishing capacity
of gillnets lost on wrecks and on open ground
in UK coastal waters. Fish Res. 64: 107-113.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(03)
00209-1
RIEGER PJ, GIRALDI JLB. 2001. Mithrax hispidus
(Herbst) e Mithrax tortugae (Rathbun) novos
registros de Brachyura (Decapoda, Majidae)
para a litoral de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Rev
Bras Zool. 18: 653-654. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1590/S0101- 81752001000200034
SALDANHA HJ, SANCHO G, SANTOS MN, PUENTE
E, GASPAR MB, BILBAO A, MONTEIRO CC,
GOMEZ E, ARREGI L. 2003. The use of biofoul-
ing for ageing lost nets: a case study. Fish Res.
64: 141-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S
0165-7836(03)00213-3
SANTOS AJB, BELLINI C, BORTOLON LF, COLUCHI
R. 2012. Ghost nets haunt the Olive Ridley
Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) near the
Brazilian islands of Fernando de Noronha and
Atol das Rocas. Herpetol Rev. 43 (2): 245-
246.
SHOMURA RS, YOSHIDA HO. 1985. Proceedings of
the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris, 27-29 November 1984, Hon-
olulu, Hawaii. Washington: Sea grant cooper-
ative report 85-04. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC.
54. 580 p.
SMOLOWITZ RJ. 1978. Trap design and ghost fish-
ing: discussion. Mar Fish Rev. 40: 59-67.
STELFOX M, HUDGINS J, SWEET M. 2016. A review
of ghost gear entanglement amongst marine
mammals, reptiles, and elasmobranchs. Mar
Pollut Bull. 111: 6-17. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.034
TSCHERNIJ V, LARSSON P-O. 2003. Ghost fishing
by lost cod gill nets in the Baltic Sea. Fish
Res. 64: 151-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.10
16/S0165-7836(03)00214-5
VIEIRA BP, DIAS D, HANAZAKI N. 2011. Homoge-
neidade de encalhe de resíduos sólidos em um
manguezal da Ilha de Santa Catarina, Brasil.
Rev Gestão Costeira Integrada. 11: 21-30.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci188
WATTERS DL, YOKLAVICH MM, LOVE MS,
SCHROEDER DM. 2010. Assessing marine
debris in deep seafloor habitats off California.
Mar Pollut Bull. 60: 131-138. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.08.019
ZAR JH. 2010. Biostatistical analysis. 5th ed.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 944 p.
385
ADELIR-ALVES ET AL.: GHOST FISHING IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL
