MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (2): 179-187 (2023)

https://doi.org/10.47193/mafis.3622023010501

ABSTRACT. A shift verified in batoid landings by artisanal fisheries during 2017-2021 is inter-

preted as a potential consequence of legal measures set by the Brazilian government in 2014. In this

five-year period, the increasing landings of stingrays concomitant with a decrease in the landings of

guitarfish might be a result of fishing bans established for the Brazilian guitarfish Pseudobatos

horkelii and the Shortnose guitarfish Zapteryx brevirostris, which are both endemic to the coasts of

Southern Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina and listed as threatened at national and global levels. In

2022, more batoids became protected, so it is expected that shifts in captures will continue, reaching

species whose stocks have not yet been evaluated and for which conservation measures are not fore-

seen. Considering the sociocultural and economic relevance of artisanal fisheries in the country, the

observed shift is discussed here as it relates to batoids’ effective conservation and adherence to legal

measures by the fishery sector in Southern Brazil.

Key words: Guitarfish, stingrays, artisanal fisheries, Brazil, Southwestern Atlantic Ocean.

Consecuencias del vacío en la gestión pesquera para la conservación de los batoideos

RESUMEN. El cambio verificado en los desembarques de batoideos en las pesquerías artesana-

les durante 2017-2021, se interpreta como una posible consecuencia de las medidas legales estable-

cidas por el gobierno brasileño en 2014. En este período de cinco años, los crecientes desembarques

de rayas concomitantes con una disminución en los desembarques de pez guitarra podrían ser el

resultado de las prohibiciones de pesca establecidas para el pez guitarra brasileño Pseudobatos hor-

kelii y el pez guitarra de pico corto Zapteryx brevirostris, que son endémicos de las costas del sur

de Brasil, Uruguay y Argentina, y figuran como amenazados a nivel nacional y mundial. En 2022,

se protegieron más batoideos, por lo que se espera que continúen los cambios en las capturas, lle-

gando a especies cuyos stocks aún no han sido evaluados y para las cuales no se prevén medidas de

conservación. Teniendo en cuenta la relevancia sociocultural y económica de la pesca artesanal en

el país, el cambio observado se analiza aquí en relación con la conservación efectiva de los batoi-

deos y el cumplimiento de las medidas legales por parte del sector pesquero en el sur de Brasil.

Palabras clave: Pez guitarra, rayas, pesquerías artesanales, Brasil, Océano Atlántico Sudoccidental.

With growing concern about guitarfish conservation (Dulvy et al. 2017,

2021), the precarious situation these animals have been facing has become

increasingly evident, with high rates of unreported catches and poor man-

agement across their home range (Sherman et al. 2022). This urgent matter

was first raised by Moore (2017), with solid evidence that guitarfish were

following the same path as sawfish –another group of elasmobranchs at

179

*Correspondence:

ptchaves@ufpr.br

Received: 16 November 2022

Accepted: 21 December 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

NOTE

Side effects for batoids’ conservation in the vacuum of fishery management

PAULO DE TARSO DA CUNHA CHAVES1, * and NATASCHA WOSNICK2

1Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, PO Box 19020, Code 81531-980 - Curitiba, Brazil. 2Programa de Pós-

Graduação em Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, PO Box 19020, Code 81531-980 - Curitiba, Brazil. ORCID Paulo de Tarso da

Cunha Chaves https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6393-8256, Natascha Wosnick https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4020-7885

high risk of extinction. Since then, the situation

has worsened, as now Rhino Rays (i.e. guitarfish

and wedgefish) are the most threatened verte-

brates, with about 76% of species listed under an

extinction risk category globally. In the Parana

coast, Southern Brazil, elasmobranch commer-

cial fishery is a tradition, with several families

depending on their capture as a source of

income. Elasmobranch commercial capture is

now an urgent matter at the global level, as pop-

ulation declines can be high as 90% in certain

regions for some species. In Brazil, some species

receive legal protection from the federal govern-

ment since 2014. However, fisheries manage-

ment in the country is still an enormous chal-

lenge, as there are many socio-ecological aspects

which are rarely taken into account when fishing

bans are set.

When detached from the alternatives for fish-

ery production maintenance, are capture bans

effective for conservation? On the Southern

Brazilian coast, data showed that capture bans on

the Brazilian guitarfish Pseudobatos horkelii

(Müller and Henle, 1841) (Rhinobatidae) in 2014

was followed, for at least five years, by a gradual

and expressive increase in the landings of Dasy-

atidae rays. As this was possibly not a coinci-

dence, in 2022 more batoids were protected. This

gives rise to one important question: for whom

will the fishing gears work from now on?

Protecting the guitarfish

Although the batoid production by commercial

fisheries in Brazil is small, it is growing. In the

early 21st century, landings totaled 6,000 t year-1,

equivalent to 40% of the shark production (MMA

2003), which increased to 7,200 t year-1 and 50%,

respectively, by 2009-2011 (MPA 2011). This

was the last national survey performed and

included batoid families such as Rhinobatidae,

Dasyatidae, Myliobatidae, Gymnuridae, Nar-

cinidae, and Rajidae without species distinction

(MPA 2011).

The trend is slightly different on the Parana

coast, at approximately 25° S-48° W (Figure 1).

Among elasmobranchs, batoid production has

grown from <30% to >40% in the past 50 years,

exceeding that of sharks in 2019. However,

batoid production fell from 12-80 t year-1 in the

1970s (Loyola e Silva and Nakamura 1975) to <

5 t year-1 in 2021 (FUNDEPAG 2022), along with

a reduction in shark production, from 30-200 t

year-1 to <5 t year-1 (Figure 2).

Landing surveys in Brazil are not continuous,

but the natural history of batoids and sharks has

received progressive attention. Studies have

focused on reproductive biology, age structure,

and population dynamics, because of the

demands highlighted in the National Plan for

Conservation of Threatened Marine Elasmo-

branchs (Lessa et al. 2021). For example, the high

extinction risk of P. horkelii led Brazil to ban its

capture in 2014 (Portaria MMA 445 2014). This

guitarfish occurs in shallow waters from South-

east Brazil to Argentina (Alemany et al. 2021;

Cardoso et al. 2021; Froese and Pauly 2022), and

it was the first elasmobranch targeted by Brazil-

ian fisheries (Lessa et al. 2021). In the southern

region of Brazil, catches reached 1,800 t year-1

during 1975-1987, making P. horkelii the most

landed and marketed batoid (Vooren et al. 2005).

The conservation-driven nature of fishing ban has

resulted in conflicts between the government,

conservationists, and fishery sectors. Two key

facts hindered its efficacy in areas from Southern

Brazil, including the Parana coast: (1) the shared

vulnerability with its sympatric species to the

same fishing gear, particularly bottom trawling

and gillnets with 18 cm opposite knots (Chaves

and Silva 2019; Afonso and Chaves 2021); and

(2) challenges to properly distinguish the gui-

tarfish with permitted capture from the one with

bans set. The sympatric guitarfish is P. percellens

(Walbaum, 1792), also found in shallow waters

but distributed from Caribe to Southern Brazil

(Froese and Pauly 2022). External similarities

between P. horkelii and P. percellens were ana-

180 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (2): 179-187 (2023)

181

CHAVES AND WOSNICK: SIDE EFFECTS FOR BATOIDS’ CONSERVATION

Figure 2. Annual artisanal landings of sharks and batoids on the Parana coast comprising two periods: 1970-1972 (Loyola e Silva

and Nakamura 1975) and 2019-2021 (data: FUNDEPAG 2022). The % batoids refers to the percentage of batoids landed

in relation to the total amount of elasmobranchs.

Figure 1. Map of the Parana coast in Southern Brazil, Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Small square shows a section ranging from

25.29° S-48.09 W to 25.98° S-48.57° W. Grey star: Itajaí, the main national fishery port. Small circle: Florianópolis (both

cities in Santa Catarina State).

Brazil

Paranagua

Bay

Florianopolis

Southwestern Atlantic

Ocean

49° W 48° W

26° S 25°S

Parana

coast

Itajai

1970 1971 1972 2019 2020

Batoids/elasmobranchs (%)

Landings (t)

Year

2021

210

180

150

120

Sharks Batoids % batoids

lyzed by genetic, physiological and population

studies aimed at better understanding their simi-

larities and differences (Franco 2010; Cruz et al.

2021; Leite 2022).

Concerns on other batoids

On the Parana coast, fisheries are mostly arti-

sanal, with a predominance of two fishing gears:

shrimp trawling, where batoids, mainly Pseudo-

batos spp., Zapteryx brevirostris (Müller and

Henle, 1841), Narcine brasiliensis (Olfers, 1831),

and Dasyatidae species, corresponding to 1% of

the total production, are also captured as bycatch;

and gillnets, where the above mentioned batoids

plus Rhinoptera spp. and Rioraja agassizii

(Müller and Henle, 1841), corresponding to 2-3%

of the total production, are captured too (Robert

2012; Afonso and Chaves 2021; Chaves 2021).

Other fisheries include bottom longline, which

for the 2017-2021 period the Dasyatidae (here-

after: stingrays) catch accounted for up to 80% of

the total elasmobranch volume, and 20% when

considering all species caught (FUNDEPAG

2022).

Recently, the conservation status of other

batoids has been evaluated, resulting in new

restrictions on commercial fisheries in Brazilian

waters and reactions from stakeholders. In June

2022, the Sindicato dos Armadores e das Indús-

trias de Pesca de Itajaí e Região (the largest

Brazilian fishery syndicate, based in Southern

Brazil; Figure 1) expressed their discontent, stat-

ing that comprehension challenges would limit

compliance with legal restrictions (SINDIPI

2022). The new bans (Portaria MMA 148 2022)

now include two stingrays, Hypanus americanus

(Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928) and H. mari-

anae (Gomes, Rosa and Gadig, 2000), along with

P. percellens, all of which have historic landings

in Southern Brazil (Vooren et al. 2005; Costa and

Chaves 2006; Robert 2012; Santos et al. 2016).

The new ban on P. percellens has the potential to

neutralize the challenges of co-occurrence men-

tioned above, as no Pseudobatos species can be

landed. However, the fishery sector will face

another challenge: which fish to land.

Regional data on fishery production (FUNDE-

PAG 2022) reveal that the landings of Pseudo-

batos spp. by artisanal fleets in Parana are

decreasing. The total production decreased from

3 t in 2017 to 0.5 t in 2021. Landings may not

have reached zero, as until 2021 P. percellens

capture was allowed. Simultaneously, however,

the total non-guitarfish batoid production has

grown from <0.5 t in 2017 to >4 t in 2021, an

increment mostly from stingrays (Figure 3).

There is a possible cause-effect relationship

between legal restrictions for certain species

–guitarfishes– and the increasing landings of oth-

ers –stingrays. The capture effort is not measured,

nor is the status of the stocks, but it is known that

between 2017 and 2021 gillnetting production

decreased in Parana, from >400 t year-1 to <

150 t year-1 (Figure 4). This decrease reflects

teleost production, whose total volume exceeds

15 times both elasmobranch and crustacean pro-

duction (FUNDEPAG 2022). At the same period,

longline production also decreased (Figure 4),

despite the increment in stingray landings

observed from 2019. This indicates a greater

interest in this resource as well as greater avail-

ability, and/or retention onboard. The commercial

use of non-targeted elasmobranchs is common

worldwide, and batoid retention or non-retention

is usually decided onboard (as reported by Tamini

et al. 2006 for bottom trawling in Argentina). By

comparison, in the China Sea, 28 shark species

listed as NT, VU, and EN (IUCN list) are caught

in drift gillnets, bottom trawl nets, and hook-and-

line fisheries, all of which are retained and mar-

keted (Araí and Azri 2019).

There are approximately sixty fishing commu-

nities along the Parana coast (Robert 2012). As

batoids are a common and (supposedly) wel-

comed bycatch, conservation measures can limit

fishing activities, but their acceptance depends

on the alternatives offered to the sector. The

182 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (2): 179-187 (2023)

Brazilian law 11959/2009, Art. 3, requires the

government ‘to calculate, authorize, and plan

access regimes, and fix allowed catches; indeed,

it is the government’s obligation to consider fish-

eries’ particularities and fishers’ needs, aiming to

assure the permanence and continuity’ of arti-

sanal fisheries. The most recognized and suggest-

ed labor activity shift model (i.e. extractive activ-

183

CHAVES AND WOSNICK: SIDE EFFECTS FOR BATOIDS’ CONSERVATION

Figure 4. Annual landings of artisanal fisheries performed in the Parana coast, Southern Brazil, from 2017 to 2021. All fishery

resources are summed according to the fishing gear employed. Data source: FUNDEPAG (2022).

Figure 3. Annual landings of guitarfish (Pseudobatos spp.), non-guitarfish batoids, and stingrays only (Dasyatidae) by artisanal

fleets in the Parana coast, Southern Brazil, between 2017 to 2021. Data source: FUNDEPAG (2022).

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Longline (t)

Gillnets (t)

Year

Gillnets Longline

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Landings (t)

Year

Guitarﬁsh Non -guitarﬁsh batoids Stingrays

ities for ecotourism) can be restrictive in some

regions, in addition to imposing changes in fam-

ily structures and traditions that are not always

well accepted (Das and Chatterjee 2015). In

Brazil, there is a lack of prospecting for sustain-

able exploitation, which creates a gap between

fishing bans and proper redirection to alternatives

that do not impose a new lifestyle on fishers,

without their consent.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Considering the influence of stakeholders on

species conservation, socio-ecological systems,

assuming the need to integrate biodiversity man-

agement with people, are particularly relevant

(Refulio-Coronado et al. 2021). This approach

recognizes the complexity, unpredictability,

dynamics, and non-linearity of fishing activities,

assuming that decisions need to evolve towards

strategies adapting to the distinct reality of tradi-

tional communities. In this context, the mitigation

hierarchy model integrates biological and opera-

tional aspects of fisheries, considering the socioe-

conomic context to manage potential trade-offs

between conservation initiatives and human

needs (Booth et al. 2019). Such an approach can

be applied to develop holistic and adaptive meas-

ures for batoid fishery management.

Hence, participatory management is a promis-

ing conservation measure for threatened species,

concomitant with the coordinated exploitation of

new resources, aimed at sustainable fisheries

(Cota-Nieto et al. 2018). Management plans for

stocks not yet overexploited should thus consider

biological variables allowing the establishment of

minimum and maximum capture sizes, in addi-

tion to quotas and seasonal bans for batoids. Fur-

thermore, measures to mitigate overexploitation

must be presented to fishers (Gupta et al. 2020),

to develop conservation initiatives without affect-

ing the financial gains of traditional communities.

Altogether, an artisanal landing shift on the

Parana coast has been noted, which might be a

reflex of the slow yet progressive fulfillment of

the conservation measures proposed by the feder-

al government in 2014. Despite the population

collapse being a possibility, onboard monitoring

and access to fisher ecological knowledge in the

past four years provide strong evidence that the

number of captured individuals remains constant

(Wosnick et al. in preparation). Moreover, the

reduction in landings might also be a result of a

conservation initiative based on the release of live

animals performed in Parana for over a decade

(Wosnick et al. 2020), at least for Z. brevirostris.

It is also important to consider that the decrease

in guitarfish landings might also be a result of

fewer fishers turning their efforts to fisheries that

catch them, possibly because of bans turning

landing into a great risk. Thus, monitoring efforts

must be intensified in the region, aiming to under-

stand the putative causes (or a combination of

them) of the reduction in landings retracted in

regional fisheries statistics.

It is also imperative that fisheries management

be directed towards the economic-viable

stingrays, along with monitoring efforts to under-

stand drivers behind this shift in catches in the

region. Finally, fishers must be included and con-

sulted at every stage of the development of con-

servation measures to ensure that socio-cultural

values are recognized and preserved. This will

result in management plans fully adopted and,

most importantly, supported by the fishery sector.

REFERENCES

AFONSO MG, CHAVES PTC. 2021. A pesca de

emalhe costeiro de pequena escala no litoral

do Paraná: um estudo de caso para a conserva-

ção. Rev CEPSUL Biodiv Cons Mar. 10:

e2021001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37002/

revistacepsul.vol10.1754e2021001

184 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (2): 179-187 (2023)

ALEMANY D, RICO MR, LAGOS AN, MARTOS P,
MENDOLAR M, CAROZZA C. 2021. Evolución
temporal de la diversidad, abundancia y
estructura del ensamble de peces costeros en
el área de “El Rincón” (39° S-41° 30′ S),
Argentina. Mar Fish Sci. 34 (2): 143-180.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47193/mafis.3422021
010602
ARAÍ T, AZRI A. 2019. Diversity, occurrence and
conservation of sharks in the southern South
China Sea. PLoS ONE. 14 (3): e0213864.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.021
3864
BOOTH H, SQUIRES D, MILNER-GULLAND EJ.
2019. The mitigation hierarchy for sharks: a
risk-based framework for reconciling trade-
offs between shark conservation and fisheries
objectives. Fish Fish. 19: 1-21. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1111/faf.12429
CARDOSO LG, DA SILVEIRA MONTEIRO D, HAIMO-
VICI M. 2021. An assessment of discarded
catches from the bottom pair trawling fishery
in southern Brazil. Mar Fish Sci. 34 (2): 197-
210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47193/mafis.342
2021010609 
CHAVES PTC. 2021. Juveniles and undersized fish
in small-scale fisheries: gillnets are not less
implied than trawling. Mar Fish Sci. 35 (2):
165-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47193/mafis.
3522022010501
CHAVES PTC, SILVA AVF. 2019. Recursos-alvo
que são também bycatch, e recomendação
para a gestão da pesca de emalhe no litoral do
Paraná, Brasil. Rev CEPSUL Biodiv Cons
Mar. 8: 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37002/
revistacepsul.vol8.732e2019001
COSTA L, CHAVES PTC. 2006. Elasmobrânquios
capturados pela pesca artesanal na costa sul do
Paraná e norte de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Biota
Neotrop. 6 (3): bn02706032006. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032006000300007
COTA-NIETO JJ, ERISMAN B, ABURTO-OROPEZA O,
MORENO-BÁEZ M, HINOJOSA-ARANGO G,
JOHNSON AF. 2018. Participatory management
in a small-scale coastal fishery–Punta Abreo-
jos, Pacific coast of Baja California Sur, Mex-
ico. Reg Stud Mar Sci.18:68-79. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2017.12.014
CRUZ VP, ADACHI AMC, OLIVEIRA PH, RIBEIRO
GS, PAIM FG, SOUZA BS, RODRIGUES ASF,
VIANNA M, DELPIANI SM, DÍAZ DE ASTARLOA
JM, et al. 2021. Genetic diversity in two
threatened species of guitarfish (Elasmo-
branchii: Rhinobatidae) from the Brazilian
and Argentinian coasts: an alert for conserva-
tion. Neotrop Ichthyol. 19 (2): e210012. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-2021-0012
DAS M, CHATTERJEE B. 2015. Ecotourism: a
panacea or a predicament? Tour Manag Per-
spect. 14: 3-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tmp.2015.01.002
DULVY NK, PACOUREAU N, RIGBY CL, POLLOM
RA, JABADO RW, EBERT DA, FINUCCI B, POL-
LOCK CM, CHEOK J, DERRICK DH, et al. 2021.
Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks
and rays toward a global extinction crisis.
Curr Biol. 31 (21): 4773-4787. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.062
DULVY NK, SIMPFENDORFER CA, DAVIDSON LN,
FORDHAM SV, BRÄUTIGAM A, SANT G, WELCH
DJ. 2017. Challenges and priorities in shark
and ray conservation. Curr Biol. 27 (11): 565-
572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.
04.038
FRANCO BA. 2010. Identificação das raias-viola
Rhinobatos horkelii,Rhinobatos percellens e
Zapteryx brevirostris (Chondrichthyes, Rhino-
batidae) na costa central e sul do Brasil utili-
zando marcadores moleculares [PhD thesis].
Botucatu: Universidade Estadual Paulista. 59 p.
FROESE R, PAULY D, editors. 2022. FishBase.
[accessed 2022 Oct 25]. https://www.fish
base.org. 
[FUNDEPAG] FUNDAÇÃO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO
DA PESQUISA DO AGRONEGÓCIO. 2022. PMAP,
Projeto de monitoramento da atividade pes-
queira no Estado do Paraná. Banco de dados
do monitoramento pesqueiro do litoral do
185
CHAVES AND WOSNICK: SIDE EFFECTS FOR BATOIDS’ CONSERVATION

Parana. São Paulo: FUNDEPAG. [accessed
2022 Oct 31]. http://propesq-pr.fundepag.br.
GUPTA T, BOOTH H, ARLIDE W, RAO C, MANORA-
KRISHNAN M, NAMBOOTHRI N, SHANKER K,
MILNER-GULLAND EJ. 2020. Mitigation of
elasmobranch bycatch in trawlers: a case
study in Indian fisheries. Front Mar Sci. 7:
571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.
00571
LEITE RD. 2022. Morfofisiologia de elasmobrân-
quios e sua aplicabilidade para os planos de
manejo do grupo [PhD thesis]. Curitiba: Uni-
versidade Federal do Paraná. 149 p.
LESSA R, COLONELLO J, SANTANA F, MAS F. 2021.
Ecología y dinámica reproductiva de los con-
drictios. Herramientas para la conservación.
In: Ecología reproductiva y pesquerías en el
contexto iberoamericano. Vigo: INVIPESCA
Red de Investigación Pesquera p. 141-173.
http://hdl.handle.net/10261/255913.
LOYOLA E SILVA J, NAKAMURA IT. 1975. Produção
do pescado no litoral paranaense. Acta Biol
Par, Curitiba. 4 (3, 4): 75-119. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.5380/ABPR.V4I0.840
[MMA] MINISTÉRIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE. 2003.
Estatística da pesca 2001 Brasil. Tamandaré:
CEPENE, MMA. 97 p.
[MPA] MINISTÉRIO DA PESCA E AQUICULTURA.
2011. Boletim estatístico da pesca e aquicultu-
ra 2011. Brasília: MPA. 60 p.
MOORE ABM. 2017. Are guitarfishes the next
sawfishes? Extinction risk and an urgent call
for conservation action. Endanger Species
Res. 34: 75-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/
esr00830
PORTARIA MMA 445. 2014. Reconhecer como
espécies de peixes e invertebrados aquáticos
da fauna brasileira ameaçadas de extinção
aquelas constantes da “Lista Nacional Oficial
de Espécies da Fauna Ameaçadas de Extinção
- Peixes e Invertebrados Aquáticos”. Brasília:
Diário Oficial da União, 18 December 2014,
Seção 1. p. 126.
PORTARIA MMA 148. 2022. Altera os anexos da
Portaria nº 443, de 17 de dezembro de 2014,
da Portaria nº 444, de 17 de dezembro de
2014, e da Portaria nº 445, de 17 de dezembro
de 2014, referentes à atualização da lista
nacional de espécies ameaçadas de extinção.
Brasília: Diário Oficial da União, 8 June 2022,
Seção 1. p. 74.
REFULIO-CORONADO S, LACASSE K, DALTON T,
HUMPHRIES A, BASU S, UCHIDA H, UCHIDA E.
2021. Coastal and marine socio-ecological
systems: a systematic review of the literature.
Front Mar Sci. 8: 648006. DOI: https://doi.org
/10.3389/fmars.2021.648006
ROBERT MC. 2012. A captura de elasmobrânquios
na costa paranaense. In: BORNATOWSKI H,
ABILHOA V, editors. Tubarões e raias captura-
dos pela pesca artesanal no Paraná: guia de
identificação. Curitiba: Hori Consultoria
Ambiental. 124 p. 
SANTOS LO, CATTANI AP, SPACH HL. 2016. Ictio-
fauna acompanhante da pesca de arrasto para
embarcações acima de 45 hp no litoral do
Paraná, Brasil. Bol Inst Pesca. 42 (4): 816-
830. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20950/1678-23
05.2016v42n4p816
SHERMAN CS, SIMPFENDORFER CA, HAQUE AB,
DIGEL ED, ZUBICK P, EGED J, MATSUSHIBA JH,
SANT G, DULVY NK. 2022. Guitarfishes are
plucked: undermanaged in global fisheries
despite declining populations and high vol-
ume of unreported international trade. bioRx-
iv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.05.
510982
[SINDIPI] SINDICATO DOS ARMADORES E DAS
INDÚSTRIAS DA PESCA DE ITAJAÍ E REGIÃO.
2022. Notícias. Publicada portaria que altera a
lista da 445. [published 2022 Jun 9; accessed
2022 Oct 31]. https://www.sindipi.com.br/
post/publicada-portaria-que-altera-a-lista-da-
445. 
TAMINI LL, CHIARAMONTE GE, PEREZ JE, CAPPOZ-
ZO HL. 2006. Batoids in a coastal trawl fishery
of Argentina. Fish Res. 77: 326-332. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2005.08.013
186 MARINE AND FISHERY SCIENCES 36 (2): 179-187 (2023)

VOOREN CM, LESSA RP, KLIPPEL S. 2005. Biolo-

gia e status de conservação da viola Rhinoba-

tos horkelii. In: VOOREN CM, KLIPPEL S, edi-

tors. Ações para a conservação de tubarões e

raias no sul do Brasil. Porto Alegre: Garé. p.

33-56.

WOSNICK N, WOSIAK CCDL, MACHADO-FILHO

OC. 2020. Pay to conserve: what we have

achieved in 10 years of compensatory releases

of threatened with extinction guitarfishes.

Anim Conserv. 24 (4): 537-539. DOI: https://

doi.org/10.1111/acv.12651

187

CHAVES AND WOSNICK: SIDE EFFECTS FOR BATOIDS’ CONSERVATION