Building a baseline: a survey of the composition and distribution of the ichthyofauna of Guanabara Bay, a deeply impacted estuary

Clara V. Teixeira-Leite1 and Marcelo Vianna1

PDF: EN    XML: EN | Supplementary: S1 S2 | Cite this article

Abstract​


EN

Biodiversity baselines are essential subsidies to evaluate how environmental changes and human impacts affect the special and temporal patterns of communities. This information is paramount to promote proper conservation and management for historically impacted environments such as Guanabara Bay, in southeastern Brazil. Here, we propose an ichthyofaunal baseline for this bay using gathered past data from 1889 to 2020, including literature records, scientific collections, biological sampling, and fisheries landing monitoring. A total of 220 species (203 teleosts and 17 elasmobranchs), distributed in 149 genera (136 teleosts and 13 elasmobranchs) and 72 families (61 teleosts and 11 elasmobranchs) were recorded, including the first record of a tiger-shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, in Guanabara Bay. Although the employed sampling effort was sufficient to represent the ichthyofauna in the middle and upper estuary, the Chao2 estimator indicates an even greater richness regarding the bay as a whole. Evidence of reduced abundance and probable local extinction over the decades was found, supporting the importance of implementing management and conservation strategies in the area. The ichthyofaunal distribution analyses revealed that areas close to conservation units are richer compared to their surroundings, indicating that this is an effective strategy to mitigate human impacts in the bay.

Keywords: Brazil, Inventory, Scientometric review, Species density, Tropical estuary.

PT

Esforços de caracterização da biodiversidade são subsídios essenciais para avaliar como mudanças ambientais e impactos antrópicos afetam os padrões espaciais e temporais das comunidades. Essas informações são essenciais para promover conservação e manejo adequados em ambientes historicamente impactados como a Baía de Guanabara, no sudeste do Brasil. Aqui, nós propomos uma linha de referência da ictiofauna dessa baía utilizando dados pretéritos de 1889 a 2020, incluindo registros de literatura, coleções científicas, coletas biológicas e monitoramento de desembarque pesqueiro. Um total de 220 espécies (203 teleósteos e 17 elasmobrânquios), distribuídas em 149 gêneros (136 teleósteos e 13 elasmobrânquios) e 72 famílias (61 teleósteos e 11 elasmobrânquios) foram registradas, incluindo o primeiro registro de tubarão-tigre, Galeocerdo cuvier, na Baía de Guanabara. Apesar do esforço amostral empregado ter sido suficiente para representar a ictiofauna do médio e alto estuário, o estimador Chao2 indicou uma riqueza ainda maior para a baía como um todo. Evidências de redução de abundância e de provável extinção local de táxons ao longo das décadas foram encontradas, corroborando a importância da implantação de medidas de manejo e conservação para a área. A análise da distribuição da ictiofauna revelou que áreas próximas a unidades de conservação são mais ricas em comparação ao seu entorno, indicando que essa é uma estratégia efetiva para mitigar os impactos antrópicos na baía.

Palavras-chave: Brasil, Densidade de espécies, Estuário tropical, Inventário, Revisão cientométrica.

Introduction​


Estuaries are highly dynamic coastal environments that exhibit a wide range of salinity, nutrient, and temperature variations, providing habitats, resources, and shelter to a variety of species at different life cycle stages (Silva-Junior et al., 2016; Wolanski, Elliott, 2016). Estuaries function as important nursery and feeding areas (Corrêa, Vianna, 2015; Santos et al., 2015; Andrade et al., 2016; Mérigot et al., 2017; Gonçalves-Silva, Vianna, 2018b), which are essential for the maintenance of several marine fish stocks (Santos et al., 2020). Even though these environments are known to contain few strictly resident species (Andrade-Tubino et al., 2008; Vianna et al., 2012; Silva-Junior et al., 2016; Gonçalves-Silva, Vianna, 2018a), their ichthyofaunal diversity displays a rich taxonomic composition, including many species of economic interest and others at serious risk of extinction.

The Guanabara Bay is the second largest Brazilian estuary, located in the metropolitan region of the state of Rio de Janeiro, presenting significant historical, environmental, touristic, and scenic importance. The bay also comprises an essential part of Rio de Janeiro’s economy, since it harbors a major port area and supports the most productive estuarine fisheries in the region (Prestrelo, Vianna, 2016). Guanabara Bay has historically suffered from a series of human impacts associated to huge solid waste, untreated domestic sewage, and persistent pollutant inputs, such as metals and hydrocarbons (Pereira et al., 2007; Rosenfelder et al., 2012; Silva-Junior et al., 2012, 2016; Hauser-Davis et al., 2019a; Paiva et al., 2021). Despite several impacts, this estuary is still ecologically relevant and is considered an area with the potential to become a priority for Brazilian conservation according to guidelines of the Brazilian National Biodiversity Commission (Teixeira-Leite et al., 2018).

Guanabara bay’s ichthyofauna is historically a common target of scientific studies (e.g., Gomes et al., 1974; Toledo et al., 1983; Brum et al., 1995; Brum, 2000; Baêta et al., 2006; Vasconcellos et al., 2010; Mulato et al., 2015) as many research centers are located around the bay (e.g., Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro). However, knowledge on several aspects of the bay’s biodiversity was dispersed over the years in different literature, hindering a more comprehensive understanding of the bay’s fish diversity. Reliable and informative inventories are important to promote the conservation and adequate management of natural areas (Reis-Filho et al.,2010; Silveira et al., 2010; Sreekanth et al., 2020), in addition to providing a baseline to assess how environmental changes and human impacts affect temporal community variations (Sheaves, 2006). Vianna et al. (2012) made a first attempt to gather past knowledge of the bay’s ichthyofauna by developing a list of local species, but most of the information they recovered was not based on published articles that went through proper critical peer-review. In addition, since 2012 new research initiatives that monitor experimental collections and fishing landings carried out by research groups (e.g., Laboratório de Biologia e Tecnologia Pesqueira – BioTecPesca/UFRJ, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro) have promoted a considerable increase in knowledge concerning the ichthyofauna of the bay.

The aim of this study is therefore to develop a baseline of Guanabara Bay’s ichthyofauna, to achieve a better understanding of the composition, distribution, and richness of fish species in the bay. The use of reliable past data (e.g., articles published in indexed journals, voucher specimens deposited in ichthyological collections, biological samplings and fishing landings monitored by BioTecPesca/UFRJ) make this inventory a basis for comparison for future studies. It also potentially reveals changes in species composition that have already taken place throughout history.

Material and methods


Study area. TheGuanabara Bay (22°59’02.20’’S – 22°40’23.66’’S; 43°01’26.53’’W – 43°17’26.08”W) is a semi-enclosed tropical estuary located on the southeastern coast of Brazil, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, covering 384 km2, with an average volume of 1.87 x 109 m3 of water, and a 4,080 km2 drainage basin with maximum depth of 50 m in the central channel (Meniconi et al., 2012; Silva-Junior et al., 2016). It is characterized by seasonal salinity variations influenced by a connection with oceanic waters, the local rainfall regime, and tides. During the low rainfall period (June to August), the water column is more homogeneous, with little temperature and salinity variations, becoming vertically stratified during the rainy season (December to March), with the appearance of upwelling areas due to the penetration of the South Atlantic Central Water (SACW) that enters the estuary through its saline wedge (Valentin et al., 1999; Silva-Junior et al., 2016).

The bay is categorized into three compartments (sensu Silva-Junior et al., 2016; Souza, Vianna, 2022): (i) the lower estuary, corresponding to the central channel and its banks, comprising the area suffering the greatest influence of the oceanic waters that enter the bay; (ii) the middle estuary, consisting of an intermediate transition area between the more saline waters of the lower estuary and the more brackish waters of the upper estuary, and (iii) the upper estuary, the innermost bay region under greater influence of continental waters from the local hydrographic basin.

The Guanabara Bay entrance was defined as the shortest distance between the east and west coasts (limit line, from the point of Forte São José, 22°56’24.41”S 43° 09’06.66”W to the point of Fortaleza de Santa Cruz da Barra, 22°56’16.97”S 43°08’06.30”W). Therefore, all records external to this line were considered as outside the estuarine region and were not included in our inventory. The bay was also divided into quadrants using the Quantum GIS (QGIS) software version 3.16.5 according to the same grid applied by the fishing landing monitoring efforts in Guanabara Bay (Prestelo, Vianna, 2016) (Fig. 1).

FIGURE 1| Guanabara Bay map, Rio de Janeiro, divided into five km x five km quadrants. Different shades of blue indicate which estuary compartment (upper, middle or lower) the quadrant belongs to.

Data compilation. Different strategies were employed to gather ichthyofaunal records in the Guanabara Bay. First, we made a compilation of scientific literature concerning the bay’s ichthyofauna. A scientometric analysis was carried out at the Web of Science, SciELO and Scopus portals, covering articles from all available years, i.e., from 1921 to March 23, 2021. The search method applied two keyword fields linked by the connectors “AND” and “OR”, the first referring to the study location (Guanabara Bay) and the second to the study group (ichthyofauna) (Tab. 1). We added to the scientometric analysis results other published articles that were previously known by the authors. Then, data from two sets of fish samplings carried out by BioTecPesca/UFRJ were added to the database. These bottom trawl samplings were carried out from 2005 to 2007 at quadrants C3, C5, D5, D7, E3, E5 and E7; and from 2013 to 2015 at quadrants C5 and D5. In addition, the records of species identified in two artisanal fishing landing monitoring programs at Guanabara Bay based on different commercial fishing gear (also carried out by BioTecPesca/UFRJ) were considered, the first in 2009 and 2010, and the second in 2013 and 2014.

TABLE 1 | Keywords used in the scientometric search on fish at Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro.

Keywords

search field

“Guanabara bay” OR “Guanabara” OR “baía de Guanabara” OR “bahía de Guanabara”

“AND” 2º search field

“fish*” OR “teleost*” OR “elasmobran*” OR “pisces” OR “shark*” OR “ray*” OR “stingray*” OR “chondrichth*” OR “skate*” OR “bone fish*” OR “agnatha*” OR “osteichthy*” OR “actinopter*” OR “peixe*” OR “pesca*” OR “elasmobrânqui*” OR “tubar*” OR “raia*” OR “arraia*” OR “condrict*” OR “agnat*” OR “osteíct*” OR “pez” OR “tiburón” OR “tiburones” OR “raya*”

 

Historical records were obtained from the online databases of the fish collections of Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (MZUSP) (records available online at https://mz.usp.br/pt/laboratorios/ictiologia/ accessed on July 30, 2020) and the Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ) (records available online at https://ipt.sibbr.gov.br/mnrj/resource?r= mnrj_ictiologia, accessed on July 30, 2020). In addition, we included to our data compilation the listings made by the BioTecPesca/UFRJ research group deposited at the Coleção de Peixes do Instituto de Biodiversidade e Sustentabilidade, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (NPM). The SpeciesLink Network (http://www.specieslink.net/) was used as another tool to compile records from several scientific collections. “Guanabara” was employed as keyword and the records were filtered by taxon to include only fishes, considering all reports until July 21, 2020. All lot numbers of species included in our database are available in Tab. S1.

Regardless of the strategy employed, records were considered only at the species level, with species without previous confirmed records in the state of Rio de Janeiro considered as doubtful records and not included in the baseline. Records at genus or family level were also not considered. Taxonomic classification (at species level and above) and species known distribution followed the Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes (Fricke et al., 2023). As this study comprised only the Guanabara Bay, records obtained from local watershed rivers were not considered. Records from ichthyoplankton studies were also not included in our compilation. The historical baseline was built on data available until 2020, therefore we did not include records made after this year. However, we added the information of a few records made after this time-period in the Results section due to their ecological relevance. These include the first record of Galeocerdo cuvier (Perón & Lesueur, 1822) in Guanabara Bay and records of species that had not been recorded in the last decade (Bagre bagre (Linnaeus, 1766)) and Rhizoprionodon lalandii (Valenciennes, 1839)).

The selected records were used to build a baseline containing the currently valid name of the species, the year of the record, and the quadrant or quadrants where the species was recorded, if the information was available. When the exact year of collection was not indicated, the year of publication of the reference was considered as the date of the record. To generate a more complete inventory, the FishBase platform (https://www.fishbase.se) and specific literature on each species were used to obtain information on (i) feeding and functional guilds in the estuary (standardized according to Elliott et al., 2007) and (ii) habitat (standardized according to Silva-Junior et al., 2016). Finally, information on the extinction risk of each species was considered at both the global and Brazilian level, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org) and the Livro vermelho da fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção (Subirá et al., 2018), respectively.

Data analysis. One of the main difficulties of studies that aim to assess the species richness of a given locality is to determine whether the employed sampling effort was sufficient to accurately estimate the richness (Schilling et al., 2012). As our study consisted on building a reference database using previously generated data, the number of sources consulted was considered as a unit of sampling effort. Thus, four absolute richness accumulation (S) curves by effort were constructed using the R software version 3.6.0, considering one for the bay as a whole and one for each of the three compartments of its estuary (low, medium and upper). In all cases, the random sample-based rarefaction method was used (Gotelli, Colwell, 2001) employing 100,000 permutations. In order to further understand the results of the curves, the non-parametric estimator for incidence data Chao2 was applied to each curve (Chao et al., 2009) which, in addition to allowing the verification of curve stabilization (reaching an asymptote), also provides a series of other information (Tab. 2). One of the advantages of using this estimator is the possibility to obtain “mg” values, since “g” values can be converted into percentages. In this context, if for a given “g” value extra collections are not necessary (null mg), then it is confirmed that the study in question was able to record the “g” of the percentage of total richness. A graph was also constructed for each rarefaction curve, where the x axis corresponds to “g” values and the y axis, to “mg” values.

TABLE 2 | Variables related to the non-parametric Chao2 estimator. The t, T, S obs, Q1 and Q2 values are used to calculate S est, q0, m and mg.

Variables

 

t

Number of sources

T

Total number of incidences

S obs

Number of observed species

S est

Number of species estimated at the curve’s asymptote

Q1

Number of simpletons (species recorded by only one source)

Q2

Number of dobletons (species recorded by only two sources)

q0

Probability of finding a new species if one more source was consulted

m

Number of extra sources necessary to obtain S obs = S est

mg

Number of extra sources necessary to obtain a proportion “g” of the estimated richness (S est), with “g” ranging from 0 (representing 0% of S est) to 1 (representing 100% of S est)

 

Concerning the spatial richness distribution, accumulation of absolute richness (S) values of each water quadrant was plotted on the bay map employing the QGIS software version 3.16.5. As each quadrant has its own water surface area (discounting portions of land, such as islands and coastlines), species density (S/water surface area) was also calculated in each one of them to obtain comparable results.

Finally, considering the bay’s history of environmental degradation and fishing exploitation, we expected the ichthyofaunal composition to change over the years. In this context, the temporal range of our baseline (1889 to 2020) was divided into decades to identify species that no longer occur in the bay, or that are at least rare now. We considered recent all records made from 2010 to 2020, because since 2010 there were no one-off impact events (e.g., oil spills) that may have affected the ichthyofaunal composition. Therefore, for this study purposes, the 10 years period between 2010 and 2020 (last decade) represent the recent state of the bay.

Results​


Ichthyofauna richness and composition. The scientometric analysis resulted in a total of 176 published articles, 70 of which fitted the criteria described in Data compilation and were included in this study. Assembling all data compilation strategies, we considered a total of 84 different data sources. A total of 220 species (203 teleosts and 17 elasmobranchs) were recorded, distributed in 149 genera (136 teleosts and 13 elasmobranchs) and 72 families (61 teleosts and 11 elasmobranchs) (Tab. 3). Regarding the Teleostei, a very asymmetrical richness distribution was noted among families given that 14 families make up about 50% of the total recorded richness. Among these, the Sciaenidae included the highest number of species (23), followed by Carangidae (14) and Haemulidae (8). Concerning elasmobranchs, the numerical variation of species between families was lower, with the Dasyatidae and Carcharhinidae including three species each, followed by Sphyrnidae and Rhinobatidae with two species. Other families of the Elasmobranchii are represented by just one species each.

TABLE 3 | Species reported at Guanabara Bay and the sources, record dates and quadrants (column Q) in which these records occurred. Taxonomic classification (at species level and above) followed the Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes (Fricke et al., 2023). New records made after 2020 (*), first published in our study, are not included in the data analysis. Column “FD” corresponds to feeding guilds, where DV = detritivore, HV = herbivore, OV = omnivore, OP = opportunist, PV = piscivore, ZB = zoobenthivore, ZP = zooplanktivore. Column “H” corresponds to habitat, where P = pelagic, SB = non-consolidated substrate (soft bottom) and HB = consolidated substrate (hard bottom). The column “EG” corresponds to the estuarine guild, where AM = amphidromous, ER = estuarine resident, MED = marine estuarine-dependent, MEO = marine estuarine-opportunistic, MM = marine migrant, MS = marine straggler and AS = semi-anadromous. IUCN = IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and ICMBio = Livro vermelho da fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção (Subirá et al., 2018). Source numbering available at Tab. S2.

Taxon

Sources

Dates

Q

FG

H

EG

IUCN

ICMBio

Chondrichthyes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elasmobranchii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Selachii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carcharhiniformes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carcharhinidae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carcharhinus brachyurus (Günther, 1870)

68

ND

ND

PV

P

MS

VU

DD

Rhizoprionodon lalandii (Valenciennes, 1839)

68,  this study*

1997/2022*

ND

PV

SB

MS

VU

NT

Rhizoprionodon porosus (Poey, 1861)

68

1997

D6

PV

SB

MS

VU

DD

Galeocerdonidae

Galeocerdo cuvier (Perón & Lesueur, 1822)

this study *

2022*

C4

OP

P

MEO

NT

NT

Sphyrnidae

Sphyrna tiburo (Linnaeus, 1758)

20

2000

D7

OP

SB+HB

MS

EN

CR

Sphyrna zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758)

20

2000

ND

OP

P

MS

VU

CR

Batoidea

Torpediniformes

Narcinidae

Narcine brasiliensis (Olfers, 1831)

68

1938

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

NT

DD

Rhinopristiformes

Trygonorrhinidae

Zapteryx brevirostris (Müller & Henle, 1841)

34, 46, 61

2005–2007/2012

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MS

EN

VU

Rhinobatidae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pseudobatos horkelii (Müller & Henle, 1841)

30, 34, 61

2005–2007

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MS

CR

CR

Pseudobatos percellens (Walbaum, 1792)

30, 34, 61, 68

2005–2007

D6, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MS

EN

DD

Pristidae

Pristis pristis (Linnaeus, 1758)

20

2000

D7

PV

SB

AM

CR

CR

Myliobatiformes

Dasyatidae

Dasyatis hypostigma Santos & Carvalho, 2004

30, 34, 61, 65, 81

1993/
2005–2007/2020

D7, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MM

EN

DD

Hypanus guttatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801)

30, 34, 61, 68

1944/2005–2007/
2012–2015

E3, E5

ZB

SB

MM

NT

LC

Hypanus say (Lesueur, 1817)

15

2011/2012

D7

OP

SB

MEO

NT

DD

Gymnuridae

Gymnura altavela (Linnaeus, 1758)

7, 15, 30, 34, 46, 61,  62, 63, 68, 81, 83

1955/1989/
2005–2007/
2011–2015/
2020

C3, C5, D4, D5,  D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MM

EN

CR

Aetobatidae

Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790)

68

1957

D4

ZB

SB

AM

EN

DD

Rhinopteridae

Rhinoptera bonasus (Mitchill, 1815)

68

1997

ND

ZB

P

MS

VU

DD

Actinopterygii

Teleostei

Elopiformes

Elopidae

Elops saurus Linnaeus, 1766

5, 6, 15, 26, 27,  34, 61, 68

1944/2005–2007/
2010–2013

B5, C3, C5, C6,  D5, D6, D7, E4

ZB

SB

MED

LC

NE

Elops smithi McBride, Rocha, Ruiz-Carus & Bowen, 2010

63

2014

D4, F2

ZB

P

MED

DD

LC

Albuliformes

Albulidae

Albula vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758)

7, 15, 27, 31

1989/2010–2015

D4, D6, D7

ZB

SB

MEO

NT

DD

Anguilliformes

Muraenidae

Gymnothorax ocellatus Agassiz, 1831

34, 61, 68

1889/
1985/
2005–2007

C5, D5, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

DD

Ophichthidae

Myrichthys ocellatus (Lesueur, 1825)

68

1964

E4

ZB

SB+HB

MEO

LC

LC

Ophichthus gomesii (Castelnau, 1855)

7, 34, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68

1956/
1989/
1995/
2002/
2005–2007/
2013–2015

C5, D2, D5, D7, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Clupeiformes

Engraulidae

Anchoa filifera (Fowler, 1915)

62, 68

1995/2013

D5

ZP

P

MEO

LC

LC

Anchoa januaria (Steindachner, 1879)

5, 6, 7, 34, 61, 62, 68

1983/1989/
2005–2007/2013

C3, C5, D5, D7, E3, E5

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Anchoa lyolepis (Evermann & Marsh, 1900)

5, 6, 7, 31, 34, 61, 62, 68

1978/1989/1995/
2005–2007/
2012–2015

C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Anchoa marinii Hildebrand, 1943

34, 61

2005–2007

C3

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Anchoa tricolor (Spix & Agassiz, 1829)

5, 6, 7, 34, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68

1944/1977/1978/
1983/1989/1995/
2005–2007/
2009/2010/
2013/2014

C3, C5, D4, D5, D6, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Cetengraulis edentulus (Cuvier, 1829)

5, 6, 7, 9, 27, 34, 36, 37, 45, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 70

1944/1977/1983/
1989/2001/2002/
2005–2011/
2013–2015

B5, C3, C5, D4, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Engraulis anchoita Hubbs & Marini, 1935

34, 61, 68

1977/2005–2007

C3, D6, D7

OV

P

MM

LC

LC

Pristigasteridae

Chirocentrodon bleekerianus (Poey, 1867)

7, 34, 61, 62

1989/2005–2007/
2013–2015

C5, D5, E5

OP

P

MM

LC

LC

Odontognathus mucronatus Lacepède, 1800

34, 61

2005–2007

D5

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Pellona harroweri (Fowler, 1917)

34, 61, 62

2005–2007/
2013/2015

C3, D5, E5

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Alosidae

Brevoortia aurea (Spix & Agassiz, 1829)

7, 27, 31, 34, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

1989/2001/2002/
2005–2007/
2009–2015

C3, C5, D4, D5, D6, D7, E3, E5, E6, E7

ZP

P

MED

LC

LC

Dorosimatidae

Harengula clupeola (Cuvier, 1829)

5, 6, 7, 15, 26, 27, 31, 34, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68

1989/2005–2007/
2009–2015

C3, C5, D4, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Opisthonema oglinum (Lesueur, 1818)

7, 15, 34, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

1989/
2005–2007/
2009–2015

C3, C5, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7, F3, F4

ZP

P

MM

LC

LC

Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847

68

ND

E7

ZP

P

MS

LC

DD

Sardinella brasiliensis (Steindachner, 1879)

5, 6, 7, 15, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 34, 45, 47, 54, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68

1989/1999–2002/
2005–2016

B4, B5, C3, C4, C5, C6, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, F2, F3, F4

ZP

P

MM

DD

DD

Siluriformes

Ariidae

Aspistor luniscutis (Valenciennes, 1840)

34, 38, 61, 68

1944/1962/
2005–2007

E3

ZB

SB

MEO

NE

LC

Bagre bagre (Linnaeus, 1766)

47, 68,  this study*

2005/2022*

D2

OP

SB

MED

LC

NT

Cathorops spixii (Agassiz, 1829)

34, 38, 61, 66, 68

1944/2005–2007

C3, C5, D5, E3, E5

ZB

SB

MED

NE

LC

Genidens barbus (Lacepède, 1803)

7, 9, 27, 32, 34, 38, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68

1986/1989/2003/
2005–2007/
2009–2015

B3, B4, C3, C4, C5, D2, D4, D5, D6, E2, E3, E4, E5, E7, F2, F3, F4

OP

SB

MED

NE

EN

Genidens genidens (Cuvier, 1829)

7, 8, 9, 18, 24, 27, 29, 34, 35, 38, 39, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68

1944/1955/1962/
1982/1989/2002/
2005–2007/
2009–2011/
2013–2015/2018

B5, C3, C4, C5, D2, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, F2

OP

SB

MED

LC

LC

Notarius grandicassis (Valenciennes, 1840)

34, 38, 61

2005–2007

C3

OP

SB

MED

LC

LC

Aulopiformes

Synodontidae

Synodus foetens (Linnaeus, 1766)

5, 6, 7, 15, 34, 61, 66, 68

1898/
1944/
1989/
2005–2007/
2011/
2012

C3, C5, C6, D4, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Trachinocephalus myops (Forster, 1801)

34, 61

2005–2007

E7

ZB

SB

MS

LC

LC

Gadiformes

Phycidae

Urophycis brasiliensis (Kaup, 1858)

62, 67

2013/
2014

D5

OP

SB

MEO

NE

NT

Holocentriformes

Holocentridae

Holocentrus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765)

66

2007

ND

ZB

SB+HB

MS

LC

LC

Batrachoidiformes

Batrachoididae

Opsanus beta (Goode & Bean, 1880)

2

2017

C5

OP

HB

MEO

LC

NE

Porichthys porosissimus (Cuvier, 1829)

7, 27, 34, 45, 61, 62, 66, 68

1944/1978/1989/
2005–2011/
2013–2015

C5, C6, D5, D6, E3, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

NE

LC

Thalassophryne montevidensis (Berg, 1893)

62

2014

D5

OP

SB

MEO

NE

LC

Thalassophryne nattereri Steindachner, 1876

62

2015

D5

OP

SB

MED

LC

LC

Scombriformes

Pomatomidae

Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, 1766)

5, 6, 15, 26, 54, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 75, 79

1972/
1978/1988/1999/
2001/2002/2005/
2006/2009–2014

B3, B4, C3, C4, C5, D3, D4, D5, D7, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, F2, F3, F4

OP

P

MEO

VU

NT

Scombridae

Sarda sarda (Bloch, 1793)

63

2013

D4

OP

P

MS

LC

LC

Scomber colias Gmelin, 1789

26, 75

1972/2012/2013

D7

OP

P

MS

LC

LC

Scomber japonicus Houttuyn, 1782

63, 64

2009/2010/
2013/2014

D6, D7, E7

PV

P

MM

LC

NE

Scomberomorus brasiliensis Collette, Russo & Zavala-Camin, 1978

63

2013/2014

B3, D4

OP

SB

MS

LC

LC

Stromateidae

Peprilus xanthurus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1825)

34, 61, 62, 67, 68

1944/
2005–2007/2014

C5, C6, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZP

P

MEO

LC

LC

Trichiuridae

Lepidopus caudatus (Euphrasen, 1788)

80

2008

ND

OP

SB

MS

DD

NE

Trichiurus lepturus Linnaeus, 1758

5, 6, 34, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 54, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 77

1993/
1999/2001/2002/
2005–2007/2009/
2010/2013–2015

B3, C3, C4, C5, D4, D5, D7, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, F2, F3, F4

PV

P

MEO

LC

LC

Syngnathiformes

Dactylopteridae

Dactylopterus volitans (Linnaeus, 1758)

5, 6, 7, 15, 26, 27, 34, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68

1944/
1945/1989/

1993/1994/
2005–2007/
2009–2015

C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Mullidae

Mullus argentinae Hubbs & Marini, 1933

34, 61, 66, 68

1913/2005–2007

D5, D7, E3, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

NE

LC

Upeneus parvus Poey, 1852

34, 61, 62, 66, 68

1985/
2005–2007/2013

C5, D5, E3, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Fistulariidae

Fistularia petimba Lacepède, 1803

5, 6, 34, 61

2005–2007

D7, E7

PV

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Fistularia tabacaria Linnaeus, 1758

5, 6, 7, 34, 61, 68

1989/2005–2007

D4, D7, E3, E7

PV

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Syngnathidae

Bryx dunckeri (Metzelaar, 1919)

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

ZP

P

MEO

LC

LC

Cosmocampus elucens (Poey, 1868)

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

ZB

HB

MS

LC

LC

Hippocampus erectus Perry, 1810

20, 68

1953/2000

ND

OP

HB

MEO

VU

VU

Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933

7, 20, 34, 61, 68

1989/2000/
2005–2007

D4, D7, E6, E7

ZP

HB

MEO

NT

VU

Syngnathus folletti Herald, 1942

1, 26, 34, 61, 68

1987/1995/
2005–2007/
2012/2013

D4, D5, D7, E7

ZP

SB

MED

LC

LC

Syngnathus pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758

5, 6, 7, 68

1960/1989/
2005/2006

D4, D7

ZB

P

MED

LC

LC

Gobiiformes

Gobiidae

Bathygobius soporator (Valenciennes, 1837)

34, 61, 68

1944/1961/
2005–2007

C3, E3, E4

OV

SB

ER

LC

LC

Gobionellus oceanicus (Pallas, 1770)

7, 34, 61, 62, 68

1989/1995/
2005–2007/2014

C3, D5, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

ER

LC

LC

Gobiosoma hemigymnum (Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1888)

62

2013

D5

ZB

SB+HB

MEO

NE

LC

Microgobius carri Fowler, 1945

68

1955

D5

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Carangiformes

Centropomidae

Centropomus parallelus Poey, 1860

27, 34, 56, 61, 68

1999/2005–2007/
2010/2011

B5, C3, E5

ZB

SB

SA

LC

LC

Centropomus undecimalis (Bloch, 1792)

15, 27, 34, 47, 51, 54, 56, 61, 68

1999/2001/2002/
2005–2007/
2009–2012

B5, C3, D7

PV

SB

SA

LC

LC

Sphyraenidae

Sphyraena guachancho Cuvier, 1829

34, 61, 62, 63, 66

1998/2005–2007/
2013/2015

B4, C3, C5, D5, E3, E5, E7

PV

P

MS

LC

LC

Sphyraena tome Fowler, 1903

5, 6, 26, 34, 61, 63

2005–2007/
2012/2013

C3, D4, D7

PV

P

MS

NE

DD

Polynemidae

Polydactylus oligodon (Günther, 1860)

5, 6

2005/
2006

D7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Polydactylus virginicus (Linnaeus, 1758)

5, 6, 27, 31, 34, 61

2005–2007/
2010–2015

B5, C3, D6, D7, E4

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Cyclopsettidae

Citharichthys arenaceus Evermann & Marsh, 1900

27, 66

2005/2010/2011

D6, E4

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Citharichthys macrops Dresel, 1885

5, 6, 23, 34, 61, 62, 67

2005–2007/
2010/2014

D5, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Citharichthys spilopterus Günther, 1862

23, 34, 61, 62, 66, 68

1944/2005–2007/
2013/2014

C3, C5, C6, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Cyclopsetta chittendeni Bean, 1895

23, 34, 61, 62

2005–2007/
2015

D5, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MS

LC

LC

Etropus crossotus Jordan & Gilbert, 1882

23, 27, 34, 61, 62, 68

1994/
2005–2007/2010/
2011/2013–2015

C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Etropus longimanus Norman, 1933

23, 34, 61, 62

2005–2007/2015

D5, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Syacium micrurum Ranzani, 1842

23, 34, 61

2005–2007

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MS

LC

LC

Syacium papillosum (Linnaeus, 1758)

23, 34, 61, 66

2005–2007

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Bothidae

Bothus ocellatus (Agassiz, 1831)

23, 26, 34, 61, 66

2005–2007/
2012/2013

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Bothus robinsi Topp & Hoff, 1972

23, 34, 61, 66

2005–2007

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MS

LC

LC

Paralichthyidae

Paralichthys orbignyanus (Valenciennes, 1839)

23, 34, 61

2005–2007

C3, D5, E3

ZB

SB

MS

DD

DD

Paralichthys patagonicus Jordan, 1889

23, 34, 61

2005–2007

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MS

VU

NT

Achiridae

Achirus declivis Chabanaud, 1940

23, 34, 61, 62

2005–2007/
2013/2014

C3, D5, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Achirus lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758)

23, 27, 34, 61, 62, 68

1944/1954/1955/
2005–2007/
2010/2011/2015

B5, C3, D5, D7, E3, E4, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Trinectes microphthalmus (Chabanaud, 1928)

62

2014/2015

D5

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Trinectes paulistanus (Miranda Ribeiro, 1915)

23, 34, 61, 62, 66, 68

1934/2005–2007/
2014/2015

C3, C5, D5, D7, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Cynoglossidae

Symphurus diomedeanus (Goode & Bean, 1885)

23, 34, 61, 62

2005–2007/2013

D5, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Symphurus jenynsi Evermann & Kendall, 1906

27

2010/
2011

D6, E4

ZB

SB

MEO

NE

LC

Symphurus plagusia (Bloch & Schneider, 1801)

68

1968

E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Symphurus tessellatus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)

23, 27, 34, 61, 62, 68

1998/
2005–2007/2010/
2011/2013–2015

B5, C3, C4, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Symphurus trewavasae Chabanaud, 1948

27

2010/2011

E4

ZB

SB

MED

NE

LC

Carangidae

Caranx bartholomaei Cuvier, 1833

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

PV

SB+HB

MEO

LC

LC

Caranx crysos (Mitchill, 1815)

26, 54, 63, 64, 68, 74

1974/2001/
2002/2009/
2010/2012–2014

B3, B4, C6, D4, D6, D7, E3, E4, E6, E7, F2, F3

OP

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Caranx latus Agassiz, 1831

5, 6, 15, 27, 34, 61, 62, 68

1994/2005–2007/
2010–2012/2015

B5, C5, D7, E3

PV

SB

MS

LC

LC

Chloroscombrus chrysurus (Linnaeus, 1766)

27, 34, 45, 61, 62, 64, 66

1998/
2005–2011/
2013/2015

B5, C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZP

P

MS

LC

LC

Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus (Cuvier, 1833)

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

ZB

P

SA

LC

LC

Oligoplites palometa (Cuvier, 1832)

62

2015

C5

OP

SB

MM

LC

LC

Oligoplites saliens (Bloch, 1793)

63, 64

2009/2010/
2013/2014

D4, E3, E4, E7

OP

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Oligoplites saurus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801)

34, 61, 62, 66, 68

1955/
2005–2007/
2015

C5, D5, E5

PV

P

MS

LC

LC

Selene setapinnis (Mitchill, 1815)

5, 6, 34, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68

1944/
2005–2007/
2009/2010/
2014/2015

C3, C5, C6, D4, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MS

LC

LC

Selene vomer (Linnaeus, 1758)

5, 6, 34, 61, 62, 66, 68

1944/
2005–2007/
2013/2014

C3, C5, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Trachinotus carolinus (Linnaeus, 1766)

5, 6, 15, 26, 31, 34, 61, 63, 69

2005–2007/
2011–2015

B3, B4, C3, D4, D7, E3, E4

ZB

SB

MS

LC

LC

Trachinotus falcatus (Linnaeus, 1758)

5, 6, 26, 31, 34, 61, 66

2005–2007/
2012–2015

C3, D7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Trachinotus goodei Jordan & Evermann, 1896

5, 6, 15, 26, 69

2005/2006/
2011–2013

D7

OP

SB

MS

LC

LC

Trachurus lathami Nichols, 1920

5, 6, 34, 61

2005–2007

D5, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MS

LC

LC

Echeneidae

Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758

34, 61, 66

2005–2007/2011

C5, E5

PV

P

MS

LC

LC

Remora remora (Linnaeus, 1758)

68

1961

ND

OP

P

MS

LC

LC

Rachycentridae

Rachycentron canadum (Linnaeus, 1766)

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

OP

SB+HB

MS

LC

LC

Cichliformes

Pomacentridae

Abudefduf saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1758)

4

2001

D7

OV

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Atheriniformes

Atherinopsidae

Atherinella brasiliensis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1825)

5, 6, 7, 15, 26, 34, 61, 62, 68

1944/1989/1995/
2005–2007/
2011–2013

C5, D4, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZP

P

ER

LC

LC

Beloniformes

Belonidae

Strongylura marina (Walbaum, 1792)

34, 61

2005–2007

C3

ZP

P

MEO

LC

LC

Strongylura timucu (Walbaum, 1792)

7, 26

1989/2012/2013

D4, D7

OP

P

MEO

LC

LC

Hemiramphidae

Hemiramphus balao Lesueur, 1821

64

2009/2010

E7

OP

P

MS

LC

DD

Hemiramphus brasiliensis (Linnaeus, 1758)

68

ND

ND

OV

P

MEO

LC

LC

Hyporhamphus unifasciatus (Ranzani, 1841)

7, 68

1944/1989

D4, E3

OV

P

MEO

LC

NT

Mugiliformes

Mugilidae

Mugil brevirostris (Miranda Ribeiro, 1915)

68

ND

ND

DV

SB

MED

NE

NE

Mugil curema Valenciennes, 1836 

5, 6, 15, 26, 31, 34, 54, 56, 61, 64, 66, 68

1913/1999/
2001/2002/
2005–2007/
2009–2015

C3, C4, D7, E3, F2

DV

SB

MED

LC

DD

Mugil curvidens Valenciennes, 1836

68

1944

E3

DV

SB

MED

NE

DD

Mugil liza Valenciennes, 1836

5, 6, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 74, 78, 79, 80, 84

1974/1978/
1990–2003/
2005–2016/2019

B3, B4, C3, C4, C5, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, F2, F3, F4

DV

SB

MEO

DD

NT

Gobiesociformes

Gobiesocidae

Gobiesox barbatulus (Starks, 1913)

7, 68

1955/1989

C5, D4, D5, D7, E7

ZB

HB

MED

LC

NE

Tomicodon australis Briggs, 1955

68

1999

E7

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Blenniiformes

Labrisomidae

Gobioclinus kalisherae (Jordan, 1904)

26

2012/
2013

D7

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

NE

Labrisomus nuchipinnis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)

27

2010/
2011

D6

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Dactyloscopidae

Dactyloscopus crossotus Starks, 1913

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

OP

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Blenniidae

Hypleurochilus fissicornis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)

68

1961

E4

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Parablennius pilicornis (Cuvier, 1829)

68

1915

ND

OV

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Scartella cristata (Linnaeus, 1758)

5, 6, 68, 73

1982/1995/
2005/2006

D7

HV

HB

MS

LC

LC

Perciformes

Serranidae

Diplectrum formosum (Linnaeus, 1766)

27, 34, 61, 66, 68, 72

1944/1955/
1990–1992/1995/
1997/2005–2007/
2010/2011

C5, C6, D5, D6, D7, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Diplectrum radiale (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)

27, 34, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 72

1944/1990–1993/
1997/1998/
2005–2007/2010/
2011/2013–2015

B5, C4, C5, C6, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Dules auriga Cuvier, 1829

27, 34, 45, 61, 62, 65, 68, 71

1944/1993/
2005–2011/
2013–2015/2019

C5, C6, D5, D6, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

NE

LC

Serranus flaviventris (Cuvier, 1829)

68, 72

1944/1992/1997

D7, E3

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Epinephelidae

Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822)

5, 6, 20

2000/2005/2006

D6, D7

OP

SB+HB

MEO

VU

CR

Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834)

68, 72

1913/1956/
1991/1997

C5, D7, E6

OP

HB

MEO

VU

VU

Epinephelus morio (Valenciennes, 1828)

5, 6, 68

1944/2005/2006

D7, E7

OP

SB+HB

MEO

VU

VU

Hyporthodus nigritus (Holbrook, 1855)

34, 61

2005–2007

C5

ZB

HB

MEO

NT

EN

Hyporthodus niveatus (Valenciennes, 1828)

34, 61

2005–2007

C5, E7

ZB

HB

MEO

VU

VU

Mycteroperca acutirostris (Valenciennes, 1828)

27, 65, 67, 68

1944/1963/
1981/1989/1991/
1993/2010/2011

C5, D4, D6, D7, E7

ZP

HB

MEO

LC

DD

Mycteroperca microlepis (Goode & Bean, 1879)

34, 61

2005–2007

E3

ZB

HB

MEO

VU

DD

Uranoscopidae

Astroscopus y-graecum (Cuvier, 1829)

5, 6, 68

1998/2005/2006

D7, E7

PV

SB

MS

LC

LC

Triglidae

Prionotus nudigula Ginsburg, 1950

62

2013/2014

C5

PV

SB

MEO

NE

LC

Prionotus punctatus (Bloch, 1793)

5, 6, 7, 9, 27, 34, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68

1944/1955/1984/
1989/1993/1994/
2004–2007/2010/
2011/2013–2015

C3, C5, C6, D4, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Scorpaenidae

Scorpaena brasiliensis Cuvier, 1829

7, 34, 61, 62, 66, 68

1989/1993/1994/
2005–2007/
2013/2014

D4, D5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Scorpaena isthmensis Meek & Hildebrand, 1928

7, 34, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68

1989/1993/1994/
2005–2007/2014

D4, D5, D6, D7, E7

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Scorpaena plumieri Bloch, 1789

7, 34, 61

1989/2005–2007

D5, D7

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Acanthuriformes

Priacanthidae

Heteropriacanthus cruentatus (Lacepède, 1801)

64

2009/2010

E7

OP

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Priacanthus arenatus Cuvier, 1829

27, 34, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

1994/2005–2007/
2009–2011/
2013–2015

C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E7

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Lutjanidae

Rhomboplites aurorubens (Cuvier, 1829)

68

ND

ND

OP

HB

MS

VU

NT

Gerreidae

Diapterus auratus Ranzani, 1842

65, 68

1944/1989

ND

ZB

HB

MED

LC

LC

Diapterus rhombeus (Cuvier, 1829)

27, 34, 61, 62, 66, 68, 79

1975/1978/
1983/1984/
2005–2007/
2010/2011/
2013–2015

B5, C3, C5, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

OV

SB

MED

LC

LC

Eucinostomus argenteus Baird & Girard, 1855

5, 6, 9, 15, 26, 27, 34, 61, 62, 65, 68

1956/1982/
1983/1994/
2005–2007/
2010–2015

B5, C3, C5, D5, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Eucinostomus gula (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)

5, 6, 26, 27, 34, 61, 62, 65, 66

1994/2005–2007/
2010–2015

B5, C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Eucinostomus lefroyi (Goode, 1874)

5, 6, 68

1998/2005/2006

C4, D7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Eugerres brasilianus (Cuvier, 1830)

63, 79

1978/2014

D4

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Haemulidae

Anisotremus virginicus (Linnaeus, 1758)

34, 61

2005–2007

E7

ZB

HB

MS

LC

LC

Boridia grossidens Cuvier, 1830

5, 6, 34, 61, 66

2005–2007

C3, C5, D5, D7, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

NE

LC

Conodon nobilis (Linnaeus, 1758)

34, 61

2005–2007

C5, E5

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Genyatremus cavifrions (Cuvier 1830)

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

OV

SB

ER

DD

LC

Haemulon aurolineatum Cuvier, 1830

27, 31

2010–2015

D6

OV

SB+HB

MEO

LC

LC

Haemulon atlanticus Carvalho, Marceniuk, Oliveira & Wosiacki, 2020

27, 31, 34, 61, 68

1944/2005–2007/
2010–2015

D6, E4, E7

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Haemulopsis corvinaeformis (Steindachner, 1868)

5, 6, 34, 61, 65

1993/2005–2007

D7, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Orthopristis rubra (Cuvier, 1830)

5, 6, 9, 11, 27, 34, 47, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 73, 79, 82

1944/1955/1978/
1989/1990/1991/
1994/1995/2002/
2005–2007/
2009–2011/
2013–2015

B5, C3, C4, C5, C6, D4, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7, F2, F3

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Sparidae

Archosargus rhomboidalis (Linnaeus, 1758)

26, 34, 61, 63, 65, 68, 79

1944/1955/
1978/1993/
2005–2007/
2012–2014

C5, D4, D5, D7, E3, E4

OV

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Calamus penna (Valenciennes, 1830)

27, 34, 61, 66, 68

1944/2005–2007/
2010/2011

D6, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB+HB

MS

LC

LC

Diplodus argenteus (Valenciennes, 1830)

5, 6, 15, 26, 27, 31, 34, 61, 68

1995/2005–2007/
2010–2015

D5, D6, D7, E7

HV

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758)

45

2008/2009

ND

OP

SB+HB

MS

LC

DD

Sciaenidae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bairdiella goeldi Marceniuk, Molina, Caires, Rotundo, Wosiacki & Oliveira, 2019

34, 61, 66, 68

1994/2005–2007

C5, E3, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Ctenosciaena gracilicirrhus (Metzelaar, 1919)

9, 27, 34, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67

1983/2005–2007/
2010/2011/
2013–2015

C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Cynoscion acoupa (Lacepède, 1801)

34, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66

2005–2007/
2009/2010/
2013–2015

B4, C3, C5, D4, D5, D7, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, F2, F3

ZB

SB

MEO

VU

NT

Cynoscion guatucupa (Cuvier, 1830)

27, 34, 45, 61, 62, 63, 66

2005–2011/
2013/2014

D5, D7, E4, E5

OP

SB

MS

LC

LC

Cynoscion jamaicensis (Vaillant & Bocourt, 1883)

9, 34, 45, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 79

1978/2005–2010/
2013–2015

C3, C5, C6, D5, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Cynoscion leiarchus (Cuvier, 1830)

34, 45, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67

2005–2010/
2013–2015

B3, B4, C3, C4, C5, D3, D4, D5, D6, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Cynoscion microlepidotus (Cuvier, 1830)

34, 61, 62, 64

2005–2007/
2009/2010/
2013–2015

C5, D5, E5

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Isopisthus parvipinnis (Cuvier, 1830)

27, 34, 61, 62

2005–2007/
2010/2011/
2013–2015

C3, C5, D5, E4, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Larimus breviceps Cuvier, 1830

34, 45, 61, 62, 66, 67

2005–2009/
2014

D5, D7, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Macrodon atricauda (Günther, 1880)

54

2001/
2002

ND

OP

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Menticirrhus gracilis (Cuvier, 1830)

5, 6, 27, 31, 34, 61, 66

2005–2007/
2010–2015

C3, D5, D6, D7, E3, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

DD

Menticirrhus martinicensis (Cuvier, 1830)

5, 6, 27, 31, 34, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68

1944/1982/
2005–2007/
2010–2015

C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

DD

Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest, 1823)

4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 33, 34, 39, 40, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 76, 78, 79, 80

1944/
1978/
1982/
1983/
1990–2011/
2013–2016

B3, B4, B5, C3, C4, C5, C6, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, F2, F3, F4

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Nebris microps Cuvier, 1830

34, 61, 66

2005–2007

D5, E5

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Odontoscion dentex (Cuvier, 1830)

27

2010/
2011

D6

OP

HB

MED

LC

LC

Paralonchurus brasiliensis (Steindachner, 1875)

34, 45, 61, 62, 66

2005–2009/
2013–2015

C5, D5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Pogonias courbina (Lacépède, 1803)

34, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 79

1978/2005–2007/
2009/2010/
2013/2014

B3, B5, C3, C4, C5, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7, F2, F3, F4, F5

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

EN

Stellifer brasiliensis (Schultz, 1945)

34, 61

2005–2007

D5

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Stellifer punctatissimus (Meek & Hildebrand, 1925)

67

ND

D4

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

DD

Stellifer rastrifer (Jordan, 1889)

5, 6, 34, 61, 62, 66

2005–2007/
2013–2015

C5, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MED

LC

LC

Stellifer stellifer (Bloch, 1790)

34, 61, 62

2005–2007/
2013–2015

D5

ZB

SB

MED

DD

LC

Umbrina canosai Berg, 1895

27, 34, 45, 61

2005–2011

D5, D6

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Umbrina coroides Cuvier, 1830

5, 6, 27, 31, 34, 61, 66

2005–2007/
2010–2015

D5, D6, D7, E3, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Ephippidae

Chaetodipterus faber (Broussonet, 1782)

5, 6, 15, 26, 34, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 79

1978/2005–2007/
2009–2015

B4, C3, C4, C5, C6, D4, D5, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7, F3

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Lophiiformes

Ogcocephalidae

Ogcocephalus vespertilio (Linnaeus, 1758)

7, 27, 62, 68

1987/1989/
2010/2011/
2014/2015

D5, D6, D7

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Antennariidae

Antennarius striatus (Shaw, 1794)

34, 61

2005–2007

E7

PV

SB

MS

LC

DD

Tetraodontiformes

Diodontidae

Chilomycterus reticulatus (Linnaeus, 1758)

12, 27, 34, 61, 62, 67

2005–2007/
2010/2011/2015

C5, D5, D6, E5

ZB

P

MS

LC

LC

Chilomycterus spinosus (Linnaeus, 1758)

3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 27, 34, 61, 62, 67, 68

1944/1945/
1995/2000/
2005–2007/
2010–2015

C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Diodon hystrix Linnaeus, 1758

68

1954/1956

D5

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Tetraodontidae

Canthigaster figueiredoi Moura & Castro, 2002

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

OV

HB

MEO

LC

NE

Lagocephalus laevigatus (Linnaeus, 1766)

5, 6, 12, 34, 61, 62, 67, 68

1944/2005–2007/
2013/2014

C3, C5, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MM

LC

LC

Lagocephalus lagocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758)

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

OP

P

MS

LC

LC

Sphoeroides greeleyi Gilbert, 1900

5, 6, 12, 15, 26, 27, 34, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68

1993/2003/
2005–2008/
2010–2015

C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

ER

LC

LC

Sphoeroides spengleri (Bloch, 1785)

62, 68

1993/2014

D5, D7

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Sphoeroides testudineus (Linnaeus, 1758)

5, 6, 12, 15, 27, 31, 34, 61, 62, 66, 68

1944/2005–2007/
2010–2015

C5, D5, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

DD

Sphoeroides tyleri Shipp, 1972

3, 5, 6, 12, 34, 61, 62, 67

2000/2005–2007/
2013–2015

C5, D5, D7, E3, E5, E7

ZB

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Ostraciidae

Acanthostracion quadricornis (Linnaeus, 1758)

34

2005–2007

ND

ZB

P

MS

LC

LC

Monacanthidae

Aluterus heudelotii Hollard, 1855

12, 34, 61, 67

2005–2007

D7, E7

HV

SB

MS

LC

LC

Aluterus monoceros (Linnaeus, 1758)

27

2010/2011

D6

ZB

HB

MEO

LC

NT

Aluterus schoepfii (Walbaum, 1792)

12, 34, 61, 67

2005–2007

D7, E7

HV

SB

MS

LC

LC

Cantherhines pullus (Ranzani, 1842)

5, 6

2005/2006

D7

OV

HB

MEO

LC

LC

Monacanthus ciliatus (Mitchill, 1818)

26

2012/
2013

D7

OV

SB+HB

MS

LC

LC

Stephanolepis hispida (Linnaeus, 1766)

12, 27, 34, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68

1916/
2005–2007/
2010/
2011/
2013/
2014

C3, C5, D5, D6, D7, E3, E4, E5, E7, F5

OV

SB

MEO

LC

LC

Balistidae

Canthidermis sufflamen (Mitchill, 1815)

5, 6

2005/
2006

D7

OP

HB

MEO

LC

LC

 

The most recorded estuary use guild was marine estuarine-opportunist, consisting of approximately 48% of the species (106). Forty-seven species (21%) are dependent on the estuarine environment, being classified as marine estuarine-dependents (37), estuarine residents (5), semi-anadromous (3) or amphidromous (2). The 18 species identified as marine migrants may also be either opportunistic or dependent, therefore the number of species that depend on the estuary to complete their life cycle can be even higher. Demersal species represented about 80% of the richness, distributed throughout species that inhabit soft substrates (58%), hard substrates (17%) or both (5%), while 44 species are classified as pelagic. These results are reflected in the feeding guilds identified, with 55% (120) of the species being considered zoobenthivores. The other categories have much lower values, with 39 opportunistic species, 21 zooplanktiovorous, 18 piscivorous, 14 omnivorous, four herbivorous and four detritivorous.

Elasmobranchs are vertebrates with a conservative life history (e.g., low fecundity, late sexual maturation, slow growth, high longevity, long gestational periods) and, therefore, have low replacement potential in the event of mortality from unnatural causes (e.g., Hoenig, Gruber, 1990). Thus, it is not surprising that this group has a higher number of threatened species when compared to teleosts, a group with species generally presenting shorter life cycles and high population densities (e.g., Pratt Jr. et al., 1990). Among the ray and shark species recorded in this study, 77% are threatened globally (Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered), in addition to 23% considered as Near Threatened. Among teleosts, only 7% are threatened or Near Threatened globally, with 82% considered as Least Concern, 3% as Data Deficient, and 8% as Not Evaluated. A similar scenario was found at the Brazilian level, with 79% of the teleosts classified as Least Concern, 4% as Threatened, 5% as Near Threatened, 8% as Data Deficient, and 4% as Not Evaluated. As for the elasmobranchs recorded in Guanabara Bay at the Brazilian level, 47% of the species are assessed as Data Deficient, 35% are Threatened, 12% are Near Threatened, and only 6% are classified as Least Concern.

The rarefaction curve calculated for the estuary as a whole did not reach an asymptote, indicating that Guanabara Bay has an even richer baseline concerning fish species (Fig. 2A). In fact, the analysis by the Chao2 method estimated a richness of 249 species, 29 more than that recorded herein. However, about 88% of the ichthyofauna was successfully inventoried (Fig. 3A). The probability of obtaining a new species record if one more source was consulted would be only 0.046, while a significant effort would be required (319 new sources) for 100% of the fish species in the bay to be fully inventoried (Tab. 4). Regarding only the lower estuary compartment, the results obtained were similar, with no stabilization of the rarefaction curve (Fig. 2B). However, in this case, the number of recorded species (188) was closer to the estimated (approximately 203 species), at 92% of the total ichthyofauna (Fig. 3B). In addition, the “q0” value was even lower (0.03) and the effort to obtain the totality of the lower estuary ichthyofauna would, again, be excessively high (m = 223.5).

FIGURE 2 | Rarefaction curves for Guanabara Bay’s ichthyofauna richness, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A. For the bay as a whole, and for the estuary compartments separately: B. Lower estuary, C. Middle estuary and D. Upper estuary.

FIGURE 3 | Ichthyofauna rates found for Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A. As a whole and for the B. Lower, C. Middle, and D. Upper estuaries separately, where “mg” corresponds to the number of extra samples needed to reach a “g” for estimated richness. When the line touches the x axis (mg = 0), the “g” values are reached by our study, that is, the value in which extra collections are not necessary.

TABLE 4 | Chao2 parametric estimator values for Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as a whole, and for the lower, middle and upper estuaries separately (t = 84).

 

t

T

S obs

S est

Q1

Q2

q0

m

mg
(g = 0.95)

mg
(g = 0.90)

mg
(g = 0.85)

mg
(g = 0.80)

Guanabara Bay

84

1054

218

247.66

49

40

0.046

318.96

44.83

9.25

Lower estuary

84

1005

188

202.87

31

32

0.031

223.52

15.49

Middle estuary

84

720

90

90.89

3

5

0.004

60.45

Upper estuary

84

735

92

92.64

3

7

0.004

41.15

 

Contrary to the lower estuary compartment and the Guanabara Bay as a whole, stabilization of the rarefaction curves was obtained for the middle and upper estuary compartments (Figs. 2C, D), indicating that the records are sufficient to represent the species richness of these two portions of the bay. The observed and estimated richness values were very close in both cases and q0 values were less than 0.01 (Tab. 4). Even though the “m” values were not null, they indicated a sampling of over 99% for these two compartments (Figs. 3C, D). However, a new species was recorded in the upper estuary after 2020. On June 22, 2022, gillnet artisanal fisherman captured one specimen of the tiger-shark Galeocerdo cuvier on quadrant C4. This is the first record of the species in Guanabara Bay. The specimen was a juvenile female with total length of 1,80 m and its jaw is deposited in the MNRJ (MNRJ 53604).

Spatial distribution. In general, the region of the bay closer to the mouth of the estuary presented the highest values of both absolute richness (S) and species density (SD). Quadrants D7 and E7 at the entrance of the estuary were the richest and densest (Figs. 1, 4). Although D7 presented the highest number of species (127), E7 has the highest density due to its smaller water surface area. High S and SD values were also noted in the other lower estuary quadrants, with D4 having the lowest richness (43 species). However, D6 results were lower than expected (S = 55, SD = 2.34 sp./km2) considering it is a transition region between D7 and D5, both of which are richer.

FIGURE 4 | Distribution of absolute richness (A) and species density (B) per km2 at Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

A high variation in S was observed in the middle estuary compartment. For instance, quadrants F4 and F5 presented less than 10 species, while quadrants C5 and E5 had over 60 species (Figs. 1, 4A). However, the quadrants of this compartment have very different water surface areas, making SD a more reliable measure for comparison. Even though quadrants B5, F5 and E6 have relatively small S values (18, 2 and 14, respectively), their small water surface area result in SD values above three (Figs. 1, 4B). Therefore, only quadrants C6 and F4 stand out with relativity lower densities when compared to the other quadrants of the middle estuary.

The upper estuary presented most quadrants with relatively lower values of S, with three quadrants with less than 10 species (D2, D3 and E2) and five with less than 20 species (B3, B4, C4, F2 and F3). A similar pattern was recovered for species density, with the upper estuary comprising the only portion of the bay with quadrants with SD values lower than one species per km2 (B4, D3, E2, F2 and F3). All quadrants in the upper estuary compartment, except for C3 and E3, presented SD values lower than two species per km2. Indeed, quadrants C3 (S = 62, SD = 2.98 sp./km2) and E3 (S = 73, SD = 3.07 sp./km2) stood out in terms of richness, with S and SD values more similar to the ones recovered for the lower and middle estuary compartments (Figs. 1, 4).

Temporal changes. From the 220 species considered, 84 were not recorded in the last decade (between 2010 and 2020) (Tab. 5). Among these, 65 species were last recorded between 2000 and 2009, comprising 60 teleosts and five elasmobranchs. However, three of these elasmobranchs (Sphyrna tiburo (Linnaeus, 1758), S. zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758), and Pristis pristis (Linnaeus, 1758)) may have been recorded a long time before this timeframe. That is because their records come from past literature and ichthyological collections data presented at Buckup et al. (2000) who did not present the years that the records were made. Therefore, we considered the year of publication (2000) as the record data of those species.

TABLE 5 | Species not recorded after 2010 at Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, until 2020.

Species last recorded

Dates

Species last recorded from 2000 to 2009

Abudefduf saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1758)

2001

Acanthostracion quadricornis (Linnaeus, 1758)

2005–2007

Aluterus heudelotii Hollard, 1855

2005–2007

Aluterus schoepfii (Walbaum, 1792)

2005–2007

Anchoa marinii Hildebrand, 1943

2005–2007

Anisotremus virginicus (Linnaeus, 1758)

2005–2007

Antennarius striatus (Shaw, 1794)

2005–2007

Astroscopus y-graecum (Cuvier, 1829)

1998/2005/2006

Bagre bagre (Linnaeus, 1766)

2005

Bairdiella goeldi Marceniuk, Molina, Caires, Rotundo, Wosiacki & Oliveira, 2019

1994/2005–2007

Bathygobius soporator (Valenciennes, 1837)

1944/1961/2005–2007

Boridia grossidens Cuvier, 1830

2005–2007

Bothus robinsi Topp & Hoff, 1972

2005–2007

Bryx dunckeri (Metzelaar, 1919)

2005/2006

Cantherhines pullus (Ranzani, 1842)

2005/2006

Species last recorded from 2000 to 2009

Canthidermis sufflamen (Mitchill, 1815)

2005/2006

Canthigaster figueiredoi Moura & Castro, 2002

2005/2006

Caranx bartholomaei Cuvier, 1833

2005/2006

Cathorops spixii (Agassiz, 1829)

1944/2005–2007

Conodon nobilis (Linnaeus, 1758)

2005–2007

Cosmocampus elucens (Poey, 1868)

2005/2006

Dactyloscopus crossotus Starks, 1913

2005/2006

Engraulis anchoita Hubbs & Marini, 1935

1977/2005–2007

Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822)

2000/2005/2006

Epinephelus morio (Valenciennes, 1828)

1944/2005/2006

Eucinostomus lefroyi (Goode, 1874)

1998/2005/2006

Fistularia tabacaria Linnaeus, 1758

1989/2005–2007

Fistularia petimba Lacepède, 1803

2005–2007

Genyatremus cavifrions (Cuvier, 1830)

2005/2006

Gymnothorax ocellatus Agassiz, 1831

1889/1985/2005–2007

Haemulopsis corvinaeformis (Steindachner, 1868)

1993/2005–2007

Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus (Cuvier, 1833)

2005/2006

Hippocampus erectus Perry, 1810

1953/2000

Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933

1989/2000/2005–2007

Holocentrus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765)

2007

Hyporthodus nigritus (Holbrook, 1855)

2005–2007

Hyporthodus niveatus (Valenciennes, 1828)

2005–2007

Lagocephalus lagocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758)

2005/2006

Lepidopus caudatus (Euphrasen, 1788)

2008

Macrodon atricauda (Günther, 1880)

2001/2002

Mullus argentinae Hubbs & Marini, 1933

1913/2005–2007

Mycteroperca microlepis (Goode & Bean, 1879)

2005–2007

Nebris microps Cuvier, 1830

2005–2007

Notarius grandicassis (Valenciennes, 1840)

2005–2007

Odontognathus mucronatus Lacepède, 1800

2005–2007

Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758)

2008/2009

Paralichthys orbignyanus (Valenciennes, 1839)

2005–2007

Paralichthys patagonicus Jordan, 1889

2005–2007

Polydactylus oligodon (Günther, 1860)

2005/2006

Pristis pristis (Linnaeus, 1758)

2000

Pseudobatos horkelii (Müller & Henle, 1841)

2005–2007

Species last recorded from 2000 to 2009

Pseudobatos percellens (Walbaum, 1792)

2005–2007

Rachycentron canadum (Linnaeus, 1766)

2005/2006

Scartella cristata (Linnaeus, 1758)

1982/1995/2005/2006

Scorpaena plumieri Bloch, 1789

1989/2005–2007

Sphyrna zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758)

2000

Sphyrna tiburo (Linnaeus, 1758)

2000

Stellifer brasiliensis (Schultz, 1945)

2005–2007

Strongylura marina (Walbaum, 1792)

2005–2007

Syacium micrurum Ranzani, 1842

2005–2007

Syacium papillosum (Linnaeus, 1758)

2005–2007

Syngnathus pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758

1960/1989/2005/2006

Trachinocephalus myops (Forster, 1801)

2005–2007

Trachurus lathami Nichols, 1920

2005–2007

Species last recorded from 1990 to 1999

Tomicodon australis Briggs, 1955

1999

Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834)

1913/1956/1991/1997

Rhinoptera bonasus (Mitchill, 1815)

1997

Rhizoprionodon lalandii (Valenciennes, 1839)

1997

Rhizoprionodon porosus (Poey, 1861)

1997

Serranus flaviventris (Cuvier, 1829)

1944/1992/1997

Species last recorded from 1980 to 1989

Diapterus auratus Ranzani, 1842

1944/1989

Gobiesox barbatulus (Starks, 1913)

1955/1989

Hyporhamphus unifasciatus (Ranzani, 1841)

1944/1989

Species last recorded from 1960 to 1969

Hypleurochilus fissicornis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)

1961

Myrichthys ocellatus (Lesueur, 1825)

1964

Remora remora (Linnaeus, 1758)

1961

Symphurus plagusia (Bloch & Schneider, 1801)

1968

Species last recorded from 1950 to 1959

Microgobius carri Fowler, 1945

1955

Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790)

1957

Diodon hystrix Linnaeus, 1758

1954/1956

Species last recorded from 1940 to 1949

Mugil curvidens Valenciennes, 1836

1944

Species last recorded from 1930 to 1939

Narcine brasiliensis (Olfers, 1831)

1938

Species last recorded from 1910 to 1919

Parablennius pilicornis (Cuvier, 1829)

1915

 

Six species, three teleosts and three elasmobranchs (Tab. 5), were last recorded in Guanabara Bay between 1990 and 1999. The teleost Tomicodon australis Briggs, 1955, the sharks Rhizoprionodon lalandii and R. porosus (Poey, 1861) and the ray Rhinoptera bonasus (Mitchill, 1815) are represented by only one record each in the MNRJ Fish Collection, while the teleosts Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) and Serranus flaviventris (Cuvier, 1829) were recorded at different dates until 1997, when both species ceased to appear in the records. The most recent records for the teleosts Hyporhamphus unifasciatus (Ranzani, 1841), Diapterus auratus Ranzani, 1842, and Gobiesox barbatulus (Starks, 1913) were all made in 1989.

Four species were recorded between 1960 and 1969 and three others were mentioned only between 1960 and 1969 (Tab. 5). Last records of some species are considerably older, for instance Mugil curvidens Valenciennes, 1836, recorded in 1944, Narcine brasiliensis (Olfers, 1831), in 1938, and Parablennius pilicornis (Cuvier, 1829), in 1915. Data of those records are again based on voucher specimens at MNRJ.

Nevertheless, fishing landing monitoring is still being carried out at Guanabara Bay, resulting in new records. After 2020, two new records of species shown on Tab. 5 were registered. On August 9, 2022, a 30 cm (total length) female Rhizoprionodon lalandii was captured by fishing at quadrant D2 and was deposited at MNRJ (MNRJ 53605). The species was recorded at the bay only once before in 1997. The other species is the teleost Bagre bagre previously recorded in 2005. The new record occurred on November 3, 2022, at quadrant F2.

Discussion​


The use of different sources for the compilation of past data was an efficient way to build a baseline of fish species from Guanabara Bay, as the different sources filled different gaps regarding the ichthyofauna survey. While the published literature provided more recent records, specimens deposited in ichthyological collections revealed more ancient occurrences, some dating back to the 19th century. Scientific sampling and taxonomic monitoring of fish landings, in turn, revealed 13 species not reported by any other type of source. Since this survey is based on past records, it is important to consider the possibility of misidentification of specimens in the sources consulted. For the scientific sampling and fish landings monitoring this problem was likely minimized, since they were carried out by BioTecPesca/UFRJ and all specimens were identified by a specialist. The use of only published data also increases the reliability of the baseline, since all the articles used were peer reviewed by specialists. Other important measure was the exclusion of doubtful records of species that are not confirmed to occur in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Finally, our survey recovered a considerable level of internal data consistency, with the same species recorded in the same areas by different sources, increasing the reliability of the occurrence of these species.

The total richness of 220 species (203 teleosts and 17 elasmobranchs) recorded was higher than previously reported for the Guanabara Bay. Vianna et al. (2012), for instance, reported 174 species (169 teleosts and five elasmobranchs). Even though this increase in richness was influenced by the new studies published and the new scientific samplings and fishery landing monitoring since 2012, the inclusion of historical records from scientific collections also contributed substantially. Regarding elasmobranchs, for example, Dasyatis hypostigma Santos & Carvalho, 2004, Gymnura altavela (Linnaeus, 1758), Hypanus guttatus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801), Pseudobatos horkelii (Müller & Henle, 1841), Pseudobatos percellens (Walbaum, 1792), and Zapteryx brevirostris (Müller & Henle, 1841) were recorded between 2012 and 2015 (Gonçalves-Silva, Vianna, 2018a), while Carcharhinus brachyurus (Günther, 1870), Rhizoprionodon lalandii, R. porosus, Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790), Rhinoptera bonasus, and Narcine brasiliensis were only found as vouchers deposited in collections.

Despite advances, some taxonomic questions still hinder the establishment of a more comprehensive list of fish species in the Guanabara Bay. For instance, Elops saurus Linnaeus, 1766was considered the only species of the genus Elops in the western Atlantic before the description of Elops smithi McBride, Rocha, Ruiz-Carus & Bowen,2010. However, the two species are anatomically similar, such that sympatry of the two species in the region cannot be ruled out at the moment. A similar situation refers to the distribution of Scomber japonicus Houttuyn, 1782. Fricke et al. (2023) indicates that its distribution is restricted to the Pacific Ocean. However, other studies have recognized S. japonicus as occurring in the southwestern Atlantic (Roldán et al., 2000; Perrotta et al., 2005) and specifically of Rio de Janeiro State (Alves et al., 2003; Menezes et al., 2003). Further studies are required to clarify the distribution of those species.

The total species richness recorded in the Guanabara Bay is considerably higher in relation to other tropical estuaries (Tab. 6). The coast of the state of Rio de Janeiro is the richest portion in the Brazilian coast concerning estuarine fish species (Vilar et al., 2017), and Guanabara Bay stands out when compared to two other estuaries previously inventoried in the state (Sepetiba Bay and Mambucaba Estuary), having practically twice the number of species. Even though the large size of the Guanabara Bay contributes to a naturally greater richness, this factor alone is not able to explain the observed discrepancies. Sepetiba Bay, for instance, is similar in size to Guanabara Bay, but has practically half the number of species. Other example is the Bay of Malaga, in Colombia, that despite being much smaller (126 km2) still presents three families, 36 genera and 17 species more than what we recorded at Guanabara Bay.

TABLE 6 | Absolute ichthyofauna richness in tropical estuaries in Brazil and worldwide according to the available literature.

Estuary

Locality

Families

Genera

Species

Area (km2)

References

Guanabara Bay

Brazil, southeast

72

149

220

384

This study

Sepetiba Bay

Brazil, southeast

44

80

107

305

Araújo et al. (2002)

Mambucaba estuary

Brazil, southeast

40

81

111

3.82

Neves et al. (2011)

Pinheiros Bay

Brazil, south

29

49

61

200

Pichler et al. (2015)

Saco da Fazenda

Brazil, south

21

35

42

0.7

Barreiros et al. (2009)

São Caetano de Odivelas e Vigia

Brazil, north

23

46

58

13.4

Barros et al. (2011)

Caeté River estuary

Brazil, north

82

67

29

93.2

Barletta et al. (2005)

Paraguaçu River estuary

Brazil, northeast

49

83

124

128

Reis-Filho et al. (2010)

Formoso River estuary

Brazil, northeast

39

59

78

27

Paiva et al. (2009)

Mataripe River estuary

Brazil, northeast

15

29

35

18.5

Dias et al. (2011)

Mamanguape

Brazil, northeast

23

31

37

6.9

Xavier et al. (2012)

Buenaventura Bay

Colombia, west

29

69

70

Molina et al. (2020)

Málaga Bay

Colombia, west

75

185

237

126

Castellanos-Galindo et al. (2006)

Sabancuy estuary

Mexico, Yucatán Peninsula

21

27

33

8.71

González-Solis, Torruco (2013)

Embley estuary

Australia, north

197

75

Blaber et al. (1989)

Vellar estuary

India, southeast

42

61

95

2.62

Murugan et al. (2014)

Zuari

India, west

176

39.9

Sreekanth et al. (2020)

Mandovi

India, west

154

35.5

Sreekanth et al. (2020)

Terekhol

India, west

131

12.7

Sreekanth et al. (2020)

Kali

India, west

133

20.8

Sreekanth et al. (2020)

Gâmbia estuary

Gâmbia

32

54

70

624

Albaret et al. (2004)

Morrumbene

Mozambique, east

84

114

193

Day (1974)

 

The relatively high value of species richness in the Guanabara Bay is likely promoted by the diversity of environments and microhabitats, as the bay encompasses islands, mangroves, rocky shores, sandy beaches, artificial substates and muddy bottoms. In addition, the bay presents a wide variation of environmental conditions and gradients of salinity and nutrient distribution that are characteristic of estuaries (Vianna et al., 2012; Silva-Junior et al., 2016; Wolanski, Elliott, 2016). These conditions promote a wide variety of ecological opportunities, reducing competition and favoring the coexistence of a high number of species (Bello et al., 2012; Dolbeth et al., 2016). Furthermore, the bay conditions are seasonally influenced by a low intensity upwelling event. During spring and summer (November to March) changes in winds promote the outcrop of cold waters from the SACW mass, causing parts of the estuary to present subtropical temperatures (between 10 and 20 ºC) (Silva-Junior et al., 2016). This phenomenon allows species that only occur in deeper areas of the continental shelf to enter the estuary.

Concerning the absolute richness accumulation curves calculated, the upper and middle estuary curves stabilized, indicating that richness values recorded are close to the estimated value of those compartments. However, the record of Galeocerdo cuvier made in the upper estuary compartment in 2022 indicates that occasional species may occur even in the inner parts of the bay, especially when it comes to opportunistic highly mobile taxa.

Stabilization of the accumulation curves were not observed for the Guanabara Bay as a whole and for the lower estuary, both of which are likely to have larger values of richness than the ones recorded here. The lower estuary seems to have strongly influenced this result. Sampling effort required to reach an asymptote can be prohibitively large for environments with a high number of rare species (Chao et al., 2009). As the region closest to the adjacent coastal zone, the lower estuary is affected by the continuous inflow of oceanic water and is visited by many occasional opportunistic marine species, which functionally act as rare species. For instance, species associated with rocky shores from some beaches around the Guanabara Bay (e.g., Rodrigues-Barreto et al., 2017) probably enter the estuary during tide variations. However, their record can be hampered by the high turbidity that hinders visual census attempts. Indeed, the Chao2 index calculated unusually high “m” values for the lower estuary, indicating that approximately 223 new sources would be needed for the entire ichthyofauna to be inventoried in that compartment. Therefore, the non-stabilization of the lower estuary compartment may be preventing the stabilization of the Guanabara Bay’s richness accumulation curve. This is a common situation in tropical environments, where different ecosystems have been sampled for decades without reaching an asymptote in the species richness (e.g., Gotelli, Colwell, 2011).

The distribution of the estuarine ichthyofauna is influenced by the interaction between coastal currents and the water from the local drainage basin, as well as by the degree of tolerance of each species to the salinity gradient (Camargo, Issac, 2003; Silva-Junior et al., 2016). Other important factors are the colonization capacity of different fish populations and the variety of habitats and biotic interactions that maximize interspecific coexistence (Bello et al., 2012; Dolbeth et al., 2016). The lower estuary is the compartment of the bay most influenced by coastal oceanic waters, allowing marine species to enter the compartment to feed (Nybakken, Bertness, 2005). These occasional marine species are likely to promote the high S and SD values in the lower estuary. The proximity to the coastal environments seems to produce a gradient in this compartment, with the innermost quadrants (D4 and E4) presenting lower values of S and SD than the outmost quadrants (D5, D7 and E7) (Fig. 1). The only quadrant that deviates from this pattern is D6. However, this is probably due to the difficulty of performing biological samplings, since this quadrant presents depths up to 50 m (Meniconi et al., 2012) and undergoes intense boat traffic.

The middle estuary is a transition area, presenting distinct spatial and temporal features. This compartment can be split into two portions that respond differently to the dry and rainy seasons, namely (A) the quadrants to the left of the central channel (B5, C5 and C6) and (B) the quadrants to the right of the central channel (E5, E6, F4 and F5) (Fig. 1). In general, the water column conditions during the rainy season are more variable than in the dry season, but in A the greatest amplitudes are related to temperature (minimum of 17 ºC and maximum of 28 ºC), while in B salinity is more variable (minimum of 18.8 S and maximum of 33.6) (Silva-Junior et al., 2016). The SD value of quadrant C6 differs from the rest of the quadrants of A, being the only one with SD lower than 3.0. As salinity does not vary considerably within this group, this low value is probably related to the fact that this location has been the subject of few studies and is not a BioTecPesca collection point, resulting in a lower sampling of this quadrant. In B, the F4 quadrant presented SD values lower than the rest (1.63 sp/km2). In this case, lower SD values are probably caused by both a methodological factor (all records come from source 63) and to the innermost position of this quadrant, which makes it difficult for species that do not support lower salinities to inhabit.

Lower salinities may also play a role on the low S and SD values recorded in the upper estuary compartment, preventing marine coastal species from accessing the innermost part of the bay (Nybakken, Bertness, 2005; Silva-Junior et al., 2016; Souza, Vianna, 2022). Another important factor is that the upper estuary is the most environmentally impacted portion of the bay. In addition to receiving pollutants from rivers (e.g., untreated sewage and inorganic pollutants), natural water renewal is slow, resulting in low environmental quality anoxic zones. (Fistarol et al., 2015). However, two quadrants (E3 and C3) stood out with much higher S and SD values than the rest of the upper estuary. The absolute richness of 73 species found in E3 may be a result of the influence of the central channel during drought periods, when more saline waters advance to more inland estuarine regions, and the wide variety of habitats associated with the Paquetá island located in that region. Quadrant C3, on the other hand, is relatively far from the central channel and has no islands. The high S and SD values of C3 are thereby more likely to be related to collection efforts, as C3 was a BioTecPesca collection point. It also might be noteworthy that, both quadrants with higher S and SD values are within the influence of Protected Areas (Fig. 1). Quadrant E3 is very close to the APA Guapimirim, while the Barão de Mauá Municipal Natural Park is located on C3’s coast. These Protected Areas may be relieving local anthropic impacts such as over-fishing, allowing for a higher number of species to be recorded in its vicinities.

Our results also suggest that temporal changes in the composition of Guanabara Bay’s ichthyofauna occurred over the decades. As much as the absence of records between 2010 and 2020 is indicative of local extinction or at least of abundance reduction of species, more studies are still required to confirm this situation as shown by the recent records of Rhizoprionodon lalandii and Bagre bagre in 2022. Among the 84 species unrecorded from 2010 to 2020 (Tab. 5), 81% are not estuarine-dependent. Thus, the lack of more recent records for this non-dependent species may be due to their non-obligatory relation with the estuary coupled with declining environmental conditions. Another factor to be considered is the habitat of those species since there is a lack of recent studies in more consolidated substrate regions in the interior of the bay.

The decreased sampling efforts by BioTecPesca is especially important when it comes to the species last recorded between 1990 and 2010. The main sampling method used by BioTecPesca was bottom trawling, which results mostly in the capture of demersal species of unconsolidated substrate. Therefore, pelagic species like Hemicaranx amblyrhynchus (Cuvier, 1833), Rhinoptera bonasus, Rhizoprionodon lalandii, R. porosus,and Syngnathus pelagicus Linnaeus, 1758 would not be easily captured, so that their local extinction cannot be attested. This hypothesis is again supported by the new record of R. lalandii since this species was previously only recorded in 1997 but was captured by fisherman in 2022. Furthermore, collections made by BioTecPesca in 2013 and 2014 were less numerous and covered fewer locations when compared to the period between 2005 to 2007, thus hampering more recent records of species that do not commonly appear in scientific papers and are not recorded in fishing landings.

However, of the 70 species last recorded between 1990 and 2010, six are at risk of extinction at the global level (Mycteroperca microlepis (Goode & Bean, 1879), Paralichthys patagonicus Jordan, 1889, Pseudobatos percellens, Rhinoptera bonasus, Rhizoprionodon lalandii,and R. porosus), two are threatened at the national level (Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933 and Hyporthodus nigritus (Holbrook, 1855)) and nine are threatened at both levels (Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822), E. marginatus, E. morio (Valenciennes, 1828), Hippocampus erectus Perry, 1810, Hyporthodus niveatus (Valenciennes, 1828), Pristis pristis, Pseudobatos horkelii, Sphyrna zygaena, and S. tiburo). For those species, abundance reduction at some level is likely to have occurred at Guanabara Bay. Considering the large number of studies and collections carried out after 1990, local extinction or great abundance reduction are also very likely to have occurred for the 13 species last recorded before 1990. These species span a wide functional range including pelagic and demersal species which are dependent or not dependent on the estuary.

Another worrying result recovered in this survey is that of the 17 elasmobranchs species, 10 (58.8%) were not recorded between 2010 and 2020. A well-documented case of elasmobranch regional extinction is the sawfish Pristis pristis, formerly occurring from northern Brazil to São Paulo and now restricted to the northern regions of Brazil (Fernandez-Carvalho et al., 2013). The disappearance of high trophic level predators is of concern for biodiversity conservation, as these animals play an important role in the ecosystem regulating prey populations. Besides, estuaries are extremely important for sharks and rays, serving both as a feeding area and as nursery grounds (Gonçalves-Silva, Vianna, 2018a; Plumlee et al., 2018). Signs of population reduction for these species in a large estuary such as Guanabara Bay may indicate the decline of elasmobranch populations throughout southeastern Brazil.

Even though Guanabara Bay still has a relatively rich ichthyofauna, with wide taxonomic and functional fish diversity, the implementation of management and conservation actions are paramount to reduce the loss of the biological richness recorded in our study in the more recent decades. There is a need for improvement of the environmental quality of the bay and adjacent regions. Many urban centers around the bay still dump untreated sewage in the estuary (Elk et al., 2022), and therefore it is necessary to expand the sewage collection network that leads the waste to sewage treatment centers. Other important action is the promotion of fisheries management measures focused on sustainable practices. We recommend the prohibition of bottom trawling at Guanabara Bay, since it is an extremely impactful fishing technique that is already forbidden in many Brazilian estuaries. Lastly, our results highlighted the potential of Protected Areas to promote fish species conservation. Our results indicate that Guanabara Bay would benefit largely from the establishment of new protected areas aimed to preserve mangrove ecosystems in its area. Mangroves serve as nursery grounds for many fish species, including highly threatened elasmobranchs, hence reforestation efforts would improve species recovery and promote the conservation of the bay’s ichthyofauna.

Acknowledgments​


This study was supported by the Long-Term Ecological Program “Environmental Assessment of Guanabara Bay” – CNPq (PELD 403809/2012–6) and FAPERJ (E26/110.114/2013 and E26/112.636/2012). We thank our colleagues at BioTecPesca (UFRJ) and Guanabara Bay fishers for their help throughout the work. Special thanks are due to Fabio Di Dario (NUPEM/UFRJ), Erica P. Caramaschi (IB/UFRJ), Jean L. Valentin (IB/UFRJ), Sergio Santos (BioTecPesca/UFRJ), and Gabriel B. G. Souza (BioTecPesca/UFRJ) for offering their thoughts on the present study, and to Alfredo Carvalho Filho for reviewing the list of species that compose this baseline.

References​


Albaret J-J, Simier M, Darboe FS, Ecoutin J-M, Raffray J, Morais LT. Fish diversity and distribution in the Gambia Estuary, West Africa, in relation to environmental variables. Aquat Living Resour. 2004; 17(1):35–46. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr:2004001

Alves DR, Luque JL, Abdallah VD. Metazoan parasites of chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus (Osteichthyes: Scombridae), from the coastal zone of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2003; 12(4):164–70. Available from: http://www.ufrrj.br/laboratorio/parasitologia/arquivos/publicacao/56_LIVRO.pdf

Andrade AC, Santos SR, Verani JR, Vianna M. Guild composition and habitat use by Tetraodontiformes (Teleostei, Acanthopterygii) in a south-western Atlantic tropical estuary. J Mar Biol Assoc United Kingdom. 2016; 96(6):1251–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315415001368

Andrade-Tubino MF, Ribeiro ALR, Vianna M. Organização espaço-temporal das ictiocenoses demersais nos ecossistemas estuarinos brasileiros: uma síntese. Oecologia Aust. 2008; 12(4):640–61. https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2008.1204.05

Araújo FG, Azevedo MCC, Silva MA, Pessanha ALM, Gomes ID, Cruz-Filho AG. Environmental influences on the demersal fish assemblages in the Sepetiba Bay, Brazil. Estuar Res Fed. 2002; 25(3):441–50.

Baêta AP, Kehrig HA, Malm O, Moreira I. Total mercury and methylmercury in fish from a tropical estuary. Environ Toxicol. 2006; 10:183–92. https://doi.org/10.2495/ETOX060181

Barletta M, Barletta-Bergan A, Saint-Paul U, Hubold G. The role of salinity in structuring the fish assemblages in a tropical estuary. J Fish Biol. 2005; 66(1):45–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2005.00582.x

Barreiros JP, Branco JO, Freitas Jr. F, Machado L, Hostim-Silva M, Verani JR. Space–time distribution of the ichthyofauna from Saco da Fazenda estuary, Itajaí, Santa Catarina, Brazil. J Coast Res. 2009; 25(5):1114–21. https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1050.1

Barros DF, Torres MF, Frédou FL. Ictiofauna do estuário de São Caetano de Odivelas e Vigia (Pará, Estuário Amazônico). Biota Neotrop. 2011; 11(2):387–72. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032011000200035

Bello F, Price JN, Münkemüller T, Liira J, Zobel M, Thuiller W et al. Functional species pool framework to test for biotic effects on community assembly. Ecol Soc Am. 2012; 93(10):2263–73. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1394.1

Blaber SJM, Brewer DT, Salini JP. Species composition and biomasses of fishes in different habitats of a tropical Northern Australian estuary: their occurrence in the adjoining sea and estuarine dependence. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 1989; 29(6):509–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7714(89)90008-5

Brum MJI, Corrêa MMO, Oliveira CC, Galetti Jr. PM. Cytogenetic studies on the Perciformes Orthopristis ruber (Haemulidae) and Scartella cristata (Blenniidae). Caryologia. 1995; 48(3–4):309–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.1995.10797340

Brum MJI. Cytogenetic studies in tetraodontiforms Sphoeroides tyleri (Tetraodontidae) and Chilomycteras spinasus (Diodontidae) from Rio de Janeiro Coast, Brazil. Chromosome Sci. 2000; 4(3):103–05.

Buckup PA, Nunan GW, Gomes UL, Costa WJEM, Gadig OBF. Peixes. In: Maio FRD, Silva MBR, Araújo TN, editors. Espécies ameaçadas extinção no Municipio do Rio Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro: Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente; 2000. p.52–57.

Camargo M, Issac VJ. Ictiofauna Estuarina. In: Fernandes MEB, editor. Os manguezais da costa norte brasileira. Maranhão: Fundação Rio Bacanga; 2003. p.105–42.

Castellanos-Galindo GA, Caicedo-Pantoja JA, Mejía-Ladino LM, Rubio E. Marine and estuarine fishes of Malaga Bay, Valle del Cauca, colombian Pacific Ocean. Biota Colomb. 2006; 7(2):263–82.

Chao A, Colwell RK, Lin C-W, Gotelli NJ. Sufficient sampling for asymptotic minimum species richness estimators. Ecology. 2009; 90(4):1125–33. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-2147.1

Corrêa B, Vianna M. Spatial and temporal distribution patterns of the silver mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus (Perciformes: Gerreidae) in a tropical semi-enclosed bay. J Fish Biol. 2015; 89(1):641–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12843

Day JH. The ecology of Morrumbene estuary, Moçambique. Trans R Soc South Africa. 1974; 41(1):43–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00359197409519438

Dias JF, Gonçalves AM, Fernandez WS, Silbiger HLN, Fiadi CB, Schmidt TCS. Ichthyofauna in an estuary of the Mataripe area, Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil. Brazilian J Oceanogr. 2011; 59(1):75–95. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-87592011000100006

Dolbeth M, Vendel AL, Baeta A, Pessanha A, Patrício J. Exploring ecosystem functioning in two Brazilian estuaries integrating fish diversity, species traits and food webs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2016; 560:41–55. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11895

Elk AGHP, D’Oliveira PMS, Giordano G, Andrade RC. Potencial poluidor da disposição final de resíduos sólidos nas águas da bacia hidrográfica da Baía de Guanabara – RJ. Eng Sanit Ambient. 2022; 27(1):195–203. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-415220200319

Elliott M, Whitfield AK, Potter IC, Blaber SJM, Cyrus DP, Nordlie FG et al. The guild approach to categorizing estuarine fish assemblages: A global review. Fish Fish. 2007; 8(3):241–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2007.00253.x

Fernandez-Carvalho J, Imhoff JL, Faria VV, Carlson JK, Burgess GH. Status and the potential for extinction of the largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis in the Atlantic Ocean. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2013; 24(4):478–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2394

Fistarol GO, Coutinho FH, Moreira APB, Venas T, Cánovas A, Paula Jr. SEM et al. Environmental and sanitary conditions of Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro. Front Microbiol. 2015; 6:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01232

Fricke R, Eschmeyer WN, Van der Laan R. Eschmeyer’s catalog of fishes: genera, species, references [Internet]. San Francisco: California Academy of Science; 2023. Available from: http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp

Gomes DC, Fabio SP, Rolas FJT. Contribuição para o conhecimento dos parasitos de peixes do litoral do estado da Guanabara – Parte II. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1974; 72:9–19. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0074-02761974000100003

Gonçalves-Silva F, Vianna M. Use of a species-rich and degraded tropical estuary by Elasmobranchs. Brazilian J Ocean. 2018a; 66(4):339–46.

Gonçalves-Silva F, Vianna M. Diet and reproductive aspects of the endangered butterfly ray Gymnura altavela raising the discussion of a possible nursery area in a highly impacted environment. Brazilian J Oceanogr. 2018b; 66(3):315–24. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1679-8759201801906603

González-Solis A, Torruco D. Fish assemblage structure in relation to environmental conditions in a tropical estuary. Rev Biol Mar Oceanogr. 2013; 48(3):553–63. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-19572013000300012

Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK. Estimating species richness. In: Magurran AE, McGill BJ, editors. Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p.39–54.

Hauser-Davis RA, Lopes RM, Ziolli RL. Inihibition of mullet (M. liza) brain acetylcholinesterase activity by in vitro polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019; 140:30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.027

Hoenig JM, Gruber SH. Life-history patterns in the elasmobranchs: implications for fisheries management. In: Pratt Jr. HL, Gruber SH, Taniuchi T, editors. Elasmobranchs as living resources: advances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the status of fisheries. Springfield: NOAA Technological Report NMFS 90; 1990, p.1–16.

Menezes NA, Buckup PA, Figueiredo JL, Moura RL. Catálogo das espécies de peixes marinhos do Brasil. São Paulo: Museu de Zoologia USP; 2003.

Meniconi MFG, Silva TA, Fonseca ML, Lima SOF, Lima EFA, Lavrado HP et al. A Baía de Guanabara. In: Meniconi MFG, Silva TA, Fonseca ML, Lima SOF, Lima EFA, Lavrado HP et al., editors. Baía Guanabara Síntese do Conhecimento Ambiental – Biodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro: Petrobras; 2012. p.10–14.

Mérigot B, Frédou FL, Viana AP, Ferreira BP, Nascimento Jr. EC, Beserra Jr. CAS et al. Fish assemblages in tropical estuaries of northeast Brazil: A multi-component diversity approach. Ocean Coast Manag. 2017; 143:175–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.08.004

Molina A, Duque G, Cogua P. Influences of environmental conditions in the fish assemblage structure of a tropical estuary. Mar Biodivers. 2020; 50(5):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-019-01023-0

Mulato IP, Corrêa B, Vianna M. Time-space distribution of Micropogonias furnieri (Perciformes, sciaenidae) in a tropical estuary in southeastern Brazil. Bol Inst Pesca. 2015; 41(1):1–18.

Murugan S, Ajmal-Khan S, Lyla PS, Manokaran S, Raja S, Akabar-John B. Spatial and temporal variability in fish diversity of Vellar estuary (south east coast of India). Annu Res Rev Biol. 2014; 4(13):2147–62. https://doi.org/10.9734/ARRB/2014/4962

Neves LM, Teixeira TP, Araújo FG. Structure and dynamics of distinct fish assemblages in three reaches (upper, middle and lower) of an open tropical estuary in Brazil. Mar Ecol. 2011; 32(1):115–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2010.00407.x

Nybakken JW, Bertness MD. Estuaries and salt marshes. In: Nybakken JW, Bertness MD, editors. Marine Biology an Ecological Approach. San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Benjamin Cummings; 2005. p.368–71.

Paiva ACG, Lima MFV, Souza JRB, Araújo ME. Spatial distribution of the estuarine ichthyofauna of the rio Formoso (Pernambuco, Brazil), with emphasis on reef fish. Zoologia. 2009; 26(2):266–78. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702009000200009

Paiva LG, Vannuci-Silva M, Correa B, Santos-Neto E, Vianna M, Lailson-Brito JL. Additional pressure to a threatened species: High persistent organic pollutant concentrations in the tropical estuarine batoid Gymnura altavela. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2021; 107(1):37–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-021-03151-5

Pereira E, Baptista-Neto JA, Smith BJ, Mcallister JJ. The contribution of heavy metal pollution derived from highway runoff to Guanabara Bay sediments: Rio de Janeiro/Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2007; 79(4):739–50. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0001-37652007000400013

Perrotta RG, Carvalho N, Isidro E. Comparative study on growth of chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus Houttuyn, 1782) from three different regions: NW Mediterranean, NE and SW Atlantic. Rev Invest Desarr Pesq. 2005; 17:67–79. Available from: https://aquadocs.org/handle/1834/1562

Pichler HA, Spach HL, Gray CA, Broadhurst MK, Schwarz R, Oliveira-Neto JF. Environmental influences on resident and transient fishes across shallow estuarine beaches and tidal flats in a Brazilian World Heritage area. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2015; 164:482–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.07.041

Plumlee JD, Dance KM, Matich P, Mohan JA, Richards TM, TinHan TC et al. Community structure of elasmobranchs in estuaries along the northwest Gulf of Mexico. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2018; 204:103–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.02.023

Pratt Jr. HL, Gruber SH, Taniuchi T. Elasmobranchs as living resources: advances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the status of fisheries. Springfield: NOAA Technological Report NMFS 90; 1990.

Prestrelo L, Vianna M. Identifying multiple-use conflicts prior to marine spatial planning: A case study of a multi-legislative estuary in Brazil. Mar Policy. 2016; 67:83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.001

Reis-Filho JA, Nunes JACC, Ferreira A. Estuarine ichthyofauna of the Paraguaçu River, Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil. Biota Neotrop. 2010; 10(4):301–11. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032010000400034

Rodrigues-Barreto N, Shimada-Brotto DV, Guterres-Giordano R, Andrade-Bertoncino A, Santos LN. The rocky reef fishes of Vermelha Beach, a marine-estuarine transitional zone at Guanabara Bay, Brazil. Lat Am J Aquat. 2017; 45(1):33–40. https://doi.org/10.3856/vol45-issue1-fulltext-4

Roldán MI, Perrotta RG, Cortey M, Pla C. Molecular and morphologic approches to discrimination of variability patters in chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2000; 253(1):63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(00)00244-6

Rosenfelder N, Lehnert K, Kaffarnik S, Torres JPM, Vianna M, Vetter W. Thorough analysis of polyhalogenated compounds in ray liver samples off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2012; 19(2):379–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0569-2

Santos SR, Andrade AC, Verani JR, Vianna M. Population explosion of the burrfish Chilomycterus spinosus spinosus (Diodontidae, Tetraodontiformes) in a eutrophic tropical estuary. Mar Biol Res. 2015; 11(9):955–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2015.1045000

Santos SR, Galvão KP, Adler GH, Andrade-Tubino MF, Vianna M. Spatiotemporal distribution and population biology aspects of Cetengraulis edentulus (Actinopterygii: Clupeiformes: Engraulidae) in a south-western atlantic estuary, with notes on the local Clupeiformes community: conservation implications. Acta Ichthyol Piscat. 2020; 50(2):139–50. https://doi.org/10.3750/AIEP/02511

Schilling AC, Batista JLF, Couto HZ. Ausência de estabilização da curva de acumulação de espécies em florestras tropicais. Ciência Florest. 2012; 22(1):101–11.

Sheaves M. Scale-dependent variation in composition of fish fauna among sandy tropical estuarine embayments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2006; 310:173–84. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps310173

Silva-Junior DR, Gomes VS, Linde-Arias AR, Vianna M. Metallothionein in the pond perch Diplectrum radiale (Teleostei) as a biomarker of pollution in Guanabara Bay estuary, Brazil. J Brazilian Soc Ecotoxicol. 2012; 7(1):83–88. https://doi.org/10.5132/jbse.2012.01.012

Silva-Junior DR, Paranhos R, Vianna M. Spatial patterns of distribution and the influence of seasonal and abiotic factors on demersal ichthyofauna in an estuarine tropical bay. J Fish Biol. 2016; 89(1):821–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13033

Silveira LF, Beisiegel BM, Curcio FF, Valdujo PH, Dixo M, Verdade VK et al. What use do fauna inventories serve ? Estud Av. 2010; 24(68):173–207. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142010000100015

Souza GBG, Vianna M. Challenges in identifying indicator fish species in highly dynamic systems such as estuaries. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2022; 276:108019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2022.108019

Sreekanth GB, Jaiswar AK, Shivkumar HB, Manikandan B, Chakurkar EB. Fish composition and assemblage structure in tropical monsoonal estuaries: Estuarine use and feeding guild approach. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2020; 244:e106911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106911

Subirá RJ, Galvão A, Carvalho CEG, Soares AHSB, Martins DS, Oliveto FA et al. Livro vermelho da fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção. Brasília, DF: Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), 2018.

Teixeira-Leite CV, Lima AP, Maciel TR, Santos SRB, Vianna M. A Baía de Guanabara é um ambiente importante para a conservação neotropical? Uma abordagem ictiológica. Divers e Gestão. 2018; 2(2):76–89.

Toledo M, Sakuma AM, Pregnolatto W. Aspectos da contaminação por cádmio em produtos do mar coletados no estuário de Santos, Baia da Guanabara e Baia de Todos os Santos. Rev Inst Adolfo Lutz. 1983; 43(1–2):15–24.

Valentin JL, Tenenbaum DR, Bonecker ACT, Bonecker SLC, Nogueira CR, Villac MC. O sistema planctônico da Baia de Guanabara: Síntese do conhecimento. In: Silva SHG, Lavrado HP, editors. Ecologia dos ambientes costeiros do estado do Rio Janeiro, vol. 7. Rio de Janeiro: Oecologia Brasiliensis; 1999. p.35–59.

Vasconcellos RM, Araújo FG, Sousa-Santos JN, Araújo-Silva M. Short-term dynamics in fish assemblage structure on a sheltered sandy beach in Guanabara Bay, Southeastern Brazil. Mar Ecol. 2010; 31(3):506–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2010.00375.x

Vianna M, Andrade-Tubino MF, Keunecke KA, Andrade AC, Silva-Junior DR, Padula V. Estado atual de conhecimento sobre a ictiofauna . In: Meniconi MFG, Silva TA, Fonseca ML, Lima SOF, Lima EFA, Lavrado HP et al., editors. Baía Guanabara Síntese do Conhecimento Ambiental – Biodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro: Petrobras; 2012. p.169–95.

Vilar CC, Joyeux JC, Spach HL. Geographic variation in species richness, rarity, and the selection of areas for conservation: an integrative approach with Brazilian estuarine fishes. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2017; 196:134–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.06.022

Wolanski E, Elliott M. Introduction. In: Wolanski E, Elliott M, editors. Estuarine ecohydrology: na introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016. p.1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63398-9.00001-5

Xavier JHA, Cordeiro CAMM, Tenório GD, Diniz AF, Paulo Jr. EPN, Rosa RS et al. Fish assemblage of the Mamanguape Environmental Protection Area, NE Brazil: abundance, composition and microhabitat availability along the mangrove-reef gradient. Neotrop Ichthyol. 2012; 10(1):109–22. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252012000100011

Authors


Clara V. Teixeira-Leite1 and Marcelo Vianna1

[1]    Laboratório de Biologia e Tecnologia Pesqueira, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, CCS, Bloco A, Cidade Universitária, 21949-900 Ilha do Fundão, RJ, Brazil. (CVTL) clara.vtl99@gmail.com (corresponding author), (MV) mvianna@biologia.ufrj.br.

Authors’ Contribution


Clara V. Teixeira-Leite: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing.

Marcelo Vianna: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing-review and editing.

Ethical Statement​


Not applicable.

Competing Interests


The author declares no competing interests.

How to cite this article


Teixeira-Leite CV, Vianna M. Building a baseline: a survey of the composition and distribution of the ichthyofauna of Guanabara Bay, a deeply impacted estuary. Neotrop Ichthyol. 2023; 21(2):e220068. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-2022-0068


This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Distributed under

Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0

© 2023 The Authors.

Diversity and Distributions Published by SBI

Accepted March 30, 2023 by Fernando Gibran

Submitted July 10, 2022

Epub May 22, 2023