Updated Checklist, Traits and Conservation Status of the Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Eastern Brazil

Abstract

Coastal environments, such as bays, are essential to the development of fishery resources due to their economic and ecological importance. This paper presents an updated checklist of coastal marine fishes as part of a long-term monitoring program in Aratu Bay (2014–2024), Bahia state, eastern Brazil. A total of 109 species belonging to 58 families and 24 orders were cataloged. Five endemic species and ten species listed as at risk according to the IUCN criteria (from Vulnerable onwards) were identified. The Carangidae was the most representative family in terms of species number, followed by Gobiidae and Sciaenidae. The ichthyofauna was dominated by mobile invertebrate feeders and macrocarnivores. Two non-native species were observed in the region: the Muzzled blenny, Omobranchus sewalli and the mud sleeper Butis koilomatodon. Aratu Bay supports a diverse ichthyofauna with diverse trophic guilds and habitats, rendering it an important area for the feeding and development of economically valuable species, including those facing threats.

Full text

Citation: Medeiros, D.V.; Dias, M.A.;
Cordeiro, C.C.; de Carvalho-Souza,
G.F. Updated Checklist, Traits and
Conservation Status of the
Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Eastern
Brazil. Diversity 2024,16, 517.
https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090517
Academic Editor: Mark C. Belk
Received: 22 July 2024
Revised: 23 August 2024
Accepted: 27 August 2024
Published: 29 August 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
diversity
Article
Updated Checklist, Traits and Conservation Status
of the Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Eastern Brazil
Diego V. Medeiros 1, Marcelo A. Dias 1,2, Camila C. Cordeiro 3and Gustavo F. de Carvalho-Souza 1,*, †
1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Conservação e Manejo da Biodiversidade, Universidade Católica
do Salvador (UCSal), Campus de Pituaçu, Av. Prof. Pinto de Aguiar, Pituaçu, Salvador 41.740-090, BA, Brazil;
diegovalverdemedeiros@gmail.com (D.V.M.); marcelodias@lacertaambiental.com.br (M.A.D.)
2Lacerta Consultoria, Projetos e Assessoria Ambiental Ltd.a. (LACERTA AMBIENTAL), Avenida Tancredo
Neves, n 939, edf. Esplanada Tower, sala 907, Caminho das Árvores, Salvador 41.820-021, BA, Brazil
3Terminal Portuário Cotegipe (TPC), Estrada da Ponta do Fernandinho, 3142, São Toméde Paripe,
Salvador 40.800-168, BA, Brazil; camila.cordeiro@dibra.com.br
*Correspondence: gustavo.souza@csic.es
†Current address: Instituto de Ciencias Marinas de Andalucía (ICMAN-CSIC), Campus Universitario Río
San Pedro, 11519 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain.
Abstract: Coastal environments, such as bays, are essential to the development of fishery resources
due to their economic and ecological importance. This paper presents an updated checklist of coastal
marine fishes as part of a long-term monitoring program in Aratu Bay (2014–2024), Bahia state, eastern
Brazil. A total of 109 species belonging to 58 families and 24 orders were cataloged. Five endemic
species and ten species listed as at risk according to the IUCN criteria (from Vulnerable onwards)
were identified. The Carangidae was the most representative family in terms of species number,
followed by Gobiidae and Sciaenidae. The ichthyofauna was dominated by mobile invertebrate
feeders and macrocarnivores. Two non-native species were observed in the region: the Muzzled
blenny, Omobranchus sewalli and the mud sleeper Butis koilomatodon. Aratu Bay supports a diverse
ichthyofauna with diverse trophic guilds and habitats, rendering it an important area for the feeding
and development of economically valuable species, including those facing threats.
Keywords: Todos os Santos Bay; fish species; inventory; long-term ecological research
1. Introduction
Coastal environments, like estuaries, lagoons and bays are essential for the develop-
ment of fishery resources due to their ecological and economic importance; they act as
nurseries and feeding habitats for numerous commercial fish species, particularly during
their early life stages [
1
,
2
]. The biodiversity within these ecosystems serves as a substantial
food source for human communities, with fish playing a primary role in the energy flow of
these systems [1,3,4].
The Todos os Santos Bay (TSB) (13
◦
S and 38
◦
W) is one of the largest tropical bays
in Brazil, covering an area of 1223 km
2
(Figure 1), located in the state of Bahia. This bay
is heavily influenced by the presence of a large metropolitan area (the city of Salvador,
with a population of 2,400,000 inhabitants) and industrial activities, including chemical
and petrochemical plants, as well as an oil refinery and harbor operations situated in the
North and Northeastern regions of the bay. Additionally, TSB serves as an important hub
of tourism and shell-fishing activities that occur throughout its entirety [5].
Aratu Bay is a small system that includes the bay itself and a 4-km long channel
(known as the Cotegipe channel, linking the central part of the bay to the TSB (Figure 1).
Positioned at 12
◦
48
′
S and 38
◦
28
′
W, the bay has maximum dimensions of approximately
7 km in width and 4 km in length. Shallow in nature, it has an area-weighted depth of 1.8 m,
with intertidal depths constituting 24% (5.7 km
2
) of the total bay area. In addition, 85% of
Diversity 2024,16, 517. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090517 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity

Diversity 2024,16, 517 2 of 11
the bay is shallower than 5 m, while deeper areas exceeding 10 m are primarily confined
to the Cotegipe channel, reaching a maximum depth of 40 m [
6
]. Moreover, Aratu Bay
encompasses numerous peninsulas featuring dense Atlantic Forest vegetation, along with
areas of bare sand and pebble beaches, sparsely vegetated mangroves, and inlets subjected
to tidal fluctuations [7].
Diversity 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 11
% of the bay is shallower than 5 m, while deeper areas exceeding 10 m are primarily
confined to the Cotegipe channel, reaching a maximum depth of 40 m [6]. Moreover, Aratu
Bay encompasses numerous peninsulas featuring dense Atlantic Forest vegetation, along
with areas of bare sand and pebble beaches, sparsely vegetated mangroves, and inlets
subjected to tidal fluctuations [7].
Figure 1. Map of Aratu Bay within Todos os Santos Bay. Red circles indicate the sampling stations
throughout the monitoring, performed from 2014–2024. Known pressures, such as port operations,
industrial activities, marinas, and an oil refinery, are shown, as well as important coastal habitats
like coral reefs and mangroves.
Despite numerous studies on the benthic and planktonic diversity in Aratu Bay [8–
13], the ichthyofauna of this bay remains poorly understood, despite its importance to
local fishermen. Information regarding the fish fauna is primarily available for other areas
within the TSB, such as the shallow waters of Itaparica Island [3,14,15], Itapema region
[16], Paraguaçu River estuary [15,17], and the northern part of the bay [4,18].
Information concerning the structure of fish communities plays a fundamental role
in ecosystem management, conservation planning, and environmental impact assessment
by providing comprehensive insights into biodiversity and aiding in the efficient
distribution of conservation resources [19]. This paper provides an updated checklist of
costal marine fishes from Aratu Bay, Bahia state, eastern Brazil. We provide additional
information about geographic distributions, size, trophic categories, and conservation
status.
2. Materials and Methods
From 2014 to 2024, fish were caught during biannual sampling campaigns,
encompassing both the dry and wet seasons at eight sampling sites within Aratu Bay. A
combination of fishing techniques and underwater census was employed, tailored to
specific habitat types. The fish were collected using three gill nets for each mesh size—20
mm (n = 3), 30 mm (n = 3), and 35 mm (n = 3)—each net measuring 150 m in length and
2.50 m in depth, and equipped with an upper hoop floating apparatus. These nets were
deployed at the same sampling stations using a 36-foot boat, with harvesting conducted
Figure 1. Map of Aratu Bay within Todos os Santos Bay. Red circles indicate the sampling stations
throughout the monitoring, performed from 2014–2024. Known pressures, such as port operations,
industrial activities, marinas, and an oil refinery, are shown, as well as important coastal habitats like
coral reefs and mangroves.
Despite numerous studies on the benthic and planktonic diversity in Aratu Bay [
8
–
13
],
the ichthyofauna of this bay remains poorly understood, despite its importance to local
fishermen. Information regarding the fish fauna is primarily available for other areas
within the TSB, such as the shallow waters of Itaparica Island [
3
,
14
,
15
], Itapema region [
16
],
Paraguaçu River estuary [15,17], and the northern part of the bay [4,18].
Information concerning the structure of fish communities plays a fundamental role in
ecosystem management, conservation planning, and environmental impact assessment by
providing comprehensive insights into biodiversity and aiding in the efficient distribution
of conservation resources [
19
]. This paper provides an updated checklist of costal marine
fishes from Aratu Bay, Bahia state, eastern Brazil. We provide additional information about
geographic distributions, size, trophic categories, and conservation status.
2. Materials and Methods
From 2014 to 2024, fish were caught during biannual sampling campaigns, encompass-
ing both the dry and wet seasons at eight sampling sites within Aratu Bay. A combination
of fishing techniques and underwater census was employed, tailored to specific habitat
types. The fish were collected using three gill nets for each mesh size—20 mm (
n=3
),
30 mm (
n=3
), and 35 mm (n = 3)—each net measuring 150 m in length and 2.50 m in depth,
and equipped with an upper hoop floating apparatus. These nets were deployed at the
same sampling stations using a 36-foot boat, with harvesting conducted every two hours
over a 12-h period of nocturnal sampling. Additionally, three minnow traps per station
were deployed, using fresh fish meat as bait, and left in place for 12 h [
20
]. In areas with

Diversity 2024,16, 517 3 of 11
hard bottoms, visual censuses were carried out using the Roving Diver Technique [
21
],
which involves intensive random searches to record the maximum possible numbers of
fish species along each station during the entire duration of a dive (typically 30–40 min
each, n = 160). Data collected during these samplings were recorded using standardized
tables and PVC plates; digital photographs were taken where possible. The specimens
were collected under a license from the Institute of Environment and Water Resources in
the state of Bahia (INEMA; authorization n◦. 17.731).
Measurements of metric characteristics and meristic counts were performed on the
collected specimens, which were then identified according to the current taxonomic refer-
ences [
22
–
28
]. The checklist is organized in taxonomic order, in accordance with [
29
], unless
specified otherwise. Species names are alphabetized within each family. The authority is
included based on current usage in the “Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes” [30].
The traits of each species, such as trophic guilds, body size, geographic distribution,
and conservation status, were described based on the literature [
22
–
28
]. Trophic categories
included herbivores/detritivores, macrocarnivores, mobile invertebrate feeders, omnivores,
planktivores, and sessile invertebrate feeders. The conservation status of each species was
determined following the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species’ categories.
3. Results
A total of 109 fish species belonging to 58 families and 24 orders were recorded in Aratu
Bay, comprising 4 elasmobranchs and 104 actinopterygians (Table S1). Acanthuriformes had
the largest number of families (n = 11), followed by Carangiformes (n = 7) and Perciformes
(n = 5) (Figure 2, left). The five most species-rich families were Carangidae (n = 9), Gobiidae
(n = 7), Sciaenidae (n = 6), Haemulidae, and Gerreidae (each with n = 5) (Figure 2, right).
Five endemic species were registered: the Brazilian snapper, Lutjanus alexandrei Moura and
Lindeman, 2007 (Figure 3A), the Muckraker, Gobionellus stomatus Starks, 1913, the Gray
Parrotfish, Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner, 1878) (Figure 3B), the pufferfish, Sphoeroides
camila Carvalho-Filho, Rotundo, Pitassy and Sazima, 2023 (Figure 3C) and the Brazilian
Flounder Paralichthys brasiliensis (Ranzani, 1842 (Figure 3D). In addition, our monitoring
identified the presence of two non-native species: the Muzzled blenny, Omobranchus sewalli
(Fowler, 1931) and the Mud sleeper, Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849) (Figure 3E).
Diversity 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11
every two hours over a 12-h period of nocturnal sampling. Additionally, three minnow
traps per station were deployed, using fresh fish meat as bait, and left in place for 12 h
[20]. In areas with hard booms, visual censuses were carried out using the Roving Diver
Technique [21], which involves intensive random searches to record the maximum
possible numbers of fish species along each station during the entire duration of a dive
(typically 30–40 min each, n = 160). Data collected during these samplings were recorded
using standardized tables and PVC plates; digital photographs were taken where possible.
The specimens were collected under a license from the Institute of Environment and Water
Resources in the state of Bahia (INEMA; authorization n°. 17.731).
Measurements of metric characteristics and meristic counts were performed on the
collected specimens, which were then identified according to the current taxonomic
references [22–28]. The checklist is organized in taxonomic order, in accordance with [29],
unless specified otherwise. Species names are alphabetized within each family. The
authority is included based on current usage in the “Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes” [30].
The traits of each species, such as trophic guilds, body size, geographic distribution,
and conservation status, were described based on the literature [22–28]. Trophic categories
included herbivores/detritivores, macrocarnivores, mobile invertebrate feeders,
omnivores, planktivores, and sessile invertebrate feeders. The conservation status of each
species was determined following the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species’ categories.
3. Results
A total of 109 fish species belonging to 58 families and 24 orders were recorded in
Aratu Bay, comprising 4 elasmobranchs and 104 actinopterygians (Table S1).
Acanthuriformes had the largest number of families (n = 11), followed by Carangiformes
(n = 7) and Perciformes (n = 5) (Figure 2, left). The five most species-rich families were
Carangidae (n = 9), Gobiidae (n = 7), Sciaenidae (n = 6), Haemulidae, and Gerreidae (each
with n = 5) (Figure 2, right). Five endemic species were registered: the Brazilian snapper,
Lutjanus alexandrei Moura and Lindeman, 2007 (Figure 3A), the Muckraker, Gobionellus
stomatus Starks, 1913, the Gray Parrotfish, Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner, 1878) (Figure
3B), the pufferfish, Sphoeroides camila Carvalho-Filho, Rotundo, Pitassy and Sazima, 2023
(Figure 3C) and the Brazilian Flounder Paralichthys brasiliensis (Ranzani, 1842 (Figure 3D).
In addition, our monitoring identified the presence of two non-native species: the
Muzzled blenny, Omobranchus sewalli (Fowler, 1931) and the Mud sleeper, Butis
koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849) (Figure 3E).
Figure 2. Number of families per orders (left); and Number of species per families recorded from
Aratu Bay (right), shows the 11 most representative families.
Figure 2. Number of families per orders (left); and Number of species per families recorded from
Aratu Bay (right), shows the 11 most representative families.

Diversity 2024,16, 517 4 of 11
Diversity 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 11
Figure 3. Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Brazil, as documented during fish monitoring campaigns from
2014 to 2024: (A) Lutjanus alexandrei Moura and Lindeman, 2007; (B) Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner,
1878); (C) Sphoeroides camila Carvalho-Filho, Rotundo, Pitassy and Sazima, 2023; (D) Paralichthys
brasiliensis (Ranzani, 1842); (E) Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849); (F) Hypanus marianae (Gomes, Rosa
and Gadig, 2000); (G) Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933; (H) Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier, 1828); (I)
Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758); (J) Rypticus randalli Courtenay, 1967; (K) Ogcocephalus vespertilio
(Linnaeus, 1758); (L) Serranus flaviventris (Cuvier, 1829).
Regarding size classes, there was an equivalence between the large (n = 35) and
medium (n = 34) species categories, followed by the medium–small (n = 30) and small (n
= 10) species categories. The feeding habits of the specimens were as follows: mobile
invertebrate feeders (n = 56), macrocarnivores (n = 34) herbivores (n = 7), planktivores (n
= 5) omnivores (n = 4) and sessile invertebrate feeders (n = 3) (Figure 4).
Figure 3. Ichthyofauna of Aratu Bay, Brazil, as documented during fish monitoring campaigns from
2014 to 2024: (A)Lutjanus alexandrei Moura and Lindeman, 2007; (B)Sparisoma axillare (Steindachner,
1878); (C)Sphoeroides camila Carvalho-Filho, Rotundo, Pitassy and Sazima, 2023; (D)Paralichthys
brasiliensis (Ranzani, 1842); (E)Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849); (F)Hypanus marianae (Gomes, Rosa
and Gadig, 2000); (G)Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933; (H)Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier, 1828);
(I)Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758); (J)Rypticus randalli Courtenay, 1967; (K)Ogcocephalus vespertilio
(Linnaeus, 1758); (L)Serranus flaviventris (Cuvier, 1829).
Regarding size classes, there was an equivalence between the large (n = 35) and
medium (n = 34) species categories, followed by the medium–small (n = 30) and small
(n = 10) species categories. The feeding habits of the specimens were as follows: mobile
invertebrate feeders (n = 56), macrocarnivores (n = 34) herbivores (n = 7), planktivores
(n = 5) omnivores (n = 4) and sessile invertebrate feeders (n = 3) (Figure 4).

Diversity 2024,16, 517 5 of 11
Diversity 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 11
Figure 4. Proportion of species per trophic category. HERB = Herbivores/Detritivores; MCAR =
macrocarnivores; MINV = mobile invertebrate feeders; OMNI = omnivores; PLANK = planktivores;
SINV = sessile invertebrate feeders.
Considering the IUCN assessments at the global level [28], 84.3% of the species are
classified as “least concern”, 4.6% as “not evaluated”, 3.7% as “near threatened”, 2.7% as
both “data deficient” and “endangered”, and 1.9% as “vulnerable” (Figure 5). According
to the Brazilian red list [26,31], 75% of the species are classified as “least concern”, 9.3% as
“data deficient”, 5.6% as both “not evaluated” and “vulnerable”, 3.7% as “near
threatened”, and only 0.9% are classified as “critically endangered” (Figure 5). Among the
species most at risk are elasmobranchs such as Pseudobatos percellens (Walbaum, 1792),
Hypanus marianae (Gomes, Rosa and Gadig, 2000), Hypanus americanus (Hildebrand and
Schroeder, 1928), and Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790), as well as actinopterygians
including Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, 1766), Ophidion holbrookii Putnam, 1874,
Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg, 1933 (Figure 3G), S. axillare, Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier,
1828) (Figure 3H), and Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Figure 3I) (Table S1).
Figure 4. Proportion of species per trophic category. HERB = Herbivores/Detritivores;
MCAR = macrocarnivores; MINV = mobile invertebrate feeders; OMNI = omnivores; PLANK
= planktivores; SINV = sessile invertebrate feeders.
Considering the IUCN assessments at the global level [
28
], 84.3% of the species are
classified as “least concern”, 4.6% as “not evaluated”, 3.7% as “near threatened”, 2.7% as
both “data deficient” and “endangered”, and 1.9% as “vulnerable” (Figure 5). According to
the Brazilian red list [
26
,
31
], 75% of the species are classified as “least concern”, 9.3% as
“data deficient”, 5.6% as both “not evaluated” and “vulnerable”, 3.7% as “near threatened”,
and only 0.9% are classified as “critically endangered” (Figure 5). Among the species most
at risk are elasmobranchs such as Pseudobatos percellens (Walbaum, 1792), Hypanus marianae
(Gomes, Rosa and Gadig, 2000), Hypanus americanus (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928),
and Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790), as well as actinopterygians including Pomatomus
saltatrix (Linnaeus, 1766), Ophidion holbrookii Putnam, 1874, Hippocampus reidi Ginsburg,
1933 (Figure 3G), S. axillare,Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier, 1828) (Figure 3H), and Lutjanus
synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Figure 3I) (Table S1).
Diversity 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11
Figure 5. The conservation status of the fish species (including both bony and cartilaginous fishes)
listed for Aratu Bay according to the list of threatened species of the International Union for Nature
Conservation—IUCN (left; [28]) and Brazilian National Red List (right; [26]). NE: Not Evaluated,
DD: Data Deficient, LC: Least Concern, NT: Near Threatened, VU: Vulnerable, EN: Endangered and
CR: Critically endangered.
4. Discussion
The fish species composition of Aratu Bay, situated within the TSB ecosystem,
exhibited a similarity to the ichthyofauna typically found in other tropical estuarine
environments in Brazil [3,17,32,33]. In other studies of ichthyofauna conducted in areas of
TSB, between 71 and 124 species were found (Table 1). Among these studies, 152 fish
species were identified in shallow environments, across marine and estuarine beaches in
TSB [3,17,33–35]. However, this number is likely an underestimation of the true species
richness in these habitats [35]. Official fisheries production data from 2002, 2003, 2005, and
2006, along with a case study from northern TSB between 2003 and 2005, identified 134
fish species from 52 families [36–39]. More recently, Oliveira-Silva et al. compiled data on
the presence of up to 414 species across various environments in TSB [40]. The
ichthyofauna of TSB is highly diverse (see references in Table 1), reflecting the varied
habitats within the bay, including coral reefs, rocky shores, estuaries and mangroves [41–
44].
However, these variations in the structure of tropical estuarine fish fauna depend on
the type of estuary [45] and differences in spatial and temporal paerns of the community
[46,47], as well as variations in sampling and fishing gear methods [48]. In Aratu Bay, the
richest families in terms of species were Carangidae, Gobiidae, Scianidae, and Gerreidae.
Similarly, these families emerged as the most representative in other locations of TSB
[3,14,17,34,49,50], which aligns with paerns observed in some other bays and estuaries
in Brazil [32,33,45,47].
Table 1. Number of fish species found in studies carried out in estuarine zones of the Todos os
Santos Bay (Actinopteri and Elasmobranchii).
Number of Species Actinopteri Elasmobranchii Reference
107 - - [18]
85 84 1 [14]
Figure 5. The conservation status of the fish species (including both bony and cartilaginous fishes)
listed for Aratu Bay according to the list of threatened species of the International Union for Nature
Conservation—IUCN (left; [
28
]) and Brazilian National Red List (right; [
26
]). NE: Not Evaluated,
DD: Data Deficient, LC: Least Concern, NT: Near Threatened, VU: Vulnerable, EN: Endangered and
CR: Critically endangered.

Diversity 2024,16, 517 6 of 11
4. Discussion
The fish species composition of Aratu Bay, situated within the TSB ecosystem, exhib-
ited a similarity to the ichthyofauna typically found in other tropical estuarine environments
in Brazil [
3
,
17
,
32
,
33
]. In other studies of ichthyofauna conducted in areas of TSB, between
71 and 124 species were found (Table 1). Among these studies, 152 fish species were iden-
tified in shallow environments, across marine and estuarine beaches in TSB [
3
,
17
,
33
–
35
].
However, this number is likely an underestimation of the true species richness in these
habitats [
35
]. Official fisheries production data from 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006, along with
a case study from northern TSB between 2003 and 2005, identified 134 fish species from
52 families [
36
–
39
]. More recently, Oliveira-Silva et al. compiled data on the presence of up
to 414 species across various environments in TSB [40]. The ichthyofauna of TSB is highly
diverse (see references in Table 1), reflecting the varied habitats within the bay, including
coral reefs, rocky shores, estuaries and mangroves [41–44].
However, these variations in the structure of tropical estuarine fish fauna depend
on the type of estuary [
45
] and differences in spatial and temporal patterns of the com-
munity [
46
,
47
], as well as variations in sampling and fishing gear methods [
48
]. In Aratu
Bay, the richest families in terms of species were Carangidae, Gobiidae, Scianidae, and
Gerreidae. Similarly, these families emerged as the most representative in other locations
of TSB [
3
,
14
,
17
,
34
,
49
,
50
], which aligns with patterns observed in some other bays and
estuaries in Brazil [32,33,45,47].
Table 1. Number of fish species found in studies carried out in estuarine zones of the Todos os Santos
Bay (Actinopteri and Elasmobranchii).
Number of Species Actinopteri Elasmobranchii Reference
107 - - [18]
85 84 1 [14]
70 - - [16]
37–56 37–55 1 [34]
40–63 40–63 - [3]
124 117 7 [17]
133 131 2 [51]
36 35 1 [49]
88 82 6 [4]
62 - - [52]
53 53 - [50]
44 43 1 [18]
108 104 4 Present study
The presence of non-native fishes is another relevant concern (see [
53
]), as observed
with the identification of two non-native species in Aratu Bay. The Muzzled blenny,
O. sewalli, previously observed in Bahia state by [
54
] and [
55
] (cited as O. punctatus; [
56
]),
and the Mud sleeper, B. koilomatodon, first described in the western Atlantic Ocean in
Venezuela by [
57
] and subsequently reported along the Brazilian Coast by [
58
–
62
]. The
invasive success of these fishes is attributed to their cryptic behavior, as both species seek
refuge and lay eggs in small holes, which may predispose them to inhabit areas inside and
around ports. These characteristics, combined with their tolerance to salinity variation,
enable them to exploit ballast-intake holes, ship hulls, and offshore oil rigs [51,54,57,63].
Although the size classes revealed a greater composition of species ranging from large-
to medium-sized fish, the majority of these specimens were juveniles and subadults, with
very few exceeding 25 cm TL. This indicates that this area of this estuarine bay serves as an

Diversity 2024,16, 517 7 of 11
important nursery and essential habitat for fish, as is widely recognized globally [
1
–
3
,
17
,
49
].
These environments are extremely important for conservation, given the ecological and
economic importance of ichthyofauna in this zone [
4
]. Conversely, the area experiences
intense fishing activity (line and pole, nets), including prohibited practices such as fishing
with explosives (Environmental Crimes Law 9605/98; [
64
]), the effects of which on the
particular fish community remain unknown.
In Aratu bay, there is a dominance of predators, the category of mobile invertebrate
feeders, followed by macrocarnivores (Figure 5). In accordance with findings from the
coast of Paraíba [
65
] and Abrolhos-BA [
66
], mobile invertebrate feeders were also the most
dominant group (56 species). Regarding the classification of carnivores, other studies
conducted in Brazil found similar results, with the dominance of category carnivores,
38.6% in Guaratuba Bay [
67
], 37.4% in the estuary of the Rio Formoso [
68
], represented by
consumers of benthic invertebrates and fish. The heterogeneity of estuarine environments
supports the diversification of microhabitats, offering refuge and protection for species
across different phyla, which increases fish access to invertebrates [69–71].
Knowledge of the trophic web helps in understanding the structure and allows us
to describe the energy flow in ecosystems and the ecological relationships among organ-
isms [72]. The trophic guilds structure in this study is similar to ichthyofauna of Brazilian
estuaries, where the feeding habits of fish is quite diverse, herbivores are represented
by few species and there is dominance by predatory species [
44
,
64
,
73
]. But most are not
specialized, consuming several groups of invertebrates and vertebrates [44].
In terms of conservation status, three Elasmobranchii species are classified as Endan-
gered by the IUCN: P. percellens,H. marianae, and A. narinari. Additionally, P. percellens and
H. marianae, together with H. americanus, are listed as Vulnerable in the Brazilian Red Book
of Threatened Fauna, whereas A. narinari is categorized as Data Deficient [
26
]. These species
are facing population declines due to intensive fishing activities in their habitats [
74
]. For
the Actinopteri, O. holbrookii Putnam, 1874 is listed as Critically Endangered in Brazil [
26
],
yet it is globally considered Least Concern according to the latest IUCN [
28
] assessment.
Three other species in the Brazilian Red List—H. reidi,S. axillare, and L. cyanopterus—are
classified as Vulnerable, with L. cyanopterus also sharing this status globally. The snappers
constitute one of the most representative groups (31.8%) in line fishing landings of this
coastal zone, and their populations already show signs of over-exploitation [75–77].
This emphasizes the importance of recording and monitoring fish species occurrences
over time. The data provide a baseline on the composition of coastal marine fish commu-
nities in Aratu Bay, an ecologically and commercially significant area, gathered from a
decade-long monitoring program. This expands our understanding of the fish community
in this ecosystem, offering insights into species composition, size, trophic categories, and
conservation status—crucial data for the effective management of local species as ecological
and economic resources.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d16090517/s1, Table S1: Checklist of the fish species collected in
the Aratu Bay and their ecological and distributional traits. Length Groups (LG:
SMALL = 0–10 cm
;
MEDSMALL = 10–25 cm; MED = 25–50 cm; LARGE
≥
50 cm); Trophic category (TG: HERB = Herbi-
vores/Detritivores; MCAR = macrocarnivores; MINV = mobile invertebrate feeders; OMNI = om-
nivores; PLANK = planktivores; SINV = sessile invertebrate feeders); Geographic distribution (GD:
WA = Western Atlantic; EA = Eastern Atlantic; MAR = Mid Atlantic Ridge; OIB = Oceanic Islands of
Brazil; BR = Brazilian Province; SA = Southwestern Atlantic; EP = Eastern Pacific; CT = Circumtropi-
cal); International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) status and national red list status
(NE = Not Evaluated, DD = Data Deficient, LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, Vulnerable,
EN = Endangered, CR = Critically Endangered).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.; methodology, D.V.M. and
G.F.d.C.-S.
;
formal analysis, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.; resources, C.C.C.; data curation, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.;
writing—original draft preparation, D.V.M. and G.F.d.C.-S.; writing—review and editing, D.V.M.,

Diversity 2024,16, 517 8 of 11
M.A.D., C.C.C. and G.F.d.C.-S.; supervision, G.F.d.C.-S.; project administration, M.A.D. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Terminal Portuário Cotegipe (TPC; Finance Code 001).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Lacerta Consultoria, Projetos e Assessoria Ambiental
Ltd.a. for the logistic support in the development of this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Elliott, M.; Whitfield, A.K.; Potter, I.C.; Blaber, S.J.M.; Cyrus, D.P.; Nordlie, F.G.; Harrison, T.D. The guild approach to categorizing
estuarine fish assemblages: A global review. Fish Fish. 2007,8, 241–268. [CrossRef]
2.
de Carvalho-Souza, G.F.; González-Ortegón, E.; Baldó, F.; Vilas, C.; Drake, P.; Llope, M. Natural and anthropogenic effects on the
early life stages of European anchovy in one of its Essential Fish Habitats, the Guadalquivir estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2019,
617–618, 67–79. [CrossRef]
3.
Oliveira-Silva, J.T.; Peso-Aguiar, M.C.; Lopes, P.R. Ictiofauna das praias de Cabuçu e Berlinque: Uma contribuição ao conhecimento
das comunidades de peixes na Baía de Todos os Santos–Bahia–Brasil. Biotemas 2008,21, 105–115. [CrossRef]
4.
Soares, L.; Lopez, J.; Muto, E.; Giannini, R. Capture fishery in northern Todos os Santos Bay, tropical southwestern Atlantic, Brazil.
Braz. J. Oceanogr. 2011,59, 61–74. [CrossRef]
5.
Amado-Filho, G.M.; Salgado, L.T.; Rebelo, M.F.; Rezende, C.E.; Karez, C.S.; Pfeiffer, W.C. Heavy metals in benthic organisms from
Todos os Santos Bay, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 2008,68, 95–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Pereira, M.A.G.; Lessa, G.C. Varying Patterns of Water Circulation in Canal de Cotegipe, Baía de Todos os Santos. Rev. Bras. De
Geofísica 2009,27, 103–119. [CrossRef]
7.
de Carvalho-Souza, G.F.; Neto, J.R.S.; Aleluia, F.T.; Nascimento, I.A.; Browne-Ribeiro, H.; Santos, R.C.; Tinôco, M.S. Occurrence of
isopods ectoparasites in marine fish on the Cotegipe Bay, northeastern Brazil. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2009,2, 160. [CrossRef]
8.
Peixinho, V.M.C. Estudos Preliminares sobre o Fitoplâncton da Baía de Aratu (Bahia). Master’s Dissertation, Universidade
Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 1972; 94p.
9.
Cowgill, U.M. Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus and phytoplankton composition during the past decade in the Bay of Aratu,
Salvador (Bahia). Braz. Arch. Hydrobiol. 1987,111, 1–14. [CrossRef]
10.
de Castro Manso, C.L.; de Souza Alves, O.F.; Martins, L.R. Echinoderms from Todos os Santos Bay and Aratu Bay (Bahia, Brazil).
Biota Neotrop. 2008,8, 179–196. [CrossRef]
11.
Marins, B.V.; Brasileiro, P.S.; Barreto, M.B.B.; Nunes, J.M.C.; Yoneshigue-Valentin, Y.; Amado-Filho, G.M. Subtidal benthic marine
algae of Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia state, Brazil. Oecol. Bras. 2008,12, 229–242. [CrossRef]
12.
Ferreira, A.N.; Beretta, M.; Mafalda-Júnior, P.O. Avaliação do impacto da dragagem sobre associação fitoplanctônica do porto de
Aratu, Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia. Arq. De Ciências Do Mar 2012,45, 30–46.
13.
Maltez, L.C.; Mafalda Junior, P.O.; Neumann-Leitão, S. Influence of oceanographic seasonality and dredging activities on the fish
larvae assemblage in the Port of Aratu, Todos Os Santos Bay. Braz. J. Aquat. Sci. Technol. 2014,18, 1–10. [CrossRef]
14.
Lopes, P.R.D.; Oiveira-Silva, J.T.; Ferreira-Melo, A.S.A. Contribuição ao conhecimento da ictiofauna do Manguezal de Cacha
Pregos, Ilha de Itaparica, Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia. Rev. Bras. Zool. 1998,15, 315–325. [CrossRef]
15.
Oliveira, R.L.; Moraes, L.E.; Santos, A.C.d.A. Diet composition of abundant fish species in the shallow waters of the Todos os
Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil. Acta Scientiarum. Biol. Sci. 2021,43, e52230. [CrossRef]
16. Lopes, P.R.D.; Oliveira-Silva, J.T.; Sena, M.P.; Silva, I.S.; Veiga, D.C.M.; Silva, G.R.; Santos, R.C.L. Contribuição ao conhecimento
da ictiofauna da Praia de Itapema, Santo Amaro da Purificação, Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia. Acta Biol. Leopoldensia 1999,
21, 99–105.
17.
Reis-Filho, J.A.; Nunes, J.A.C.C.; Ferreira, A. Estuarine ichthyofauna of the Paraguaçu River, Todos os Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil.
Biota Neotrop. 2010,10, 301–311. [CrossRef]
18.
Almeida, V.G. Caracterização taxonômica ecológica e anatômica da ictiofauna. In Programa de Monitoramento dos Ecossistemas ao
norte da Baía de Todos os Santos; Relatório Técnico Final; Universidade Federal da Bahia, Projeto 5: Salvador-Bahia, Brazil, 1996; 61p.
19. Lo Brutto, S. Zoological Checklists: From Natural History Museums to Ecosystems. Diversity 2023,15, 741. [CrossRef]
20.
Carvalho-Filho, A.; Marcovaldi, G.; Sampaio, C.L.S.; Paiva, M.I.G.; Duarte, L.A.G. First report of rare pomfrets (Teleostei:
Bramidae) from Brazilian waters, with a key to Western Atlantic species. Zootaxa 2009,2290, 1–26. [CrossRef]
21.
Schmitt, E.F.; Sullivan, K.M. Analysis of a volunteer method for collecting fish presence and abundance data in the Florida Keys.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 1996,59, 404–416.
22. Carvalho-Filho, A. Peixes: Costa Brasileira, 3rd ed.; Melro: São Paulo, Brazil, 1999; 320p.

Diversity 2024,16, 517 9 of 11
23.
Humann, P.; Deloach, N. Reef Fish Identification: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas; New World Publications: Jacksonville, FL, USA, 2002.
24.
Ferreira, C.E.L.; Floeter, S.R.; Gasparini, J.L.; Ferreira, B.P.; Joyeux, J.C. Trophic structure patterns of Brazilian reef fishes: A
latitudinal comparison. J. Biogeogr. 2004,31, 1093–1106. [CrossRef]
25.
Pinheiro, H.T.; Rocha, L.A.; Macieira, R.M.; Carvalho-Filho, A.; Anderson, A.B.; Bender, M.G.; Di Dario, F.; Ferreira, C.E.;
Figueiredo-Filho, J.; Francini-Filho, R.; et al. South-western Atlantic reef fishes: Zoogeographical patterns and ecological drivers
reveal a secondary biodiversity centre in the Atlantic Ocean. Divers. Distrib. 2018,24, 951–965. [CrossRef]
26.
ICMBio. Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção: Volume VI—Peixes. In Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação
da Biodiversidade (Org.). Livro Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção; ICMBIO: Brasília, Brazil, 2018; 1232p.
27.
Froese, R.; Pauly, D. (Eds.) FishBase. World Wide Web Electronic Publication. 2024. Version (02/2024). Available online:
https://fishbase.de/ (accessed on 15 July 2024).
28.
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2024. Version 2024-1. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed
on 16 July 2024).
29. Nelson, J.S. Fishes of the World, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; 601p.
30.
Van der Laan, R.; Eschmeyer, W.N.; Fricke, R. Family-group names of Recent fishes. Zootaxa Monogr. 2014,3882, 1–230. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
31.
MMA. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Portaria MMA Nº 300, de 13 de dezembro de 2022, Anexo II. Diário Oficial da União 234,
14 de dezembro de 2022, Seção 1, p. 75. Available online: https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/- /portaria-gm/mma-n-300-de-
13-de-dezembro-de-2022- 450425464 (accessed on 13 July 2024).
32.
Andrade-Tubino, M.F.; Ribeiro, A.L.R.; Vianna, M. Organização espaço-temporal das ictiocenoses demersais nos ecossistemas
estuarinos brasileiros: Uma síntese. Oecolgia Bras. 2008,12, 640–661. [CrossRef]
33.
Paiva, A.C.G.; Chaves, P.T.C.; Araújo, M.E. Estrutura e organização trófica da ictiofauna de águas rasas em um estuário tropical.
Rev. Bras. De Zool. 2008,25, 647–661. [CrossRef]
34.
Barbalho, L.T. Variabilidade Espaço-Temporal da Ictiofauna e Influência de Fatores Hidrográficos nas Praias de Ponta da Ilha
(ilha de Itaparica) e São Toméde Paripe (Salvador), Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia, Brasil. Master ’s Dissertation, Ecologia e
Biomonitoramento. Universidade Federal da Bahia, 2007. 66p. Available online: https://repositorio.ufba.br/bitstream/ri/12674/
1/Luiza%20Teles%20Barbalho.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2024).
35.
Santos, A.C.A.; Moraes, L.E.; Duarte, L.A.G. Peixes De Zona Rasas da BTS. Coleção de Cartilhas-Projeto Baía de Todos os Santos–Bahia-
Brasil; INCT Energia e Meio Ambiente, Universidade Federal da Bahia: Salvador-Bahia, Brasil, 2015; 36p.
36.
PETROBRAS/FUSP. Programa de Monitoramento Ambiental na Área de Influência da Refinaria Landulpho Alves (PROMARLAM);
Relatório Final; Fundação de Apoio àUniversidade de São Paulo: São Paulo, Brasil, 2005; Volume 6, pp. 1–33.
37.
PETROBRAS/FUSP. Programa de Monitoramento Ambiental na Área de Influência da Refinaria Landulpho Alves (PROMARLAM);
Produtividade Pesqueira; Relatório Complementar; Fundação de Apoio àUniversidade de São Paulo: São Paulo, Brasil,
2005; 18p.
38.
CEPENE. Boletim Estatístico da pesca Marítima e Estuarina do Nordeste do Brasil 2005; Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Instituto
Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão de Recursos Pesqueiros do Litoral
Nordeste: Tamandaré, Brazil, 2007; 211p.
39.
IBAMA. Monitoramento da atividade pesqueira no litoral nordestino–Projeto Estatpesca. In Boletim da Estatística da Pesca Marítima
e Estuarina do Nordeste do Brasil–2006; Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos
Naturais Renováveis, Centro de Pesquisa e Gestão de Recursos Pesqueiros do Litoral Nordeste: Tamandaré, Brazil, 2008; 385p.
40.
Oliveira-Silva, J.T.; Olavo, G.; Lopes, P.R.D. Documenting the ichthyofauna and the current conservation status of one of the
largest Brazilian bays. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2024,77, 103646. [CrossRef]
41.
Bittencourt, A.C.S.P.; Ferreira, Y.A.; Di Napoli, E. Alguns aspectos da sedimentaçăo na Baía de Todos os Santos. Rev. Bras. Geoci.
1976,6, 246–263.
42.
Cruz, I.C.S.; Kikuchi, R.K.P.; Leão, Z.M.A.N. Caracterização dos Recifes de Corais da Área de Preservação Ambiental da Baía de
Todos os Santos para Fins de Manejo, Bahia, Brasil. Rev. Da Gestão Costeira Integr. 2009,9, 3–23. [CrossRef]
43.
Barros, F.; Costa, P.C.; Cruz, I.; Mariano, D.L.S.; Miranda, R.J. Habitats Bentônicos na Baía de Todos os Santos. Rev. Virtual Quim.
2012,4, 551–565. [CrossRef]
44.
de Carvalho-Souza, G.F.; González-Ortegón, E. Scavenging behavior by Phyllonotus oculatus (Gastropoda: Muricidae) in a South
Atlantic reef. Mar. Biodivers. 2022,52, 60. [CrossRef]
45.
Blaber, S.J.M. Tropical Estuarine Fishes: Ecology, Exploitation and Conservation; Blackwell Science: Cleveland, QLD, Australia,
2000; 372p.
46.
Spach, H.L.; Santos, C.; Godefroid, R.S. Padrões temporais na assembléia de peixes na gamboa do Sucuriú, Baía de Paranaguá,
Brasil. Rev. Bras. De Zool. 2003,20, 591–600. [CrossRef]
47.
Loebmann, D.; Vieira, J.P. Distribuição espacial e abundância das assembléias de peixes no Parque Nacional da Lagoa do Peixe,
Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Rev. Bras. De Zool. 2005,22, 667–675. [CrossRef]
48.
Lamas, R.A.; Rossi-Wongtschowski, C.L.D.B.; Contente, R.F. Checklist of the fish fauna of the AraçáBay, São Sebastião Channel,
northern coast of São Paulo, Brazil. Check List. 2016,12, 2004. [CrossRef]
49.
Dias, J.F.; Gonçalves, A.M.; Fernandez, W.S.; Silbiger, H.L.; Fiadi, C.B.; Schmidt, T.C.S. Ichthyofauna in the Mataripe Area, Todos
os Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 2011,59, 75–95. [CrossRef]

Diversity 2024,16, 517 10 of 11
50.
Duarte, L.A.G. Composição e Estrutura de Comunidade de Peixes em Diferentes Praias da Baía de Todos os Santos, Bahia, Brasil.
Master’s Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Brazil, 2013; 52p.
51.
Barreto, A.F. Composição e Estrutura da Ictiofauna Capturada por Rede de Calão na Praia de Cabuçu, Baía de Todos os Santos,
Bahia, Brasil. Master ’s Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Brazil, 2010; 49p.
52.
Nascimento, F.P. Caracterização da ictiofauna de zonas de arrebentação em praias com diferentes graus de exposiçãoàs ondas.
Master’s Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Brazil, 2012; 55p.
53.
Bueno, M.L.; Magalhães, A.L.B.; Andrade Neto, F.R.; Alves, C.B.M.; Rosa, D.M.; Junqueira, N.T.; Pessali, T.C.; Pompeu, P.S.; Zenni,
R.D. Alien fish fauna of southeastern Brazil: Species status, introduction pathways, distribution and impacts. Biol. Invasions 2021,
23, 3021–3034. [CrossRef]
54.
Gerhardinger, L.C.; Freitas, M.O.; Andrade, A.B.; Rangel, C.A. Omobranchus punctatus (Teleostei: Blenniidae), an exotic blenny in
the Southwestern Atlantic. Biol. Invasions 2006,8, 941–946. [CrossRef]
55.
Wonham, M.J.; Carlton, J.T.; Ruiz, G.M.; Smith, L.D. Fish and ships: Relating dispersal frequency to success in biological invasions.
Mar. Biol. 2000,136, 1111–1121. [CrossRef]
56.
Cabezas, M.P.; Lasso-Alcala, O.M.; Quintero-T, E.; Xavier, R.; Giarrizzo, T.; Nunes, J.L.; Machado, F.S.; Gómez, J.; Silva Pedroza,
W.; Jowers, M.J. Clarifying the taxonomy of some cryptic blennies (Blenniidae) in their native and introduced range. Sci. Rep.
2022,12, 9514. [CrossRef]
57.
Lasso-Alcalá, O.; Nunes, J.; Lasso, C.; Posada, J.; Robertson, D.R.; Piorski, N.; van Tassell, J.; Giarrizzo, T.; Gondolo, G. Invasion of
the Indo-Pacific blenny Omobranchus punctatus (Perciformes: Blenniidae) on the Atlantic Coast of Central and South America.
Neotrop. Ichthyol. 2010,9, 571–578. [CrossRef]
58.
Cunningham, P.T.M.; Gondolo, G.F. Peixes. In Informe Sobre as Espécies Exóticas Invasoras Marinhas do Brasil; Lopes, R.M., Ed.;
Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília-DF, Brazil, 2009; pp. 375–394.
59.
Macieira, R.M.; Giarrizzo, T.; Gasparini, J.L.; Sazima, I. Geographic expansion of the invasive mud sleeper Butis koilomatodon
(Perciformes: Eleotridae) in the western Atlantic Ocean. J. Fish Biol. 2012,81, 308–313. [CrossRef]
60.
Contente, R.F.; Brenha-Nunes, M.R.; Siliprandi, C.C.; Lamas, R.A.; Conversani, V.R. A new record of the non-native fish species
Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker 1849) (Teleostei: Eleotridae) for southeastern Brazil. Biotemas 2016,29, 113–118. [CrossRef]
61.
Bonfim, M.; Martins, A.; Carvalho, G.; Piorski, N.; Nunes, J. Non-native mud sleeper Butis koilomatodon (Bleecker, 1849)
(Perciformes: Eleotridae) in Eastern Amazon Coastal region: An additional occurrence for the Brazilian coast and urgency for
ecological assessment. BioInvasions Rec. 2017,6, 111–117. [CrossRef]
62.
Guimarães, E.C.; Brito, P.S.; Ottoni, F.P. First record of Butis koilomatodon (Bleeker, 1849) (Gobiiformes: Eleotridae) for the
Maranhão state, northeastern Brazil: A case of bioinvasion. Cybium 2017,41, 299–300.
63.
de Carvalho-Souza, G.; Gómez, C.; González-Ortegón, E. A non-native fish species reaches the south-western European waters:
The Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus (Acanthuriformes, Sciaenidae) and its invasion history in Europe. Biodivers. Data
J. 2024,12, e120736. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64.
BRASIL. Lei no 9.605 de 12 de Fevereiro de 1998. Dispõe Sobre as Sanções Penais e Administrativas Derivadas de Condutas e
Atividades Lesivas ao Meio Ambiente, e dáOutras Providências. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, 1998. Brasília,
DF, 13 fev. Available online: https://legislacao.presidencia.gov.br/atos/?tipo=LEI&numero=9605&ano=1998&ato=dd5kXRE1
EeNpWTdda (accessed on 13 June 2024).
65.
Honório, P.P.F.; Ramos, R.T.C.; Feitoza, B.M. Composition and structure of reef fish communities in Paraíba State, North-Eastern
Brazil. J. Fish Biol. 2010,77, 907–926. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Moura, R.L.; Francini-Filho, R.B. Reef and Shore Fishes of the Abrolhos Region, Brazil; RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment:
Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 38, pp. 40–55.
67.
Chaves, P.T.C.; Bouchereau, J.-L. Trophic organization and functioning of fish populations in the bay of Guaratuba, Brazil, on the
basis of a trophic contribution factor. Acta Adriat. 2004,45, 83–94.
68.
Paiva, A.C.G.; Lima, M.F.V.; Souza, J.R.B.; Araújo, M.E. Spatial distribution of the estuarine ichthyofauna of the Rio Formoso
(Pernambuco, Brazil), with emphasis on reef fish. Zoologia 2009,26, 266–278. [CrossRef]
69. Bertocci, I.; Sousa-Pinto, I.; Duarte, P. Spatial variation of reef fishes and the relative influence of biotic and abiotic habitat traits.
Helgol. Mar. Res. 2017,71, 20. [CrossRef]
70.
Thomsen, M.S.; Altieri, A.H.; Angelini, C.; Bishop, M.J.; Bulleri, F.; Farhan, R.; Frühling, V.M.; Gribben, P.E.; Harrison, S.B.; He,
Q.; et al. Heterogeneity within and among co-occurring foundation species increases biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 2022,13, 581.
[CrossRef]
71.
González-Ortegón, E.; de Carvalho-Souza, G.F.; Vilas, C.; Baldó, F.; Cuesta, J.A. Trends in the decapod crustacean community at
the southernmost estuary of the Atlantic coast of Europe. Sci. Rep. 2023,13, 22857. [CrossRef]
72.
Adams, D.C.; Gurevitch, J.; Rosenberg, M.S. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 1997,78, 1277–1283.
[CrossRef]
73.
Caberty, S.J.; Bouchereau, J.; Chaves, P.T. Organisation et fonctionnement trophiques de l’assemblage ichtyque d’um écosystème
lagunaire àmangrove antillais au moyen de l’indice trophique de contribution. Cah. De Biol. Mar. 2004,45, 243–254.
74.
MMA. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Espécies ameaçadas. 2024. Available online: https://antigo.mma.gov.br/mmanoforum/
item/15154-esp%C3%A9cies-amea%C3%A7adas-pesca.html (accessed on 13 June 2024).

Diversity 2024,16, 517 11 of 11
75.
Costa., P.A.S.; Martins., A.S.; Olavo., G. (Eds.) Pesca e Potenciais de Exploração de Recursos vivos na Região Central da Zona Econômica
Exclusiva Brasileira; Museu Nacional: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005; pp. 57–70.
76.
Sá-Nunes, A. A Utilização da Geologia na Identificação dos Hábitats mais adequados para o estabelecimento de Áreas Marinhas
Protegidas na Costa do Dendê, Bahia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil, 2009; 178p.
77.
Soares, L.S.H.; Salles, A.C.R.; Lopez, J.P.; Muto, E.Y.; Gianini, R. Pesca e Produção Pesqueira. In Baía de Todos os Santos: Aspectos
Oceanográficos; Hatge, V., Andrade, J.B., Eds.; Edfuba: Salvador, Brazil, 2009; pp. 157–206.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.