Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 285–298 | Cite as

How has the quality of bonefishing changed over the past 40 years? Using local ecological knowledge to quantitatively inform population declines in the South Florida flats fishery

  • J. S. RehageEmail author
  • R. O. Santos
  • E. K. N. Kroloff
  • J. T. Heinen
  • Q. Lai
  • B. D. Black
  • R. E. Boucek
  • A. J. Adams


Local ecological knowledge (LEK) can be a valuable approach to fill in knowledge gaps in data-limited systems. Recent research has aimed to make LEK more quantitative-a key step to better integration of LEK into fisheries science and management. Here, we used LEK to a) quantify changes in bonefishing quality over time in South Florida as perceived by members of the flats fishery, and b) demonstrate the applicability of a life history calendar approach to LEK quantitative data collection. In an online survey, we asked anglers and guides to quantitatively evaluate changes in the quality of bonefishing, as a function of bonefish number and size, over the past 40 years in Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys. Results showed a perceived 56% decrease in bonefish number, and a 45% decline in bonefish size since 1975. Respondents reported a decline in bonefish numbers that preceded the decline in size, with numbers starting to decline over 1985–1995, and size by 2005. In terms of the pattern of decline, bonefish number showed a heterogeneous pattern, with a slower rate of decline in 1985–2005 and an accelerated rate over 2005–2010, whereas the size decline was homogenous over 2000–2015. Overall, the study provides additional resolution, spatial coverage, and support to the pattern of bonefish population decline in the region, illustrating the utility of quantitative approaches to LEK data collection, and highlighting the value of integrating multiple knowledge sources to fully characterize ecological patterns.


Recreational fisheries Local ecological knowledge Bonefish South Florida Time series Life history calendar 



We are greteful to the many anglers and guides that completed this survey and to Bonefish and Tarpon Trust for fundig. The study was developed in collaboration with the FCE LTER program (NSF DEB-1237517). This is contribution # 111 of the Center for Coastal Oceans Research in the Institute of Water & Environment at Florida Internationational University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement

Our survey was approved by the Human Subjects Board at Florida International University and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

10641_2018_831_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)


  1. Adams AJ (2017) Guidelines for evaluating the suitability of catch and release fisheries: lessons learned from Caribbean flats fisheries. Fish Res 186:672–680. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams AJ, Cooke SJ (2015) Advancing the science and management of flats fisheries for bonefish, tarpon, and permit. Environ Biol Fish 98:2123–2131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams AJ, Murchie KJ (2015) Recreational fisheries as conservation tools for mangrove habitats. Am Fish Soc Symp 83:43–56Google Scholar
  4. Adams AJ, Horodysky AZ, Mcbride RS et al (2014) Global conservation status and research needs for tarpons (Megalopidae), ladyfishes (Elopidae) and bonefishes (Albulidae). Fish Fish 15:280–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ainsworth CH, Pitcher TJ, Rotinsulu C (2008) Evidence of fishery depletions and shifting cognitive baselines in eastern Indonesia. Biol Conserv 141:848–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anadon JD, Gimenez A, Ballestar R, Perez I (2009) Evaluation of local ecological knowledge as a method for collecting extensive data on animal abundance. Conserv Biol 23:617–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ault JS, Bohnsack JA, Smith SG, Luo J (2005) Towards sustainable multispecies fisheries in the Florida, USA, coral reef ecosystem. Bull Mar Sci 76:595–622Google Scholar
  8. Axinn WG, Pearce LD, Ghimire D (1999) Innovations in life history calendar applications. Soc Sci Res 28:243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aylesworth L, Phoonsawat R, Suvanachai P, Vincent ACJ (2017) Generating spatial data for marine conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 26:383–399. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beaudreau AH, Levin PS (2014) Advancing the use of local ecological knowledge for assessing data-poor species in coastal ecosystems. Ecol Appl 24:244–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belli RF, Shay WL, Stafford FP (2001) Event history calendars and question list surveys: A direct comparison of interviewing methods. Public Opin Q 65:45–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Davies J (2013) Integrating indigenous ecological knowledge and science in natural resource management: perspectives from Australia. Ecol Soc 18:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bojanowski M (2017) Lspline: linear splines with convenient Parametrisations. R package version 1.0–0.
  14. Boucek RE, Rehage JS (2014) Climate extremes drive changes in functional community structure. Glob Chang Biol 20:1821–1831. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brownscombe JW, AJ Danylchuk, AJ Adams, B Black, R Boucek, M Power, JS Rehage, RO Santos, RW Fisher, B Horn, CR Haak, S Morton, J Hunt, R Ahrens, MS Allen, J Shenker, SJ Cooke. (2018) Bonefish in South Florida: status, threats and research needs. Environ Biol Fish.
  16. Caddy JF, Gulland JA (1983) Historical patterns of fish stocks. Mar Policy 7:267–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. J Anim Ecol 63:215–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook GA, Heinen JT (2005) On the uncertain costs and tenuous benefits of marine protected areas: a case study of Tortugas ecological reserve, South Florida. Nat Areas J 25:390–396Google Scholar
  19. Danylchuk AJ, Cooke SJ (2011) Engaging the recreational angling community to implement and manage aquatic protected areas. Conserv Biol 25:458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daw TM (2010) Shifting baselines and memory illusions: what should we worry about when inferring trends from resource user interviews? Anim Conserv 13:534–535. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drescher M, Perera AH, Johnson CJ, Buse LJ, Drew CA, Burgman MA (2013) Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research. Ecosphere 4:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dusek GA, Yurova YV, Ruppel CP (2015) Using social media and targeted snowball sampling to survey a hard-to-reach population: a case study. Int J Doctoral Stud 10:279–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fedler A (2013) Economic impact of the Florida keys flats fishery. Report to Bonefish & Tarpon Trust, Key LargoGoogle Scholar
  24. Fernandez C, Adams AJ (2004) Fly-fishing for bonefish. Stackpole BooksGoogle Scholar
  25. Freedman D, Thornton A, Camburn D, Alwin D, Young-DeMarco L (1988) The life history calendar: a technique for collecting retrospective data. Sociol Methodol 18:37–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frezza PE, Clem SE (2015) Using local fishers’ knowledge to characterize historical trends in the Florida bay bonefish population and fishery. Environ Biol Fish 98:2187–2202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilchrist G, Mallory M, Merkel F (2005) Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecol Soc 10:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glasner T, van der Vaart W, Dijkstra W (2015) Calendar instruments in retrospective web surveys. Field Methods 27:265–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grömping U (2006) R package relaimpo: relative importance for linear regression. J Stat Softw 17:139–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hind EJ (2015) A review of the past, the present, and the future of fishers' knowledge research: a challenge to established fisheries science. ICES J Mar Sci 72:341–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huntington HP (2000) Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl 10:1270–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johannes RE, Neis B (2007) The value of anecdote. In: Haggan N, Neis B, Baird IG (eds) Fishers’ knowledge in fisheries science and management. UNESCO Publishing, Paris, pp 35–58Google Scholar
  34. Johannes RE, Freeman MMR, Hamilton RJ (2000) Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish 1:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kroloff EJ, Heinen KN, Braddock JS, Rehage RO, Santos (2018) Understanding the decline of catch-and-release fishery with angler knowledge: a key informant approach applied to South Florida bonefish. Environmental Biology of Fishes
  36. Laborde S, Imberger J, Toussaint S (2012) Contributions of local knowledge to the physical limnology of Lake Como, Italy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:6441–6445. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Larkin MF (2011) Assessment of South Florida’s bonefish stock. Dissertation, University of MiamiGoogle Scholar
  38. Larkin MF, Ault JS, Humston R, Luo J (2010) A mail survey to estimate the fishery dynamics of southern Florida’s bonefish charter fleet. Fish Manag Ecol 17:254–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morselli D, Berchtold A, Granell JCS, Berchtold A (2016) On-line life history calendar and sensitive topics: a pilot study. Comput Hum Behav 58:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Papworth SK, Rist J, Coad L, Milner-Gulland EJ (2009) Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conserv Lett 2:93–100Google Scholar
  41. Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 10:430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Planque B, Fromentin JM, Cury P, Drinkwater KF, Jennings S, Perry RI, Kifani S (2010) How does fishing alter marine populations and ecosystems sensitivity to climate? J Mar Syst 79:403–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Post JR (2013) Resilient recreational fisheries or prone to collapse? A decade of research on the science and management of recreational fisheries. Fish Manag Ecol 20:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sáenz-Arroyo A, Revollo-Fernández D (2016) Local ecological knowledge concurs with fishing statistics: an example from the abalone fishery in Baja California, Mexico. Mar Policy 71:217–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sáenz-Arroyo A, Roberts CM, Torre J, Cariño-Olvera M, Hawkins JP (2006) The value of evidence about past abundance: marine fauna of the Gulf of California through the eyes of 16th to 19th century travellers. Fish Fish 7:128–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos RO, Rehage JS, Boucek R, Osborne J (2016) Shift in recreational fishing catches as a function of an extreme cold event. Ecosphere 7:e01335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Santos RO, Rehage JS, Adams AJ et al (2017) Quantitative assessment of a data-limited recreational bonefish fishery using a time- series of fishing guides reports. PLoS One 12:e0184776. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Santos RO, Rehage JS, Kroloff EKN, Heinen JE, Adams AJ (2018) Combining data sources to elucidate spatial patterns in recreational catch and effort: fisheries-dependent data and local ecological knowledge applied to the South Florida bonefish fishery. Environ Biol Fish.
  49. Sosin M (2008) Memories of the Florida Keys: Tarpon and Bonefish like it used to be. In: Ault JS (ed) Biology and Management of the world Tarpon and Bonefish Fisheries. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 345–344Google Scholar
  50. Tesfamichael D, Pitcher TJ, Pauly D (2014) Assessing changes in fisheries using fishers’ knowledge to generate long time series of catch rates: a case study from the Red Sea. Ecol Soc 19(18).
  51. Verweij MC, vanDensen WLT, Mol AJP (2010) The tower of babel: different perceptions and controversies on change and status of North Sea fish stocks in multistakeholder settings. Mar Policy 34:522–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolf N, Mangel M (2008) Multiple hypothesis testing and the declining-population paradigm in Steller Sea lions. Ecol Appl 18:1932–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zukowski S, Curtis A, Watts RJ (2011) Using fisher local ecological knowledge to improve management: the Murray crayfish in Australia. Fish Res 110:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zwirn M, Pinsky M, Rahr G (2005) Angling ecotourism: issues: guidelines and experience from Kamchatka. J Ecotourism 4:16–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Rehage
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. O. Santos
    • 1
  • E. K. N. Kroloff
    • 1
  • J. T. Heinen
    • 1
  • Q. Lai
    • 1
  • B. D. Black
    • 2
  • R. E. Boucek
    • 2
  • A. J. Adams
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Earth and Environment DepartmentFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Bonefish and Tarpon TrustCoral GablesUSA
  3. 3.Florida Atlantic University Harbor Branch Oceanographic InstituteFort PierceUSA

Personalised recommendations