Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 May 29;16(1):30.
doi: 10.1186/s13002-020-00383-3.

The ability of artisanal fishers to recognize the dolphins they cooperate with

Affiliations

The ability of artisanal fishers to recognize the dolphins they cooperate with

Daiane S X da Rosa et al. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. .

Abstract

Background: Human-animal interactions with mutual benefits in the wild are rare. Such positive interactions seem to require an intricate knowledge from the human side on the animals' behavior and their habitat. In southern Brazil, dolphins and human net-casting fishers have specialized in a cooperative foraging, in which fishers report being able to identify and name dolphins. Here, we evaluate the consensus in their ability to recognize the individual dolphins they interact with. By investigating the reliability of this recognition process, we assess the pros and cons of relying on the fishers' traditional knowledge to further understand the behavior and ecology of dolphins at the individual level. We also assess the potential role of traditional knowledge for the maintenance of this unusual interaction.

Methods: We interviewed 38 fishers using a semi-structured questionnaire. During each interview, we evaluate their recognition ability of dolphins by showing high-quality photos of dorsal fins of different dolphins, asking questions about the dolphins' behavior and traits, and about how fishers recognize each dolphin. We also evaluated information about the fishers. Different indices were used to measure the fishers' ability to recognize dolphins via photos, and their consensus on individual identification. These indices were modeled as functions of traits of both dolphins and fishers to investigate which ones influence the recognition process.

Results: We found that fishers can primarily recognize dolphins by natural marks in the dorsal fin but there was little consensus in recognition. Fishers also tend to repeat the name of the most "popular" dolphins for different photos, indicating low reliability in individual recognition. We also found that fishers who learned from relatives (vertical learning) how to interact with dolphins tend to be more accurate and have higher consensus in dolphin recognition than those fishers who learned from friends (horizontal learning) or individually.

Conclusion: Artisanal fishers have a deep understanding of the dolphins and the system they are inserted in. However, the lack of consensus in identifying individual dolphins herein reported indicates that using their traditional knowledge to further understand dolphin behavior and ecology at the individual level requires caution. Our study also suggests that the transmission of this tradition from parents to sons can be crucial to preserve such a unique human-animal positive interaction in its original form.

Keywords: Cetacean; Consensus; Ethnoecology; Fishers’ perceptions; Individual recognition; Interaction; Traditional knowledge.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The research area: The lagoon system in Laguna, southern Brazil. The red and blue areas indicate, respectively, the estimated home ranges of dolphins [16, 19] that tend to forage independently (“bad dolphins”) and those that tend to interact with fishers (“good dolphins”). Interviews occurred at the fishing sites indicated
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Variation in the ability in recognize individual dolphins, concordance, and consensus among artisanal fishers across a set of explanatory variables. Recognition index (RI) does not change significantly with dolphin home range (a), dolphin encounter rate (b), dolphin behavior (“good” or “bad” dolphin; c); but the index increases when dolphins are recognized by marks in the dorsal fin in comparison to body shape and general behavior (form) (d). The Concordance index (CDI) does not change with dolphin home range (e) and encounter rate (f), dolphin behavior (“good” or “bad” dolphin; g); but it increases when dolphins are recognized by marks in the dorsal fin (h). The average consensus (ACI) do not vary with fishers’ age (i) and preferable fishing site (j); it is significantly higher when fishers learn how to fishing with dolphins from parents or other relatives (families) (l) and it increases slightly whether they depend on this fishing activity (m); the consensus in naming dolphins (CeIc) does not change significantly with the perceived age (n), sex (o), behavior (p) or type of recognition (q) of the dolphins

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Guides and cheats: producer-scrounger dynamics in the human-honeyguide mutualism.
    Cram DL, Lloyd-Jones DJ, van der Wal JEM, Lund J, Buanachique IO, Muamedi M, Nanguar CI, Ngovene A, Raveh S, Boner W, Spottiswoode CN. Cram DL, et al. Proc Biol Sci. 2023 Nov 8;290(2010):20232024. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2023.2024. Epub 2023 Nov 8. Proc Biol Sci. 2023. PMID: 37935365 Free PMC article.
  • Foraging synchrony drives resilience in human-dolphin mutualism.
    Cantor M, Farine DR, Daura-Jorge FG. Cantor M, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Feb 7;120(6):e2207739120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2207739120. Epub 2023 Jan 30. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023. PMID: 36716378 Free PMC article.
  • Safeguarding human-wildlife cooperation.
    van der Wal JEM, Spottiswoode CN, Uomini NT, Cantor M, Daura-Jorge FG, Afan AI, Attwood MC, Amphaeris J, Balasani F, Begg CM, Blair CJ, Bronstein JL, Buanachique IO, Cuthill RRT, Das J, Deb A, Dixit T, Dlamini GS, Dounias E, Gedi II, Gruber M, Hoffmann LS, Holzlehner T, Isack HA, Laltaika EA, Lloyd-Jones DJ, Lund J, Machado AMS, Mahadevan L, Moreno IB, Nwaogu CJ, Pereira VL, Pierotti R, Rucunua SA, Dos Santos WF, Serpa N, Smith BD, Tolkova I, Tun T, Valle-Pereira JVS, Wood BM, Wrangham RW, Cram DL. van der Wal JEM, et al. Conserv Lett. 2022 Jul-Aug;15(4):e12886. doi: 10.1111/conl.12886. Epub 2022 Jun 9. Conserv Lett. 2022. PMID: 36248252 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Lightweight individual cow identification based on Ghost combined with attention mechanism.
    Fu L, Li S, Kong S, Ni R, Pang H, Sun Y, Hu T, Mu Y, Guo Y, Gong H. Fu L, et al. PLoS One. 2022 Oct 6;17(10):e0275435. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275435. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 36201486 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Zeder MA. Pathways to animal domestication. In: Harlan JR, Gepts P, Famula TR, Bettinger RL, Brush SB, Damania AB, McGuirre PE, Qualset CO, editors. Biodiversity in agriculture: domestication, evolution, and sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. pp. 227–259.
    1. Magnus R, Svanberg I. Wild Animals in Human Assistance: Historical practices, semiotic grounds and future prospects. Ethnol. Scand. 2017;47:154–170.
    1. Wood BM, Pontzer H, Raichlen DA, Marlowe FW. Mutualism and manipulation in Hadza-honeyguide interactions. Evol Hum Behav. 2014;35(6):540–546.
    1. Spottiswoode CN, Begg KS, Begg CM. Reciprocal signaling in honeyguide-human mutualism. Science. 2016;353(6297):387–389. - PubMed
    1. Moleon M, Sanchez-Zapata JA, Margalida A, Carrete M, Owen-Smith N, Donazar JA. Humans and scavengers: the evolution of interactions and ecosystem services. BioScience. 2014;64(5):394–403.

LinkOut - more resources