Invasive lionfish had no measurable effect on prey fish community structure across the Belizean Barrier Reef

Hackerott, Serena; Valdivia, Abel; Cox, Courtney; Silbiger, Nyssa J.; Bruno, John F.

doi:10.7717/peerj.3270

Cited by 34 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Higher movement rates for larger individuals is reasonable to expect given they are more physically capable to make such movements and face lower risk of predation in transit [78,79]. Predation on lionfish from native species is likely minimal [18,19,80], but juveniles risk conspecific predation [59,81] particularly in areas of high lionfish density [60] where this study was conducted. Smaller lionfish may thus occupy smaller foraging arenas near the reef [82].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the efficacy of lionfish traps in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Harris

Fogg²,

Gittings

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

18Spearfishing is currently the primary approach for removing invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish 19 (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to mitigate their impacts to western Atlantic marine ecosystems. 20 However, a substantial portion of lionfish spawning biomass is beyond the depth limits of SCUBA. 21 Innovative technologies may offer an alternative means to target lionfish and allow for the 22 development of a deepwater lionfish trap fishery, but the removal efficiency and potential 23 environmental impacts of traps have not been evaluated. We tested a collapsible non-containment 24 trap (the 'Gittings trap') near artificial reefs in the northern Gulf of Mexico. A total of 327 lionfish 25 and 28 native fishes (4 of which regulated species) recruited to traps (i.e., number of fish observed 26 within the trap footprint) during 82 trap sets, catching 144 lionfish and 29 native species. Lionfish 27 recruitment was highest for single (versus paired) traps deployed <15 m from reefs with a 1-day 28 soak time, for which mean lionfish and native species recruitment per trap were approximately 5 29 and 0.1, respectively. Gittings traps selected for larger lionfish (mean size 277 mm total length) 30 compared to spearfishing (mean size 258 mm). Community impacts from Gittings traps appeared 31 minimal given recruitment patterns and catch rates were >10X higher for lionfish versus native 32 fishes. Gittings traps did not move on the bottom during two major storm events; however, further 33 testing will be necessary to test trap movement with surface buoys. Additional research should also 34 focus on design and operational modifications to improve Gittings trap deployment success (68% 35 successfully opened on the seabed) and reduce lionfish escapement (56% escaped from traps upon 36 retrieval). While removal efficiency for lionfish (12-24%) was far below that of spearfishing, 37 study results demonstrate Gittings traps are suitable for future testing on deepwater natural reefs, 38 which constitute >90% of the region's reef habitat. 3 of 23 39 Introduction 40 Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex, hereafter "lionfish") are 41 now well established in the western Atlantic, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico [1] 42 and have recently invaded the Mediterranean Sea [2]. Lionfish occupy a wide diversity of invaded 43 marine habitats, including coral reefs, subtropical artificial and natural reefs [3], seagrass beds [4], 44 mangroves [5], estuaries [6], mesophotic reefs [7-9], and upper continental slope reefs [10]. High 45 population densities of lionfish [3,11] have caused reductions in native reef fish abundances 46 [12,13], altered marine communities [14,15], and likely exacerbate current stressors on marine 47 systems [16,17]. As invasive lionfish populations do not appear to be controlled by native 48 predators [18-20], reducing lionfish biomass a top priority for marine resource managers [21,22]. 49 The current capacity to remove lionfish is primarily by spearfishing [21,23]. However, 50 lionfish...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the efficacy of lionfish traps in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Harris

Fogg²,

Gittings

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Esto se traduce en la afectación de la red trófica del arrecife (Arias-González et al 2011), como consecuencia de su apetito voraz y consumo generalista de peces e invertebrados de importancia ecológica y comercial (Arredondo-Chávez et al 2016). Ante estos potenciales impactos, se ha priorizado la estimación de las abundancias del pez león a través de la implementación de diferentes metodologías tales como la aplicación de Rotenona (Kulbicki et al 2012), video-transectos (Andradi-Brown et al 2017a, Bacheler et al 2017, calcular la Captura Por Unidad de Esfuerzo (CPUE) (Frazer et al 2012), marcaje y recaptura (Akins et al 2014), método de distancia (Tilley et al 2016) y censos visuales; siendo estos últimos los más utilizados (Darling et al 2011, Cure et al 2014, Hackerott et al 2017, Peiffer et al 2017.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

“…No obstante, se ha documentado que la aplicación de este método puede subestimar la abundancia real dado que no considera la naturaleza críptica de la especie, además de las condiciones físicas del arrecife (Kulbicki et al 2012. Por tal motivo, actualmente se utilizan censos dirigidos hacia la búsqueda específica del pez león con la finalidad de obtener resultados más precisos (Anderson et al 2017, Hackerott et al 2017, Sabido-Itzá & García-Rivas 2019.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Los censos visuales en transecto de banda subestiman la abundancia del pez león <i>Pterois</i> spp. en arrecifes coralinos del Caribe

Sabido-Itzá

Castro-Pérez

Nava-Martínez³

et al. 2020

Rev. biol. mar. oceanogr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual census of band transect (CVB) is one of the most used monitoring protocol on reefs, however this study confirms that its application fail in the detection and estimation of abundance of invasive lionfish. CVB vs Lionfish Search Census (CBP) was compared on Mexican Caribbean reefs. Differences in abundance of lionfish were found between CVB and CBP. Bias among both methods was significantly correlated to the cryptic behavior of inactivity and depth of the site. Finally, the use of different lionfish sampling methods and the application of CBP for monitoring reefs in the region are discussed.

show abstract

“…It was first noticed in 1985 off the Atlantic coast of Florida, and has gradually expanded into the Caribbean and along the western Atlantic coasts (Bors et al, 2019). Although the species is a voracious feeder on a large variety of smaller reef fish, recent reports question earlier suggestions that this invasion would severely diminish reef fish diversity in the Caribbean (Hackerott et al, 2017). The potential threat of the ecological effects of the expansion of lionfish has spurred numerous round-up derbies by local scuba diver communities, with mixed results (Usseglio et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lionfish (Pterois volitans) as biomonitoring species for oil pollution effects in coral reef ecosystems

Hurk

Edhlund

Davis

et al. 2020

Marine Environmental Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With oil spills, and other sources of aromatic hydrocarbons, being a continuous threat to coral reef systems, and most reef fish species being protected or difficult to collect, the use of the invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) might be a good model species to monitor biomarkers in potentially exposed fish in the Caribbean and western Atlantic. The rapid expansion of lionfish in the Caribbean and western Atlantic, and the unregulated fishing for this species, would make the lionfish a suitable candidate as biomonitoring species for oil pollution effects. However, to date little has been published about the responses of lionfish to environmental pollutants. For this study lionfish were collected in the Florida Keys a few weeks after Hurricane Irma, which sank numerous boats resulting in leaks of oil and fuel, and during the winter and early spring after that. Several biomarkers indicative of exposure to PAHs (bile fluorescence, cytochrome P450-1A induction, glutathione S-transferase activity) were measured. To establish if these biomarkers are inducible in PAH exposed lionfish, dosing experiments with different concentrations of High Energy Water Accommodated Fraction of crude oil were performed. The results revealed no significant effects in the biomarkers in the field collected fish, while the exposure experiments demonstrated that lionfish did show strong effects in the measured biomarkers, even at the lowest concentration tested (0.3% HEWAF, or 25 µg/l ƩPAH50). Based on its widespread distribution, relative ease of collection, and significant biomarker responses in the controlled dosing experiment, it is concluded that lionfish has good potential to be used as a standardized biomonitoring species for oil pollution in its neotropical realm.

show abstract

Invasive lionfish had no measurable effect on prey fish community structure across the Belizean Barrier Reef

Cited by 34 publications

References 66 publications

Testing the efficacy of lionfish traps in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Testing the efficacy of lionfish traps in the northern Gulf of Mexico

Los censos visuales en transecto de banda subestiman la abundancia del pez león <i>Pterois</i> spp. en arrecifes coralinos del Caribe

Lionfish (Pterois volitans) as biomonitoring species for oil pollution effects in coral reef ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About