2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10530-017-1417-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Occurrence of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) larvae in the northern Gulf of Mexico: characterization of dispersal pathways and spawning areas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
19
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Distinct differences in the composition of juveniles observed between the mid-shelf reefs (SONN, STET) and the shelf-edge reefs (EFGB, WFGB) indicates that an inshore-offshore recruitment gradient may exist for reef-dependent fishes in the northern GOM, likely established by decreased larval delivery or survivorship closer to the coast (see Roberts, 1991), where pelagic conditions are often strongly influenced by cold, low-salinity, nutrientrich input from MARS (Rezak et al, 1990;reviewed in D'Sa and Dimarco, 2009). It is also possible that regional patterns of fish diversity are influenced by increased exposure of the shelf-edge reefs (EFGB, WFGB) to tropical larvae originating from the southern GOM or Caribbean Sea (Rezak et al, 1990;Schmahl et al, 2008;Kitchens et al, 2017). However, the notable distinction between juvenile and adult assemblages observed within both mid-shelf reefs (SONN, STET) also suggests that the species composition of mature fish communities associated with this reef type may not directly resemble the initial species composition of settlers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Distinct differences in the composition of juveniles observed between the mid-shelf reefs (SONN, STET) and the shelf-edge reefs (EFGB, WFGB) indicates that an inshore-offshore recruitment gradient may exist for reef-dependent fishes in the northern GOM, likely established by decreased larval delivery or survivorship closer to the coast (see Roberts, 1991), where pelagic conditions are often strongly influenced by cold, low-salinity, nutrientrich input from MARS (Rezak et al, 1990;reviewed in D'Sa and Dimarco, 2009). It is also possible that regional patterns of fish diversity are influenced by increased exposure of the shelf-edge reefs (EFGB, WFGB) to tropical larvae originating from the southern GOM or Caribbean Sea (Rezak et al, 1990;Schmahl et al, 2008;Kitchens et al, 2017). However, the notable distinction between juvenile and adult assemblages observed within both mid-shelf reefs (SONN, STET) also suggests that the species composition of mature fish communities associated with this reef type may not directly resemble the initial species composition of settlers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under ideal oceanographic conditions, predicted transport time (Lugo-Fernández, 2006) from this region would be expected to exceed the reported planktonic larval duration (PLD) for many of the dominant species in our surveys of the EFGB and WFGB (Victor, 1986;Wellington and Victor, 1989), and considering that ecologically relevant scales of connectivity for reef fish populations in the region are typically on the order of 10 to 100 km (Cowen et al, 2006), the contribution of larvae derived from the Caribbean is likely to be minimal. Nevertheless, the degree to which larval contribution from the southern GoM or Caribbean Sea affects juvenile recruitment (density and assemblage structure) at northern GOM reefs is likely temporally variable and dependent on the position of the Loop Current and associated eddies (see Kitchens et al, 2017;Limer et al, in review). This may explain the greater density and diversity of juvenile recruits observed in 2009 compared to 2010 across all reefs, as the Loop Current penetrated farther northward in 2009 (Rooker et al, 2013;Limer et al, in review).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is not especially long for a coral‐reef fish (Lester & Ruttenberg, ), but it still provides ample time for long‐distance dispersal. Only a handful of lionfish larvae have been collected so far (Vásquez‐Yeomans et al, ; Kitchens et al, ), but a biophysical model suggests that some of these 14–17 day old larvae might have dispersed up to c . 900 km on local currents from where they were spawned (Kitchens et al, ).…”
Section: Why Have Lionfish Been So Successful As An Invader?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only a handful of lionfish larvae have been collected so far (Vásquez-Yeomans et al, 2011;Kitchens et al, 2017), but a biophysical model suggests that some of these 14-17 day old larvae might have dispersed up to c. 900 km on local currents from where they were spawned (Kitchens et al, 2017). However, currents alone do not account for the speed of lionfish spread.…”
Section: N E W K N Ow L E D G E a B O U T C O R R E L At E S O F P O mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dispersal to new areas is more effective when individuals are in the pelagic larval phase (14-17 days old) when they can disperse up to circa 900 km from the spawning area, taking advantage of the presence of local currents [16,55]. Nevertheless, if currents facilitated the transport of larvae from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, then genetic divergence should correlate with geographical distance, as predicted by a 'stepping stone' model [56].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%