Abundance estimates of the Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans/miles complex in the Western North Atlantic
Abstract
Less than a decade after being observed off Florida, the invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish is now widely distributed off the southeast coast of the United States. As a step towards measuring invasion impacts to native communities, we examine the magnitude and extent of this invasion by first, compiling reports of lionfish to provide range information and second, estimate lionfish abundance from two separate studies. We also estimate native grouper (epinepheline serranids) abundance to better assess and compare lionfish abundances. In the first study we conducted SCUBA diver visual transect surveys at 17 different locations off the North Carolina coast in water depths of 35-50 m. In the second study, we conducted 27 Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) transect surveys at five locations from Florida to North Carolina in water depths of 50-100 m. In both studies, lionfish were found to be second in abundance only to scamp (Mycteroperca phenax). Lionfish were found in higher abundance in the shallower North Carolina SCUBA surveys ([graphic removed] ha-¹) than in the deep water ROV surveys ([graphic removed] ha-¹). Lionfish reports continue to expand most recently into the Bahamas, raising the specter of further spread into the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. The potential impacts of lionfish to native communities are likely to be through direct predation, competition and overcrowding. The high number of lionfish present in the ecosystem increases the potential for cascading impacts througho…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The first assessment of lionfish densities in their non-native range, conducted in 2004, reported an average of 21 lionfish ha−1 across 17 locations off North Carolina.
“The first assessment of lionfish densities in their non-native range, which was conducted in 2004, reported an average of 21 lionfish ha−1 across 17 locations off North Carolina8.”
From Invasive lionfish reduce native fish abundance on a regional scale (2016) · cites this paper as [8]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 44 · Cited by 140
- Authors
- Whitfield, P. E., Hare, J. A., David, A. W., Harter, S. L., Muñoz, R. C., & Addison, C. M.
- Affiliations
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
- NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (US)
- Corresponding author
- Whitfield, Paula E.
- ORCID
- Hare, Jonathan A.
- Venue
- Biological Invasions
- Published
- 2006-06-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-64
- ISSN
- 1387-3547 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1464
- OpenAlex
- W3035364722
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 4.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Biological Invasions (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- University of North Carolina Wilmington
- Division of Ocean Sciences
- National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine Ecology and Invasive Species
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
- Keywords
- Indo-Pacific lionfish, invasive species, SCAMP, range expansion, North Carolina coast, western North Atlantic, invasive species impacts, predation and competition, cascading effects, climate change, overfishing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review