CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 96Marine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFish Ecology and Management StudiesMarine and fisheries research

Invasive lionfish reduce native fish abundance on a regional scale

Open access
Ballew, Nicholas G., Bacheler, Nathan M., Kellison, G. Todd, Schueller, Amy M.·2016·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/srep32169PMC PMC5005992
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Invasive lionfish pose an unprecedented threat to biodiversity and fisheries throughout Atlantic waters off of the southeastern United States, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. Here, we employ a spatially replicated Before-After-Control-Impact analysis with temporal pairing to quantify for the first time the impact of the lionfish invasion on native fish abundance across a broad regional scale and over the entire duration of the lionfish invasion (1990–2014). Our results suggest that 1) lionfish-impacted areas off of the southeastern United States are most prevalent off-shore near the continental shelf-break but are also common near-shore and 2) in impacted areas, lionfish have reduced tomtate (a native forage fish) abundance by 45% since the invasion began. Tomtate served as a model native fish species in our analysis and as such, it is likely that the lionfish invasion has had similar impacts on other species, some of which may be of economic importance. Barring the development of a control strategy that reverses the lionfish invasion, the abundance of lionfish in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico will likely remain at or above current levels. Consequently, the effect of lionfish on native fish abundance will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study uses a spatially replicated before-after-control-impact design with temporal pairing (BACI-P) on fishery-independent trap and video data from 1990–2014 to test whether invasive lionfish reduced native tomtate abundance off the southeastern United States. It finds that lionfish-impacted areas are widespread and that tomtate abundance in invaded areas declined 45.3% more than in non-invaded areas by the late invasion stage.

Key findings

  • Of 128 sampled 11 km × 11 km squares, the proportion invaded was highest in the northern off-shore region (21/24, 87.5%), followed by southern off-shore (14/23, 60.9%), southern near-shore (13/35, 37.1%), and northern near-shore (11/46, 23.9%).
  • Pre-invasion (1990–1996), average tomtate abundance was 20.9 tomtate per trap (95% CI = 16.7–25.0, N = 7) in invaded areas and 11.5 (95% CI = 7.5–15.6, N = 7) in non-invaded areas; by the late invasion stage (2009–2014), it was 5.7 (95% CI = 5.2–6.2, N = 6) in invaded areas and 5.8 (95% CI = 5.5–6.2, N = 6) in non-invaded areas.
  • The mixed-effects ANOVA interaction was significant (p = 0.009): invaded areas experienced a 4.9% greater reduction by the early-invasion stage (p = 0.750), 38.0% by the mid-invasion stage (p = 0.017), and 45.3% by the late invasion stage (p = 0.005).
  • The authors conclude that the 45% reduction corroborates experimental manipulations and that tomtate, as a model native fish, suggests likely similar impacts on other species, some economically important.

Methods

  • Analyzed Southeast Reef Fish Survey fishery-independent chevron trap data from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to St. Lucie Inlet, Florida, at approximately 15–100 m depth, combining MARMAP, SEAMAP-SA, and Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey data from 1990–2014. Video data from 2011–2014 were used to classify 128 squares with ≥10 samples as invaded or non-invaded; 3,963 random video samples were available after filtering.
  • Used a spatially replicated BACI-P design with stages: pre-invasion 1990–1996, early invasion 1997–2002, mid-invasion 2003–2008, and late invasion 2009–2014. A square was classified as invaded if lionfish were seen in one or more of 10 video samples.
  • Standardized tomtate abundance with zero-inflated negative binomial models accounting for year, day of year, time of day, location, depth, snapper/grouper predator presence, bottom temperature, and trap soak time; extracted year effects were then analyzed with mixed-effects ANOVA including invasion stage, invasion area, and their interaction, with year as a random effect. Final samples were 5,088 from invaded areas and 5,926 from non-invaded areas.

Limitations

  • The authors state that BACI-P is not a manipulative experiment, so an unmeasured confounding variable could be the true cause of the reduction attributed to lionfish; they argue such a variable would need to be outside their standardization variables, vary with lionfish presence, and change steadily over two decades.
  • The authors state that non-invaded areas were likely also affected by lionfish because tomtate are broadcast spawners with drifting eggs, so their reported 45% impact in invaded areas should be viewed as a conservative estimate; they also note the estimate could be inflated if confounding factors are responsible.
  • The text makes evident that only tomtate could be rigorously analyzed: other native species investigated (white grunt, black sea bass, *Stenotomus* spp., vermilion snapper) lacked sufficient pre-invasion abundance in both invaded and non-invaded areas, so broader impacts on other native fish are inferred rather than directly tested.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep32169

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

9 of 40 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    That other study contained only 2 time points (2008 and 2010).

    “While one other study did investigate abundance changes in native reef fish in relation to lionfish, the study contained only 2 time points (2008 and 2010) and was also conducted in a localized area off of the Bahamas15.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Green, S. J., Akins, J. L., Maljkovic, A. & Côté, I. M. Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic coral reef fish declines. PLoS ONE 7, e32596 (2012). source

      The Materials and Methods say native reef fish were surveyed in 2008 and 2010 at sites off New Providence, Bahamas. But the Introduction says the study also used yearly surveys since 2004 to track lionfish abundance, so the study as a whole did not contain only two time points. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    When lionfish densities were controlled on larger experimental patch reefs (0.16-0.40 hectares) over 14 months, the abundance of prey fish at sites with 300 lionfish ha−1 was roughly 40% lower than at sites with 30 lionfish ha−1.

    “When lionfish densities were controlled on larger experimental patch reefs (0.16–0.40 hectares) and over a longer time period (14 months), the abundance of prey fish at sites with 300 lionfish ha−1 was roughly 40% lower than the abundance of prey fish at sites with 30 lionfish ha−1 10.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Albins, M. A. Invasive Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce abundance and species richness of native Bahamian coral-reef fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 522, 231–243 (2015). source

      The Experimental design section describes reefs of approximately 1,400–4,000 m² (0.14–0.40 ha), and Treatment effectiveness reports mean lionfish densities equivalent to 30 and 300 per hectare. Density and biomass of native reef fishes reports roughly 40% lower density of small (<10 cm) fish on high-density reefs in the August 2009 and August 2010 surveys, but not a significant difference at other survey times. The claim omits that seasonal and size-class limitation and gives a slightly different lower bound for reef area. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Tomtate is a main dietary item of lionfish in waters off of the SEUS.

    “Tomtate is also a main dietary item of lionfish in waters off of the SEUS18.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Muñoz, R. C., Currin, C. A. & Whitfield, P. E. Diet of invasive lionfish on hard bottom reefs of the Southeast USA: insights from stomach contents and stable isotopes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 432, 181–193 (2011). source
  • Premisecitation

    One other study investigated abundance changes in native reef fish in relation to lionfish.

    “While one other study did investigate abundance changes in native reef fish in relation to lionfish, the study contained only 2 time points (2008 and 2010) and was also conducted in a localized area off of the Bahamas15.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Green, S. J., Akins, J. L., Maljkovic, A. & Côté, I. M. Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic coral reef fish declines. PLoS ONE 7, e32596 (2012). source
  • Premisecitation

    That other study lacked a non-invaded control group.

    “Additionally, the study lacked a non-invaded control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Green, S. J., Akins, J. L., Maljkovic, A. & Côté, I. M. Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic coral reef fish declines. PLoS ONE 7, e32596 (2012). source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 35
  • May combine two claims. 7
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The majority of lionfish control efforts to date have focused on manual removal.

    “The majority of lionfish control efforts to date have focused on manual removal27”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Barbour, A. B., Allen, M. S., Frazer, T. K. & Sherman, K. D. Evaluating the potential efficacy of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) removals. PLoS ONE 6, e19666 (2011). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The proportion of area invaded was lowest in the northern near-shore region (11/46, 23.9%).

    “The proportion of area invaded was highest in the northern off-shore region (21/24 squares, 87.5%), second highest in the southern off-shore region (14/23, 60.9%), third highest in the southern near-shore region (13/35, 37.1%), and lowest in the northern near-shore region (11/46, 23.9%; Fig. 1B).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The proportion of area invaded was second highest in the southern off-shore region (14/23, 60.9%).

    “The proportion of area invaded was highest in the northern off-shore region (21/24 squares, 87.5%), second highest in the southern off-shore region (14/23, 60.9%), third highest in the southern near-shore region (13/35, 37.1%), and lowest in the northern near-shore region (11/46, 23.9%; Fig. 1B).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The proportion of area invaded was third highest in the southern near-shore region (13/35, 37.1%).

    “The proportion of area invaded was highest in the northern off-shore region (21/24 squares, 87.5%), second highest in the southern off-shore region (14/23, 60.9%), third highest in the southern near-shore region (13/35, 37.1%), and lowest in the northern near-shore region (11/46, 23.9%; Fig. 1B).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    White grunt, black sea bass, and Stenotomus spp. had low abundances across the invaded area before the lionfish invasion began.

    “Specifically, white grunt (Haemulon plumieri), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), and Stenotomus spp. had low abundances across the invaded area before the lionfish invasion began.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Once introduced, lionfish growth rate, high fecundity, generalist foraging habits, and lack of predators led to their rapid spread.

    “Once introduced, their growth rate, high fecundity, generalist foraging habits, and lack of predators led to their rapid spread567.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [567]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Average replication per year in invaded sites was 204.

    “To conduct our investigation, we employed a Before-After-Control-Impact design with temporal pairing (BACI-P) and spatial replication at both control (non-invaded) and impact (invaded) sites (average replication per year in invaded sites = 204, average in non-invaded sites = 237).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Tomtate is a model species to use for an investigation into the impact of the lionfish invasion on native fish abundance.

    “Thus, tomtate is a model species to use for an investigation into the impact of the lionfish invasion on native fish abundance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Within its range, tomtate is abundant on most reefs south of Chesapeake Bay.

    “Within its range, tomtate is abundant on most reefs south of Chesapeake Bay and serves as prey to many economically important species such as snappers and groupers16.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Darcy, G. H. Synopsis of biological data on the grunts Haemulon aurolineatum and H. plumeri (Pisces: Haemulidae). NOAA Tech Rept NMFS Circ FAO Fish Synop. 133, 1–37 (1983).

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The tomtate standardization analysis used zero-inflated negative binomial models to account for potential sampling biases and fluctuations in environmental conditions within invasion areas.

    “The results of the tomtate standardization analysis (zero-inflated negative binomial models) that was conducted to account for potential sampling biases and fluctuations in environmental conditions within invasion areas are outlined in the supplemental information (Supplementary Fig. 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Tomtate serves as prey to many economically important species such as snappers and groupers.

    “Within its range, tomtate is abundant on most reefs south of Chesapeake Bay and serves as prey to many economically important species such as snappers and groupers16.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Darcy, G. H. Synopsis of biological data on the grunts Haemulon aurolineatum and H. plumeri (Pisces: Haemulidae). NOAA Tech Rept NMFS Circ FAO Fish Synop. 133, 1–37 (1983).

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study employed a spatially replicated Before-After-Control-Impact analysis with temporal pairing.

    “Here, we employ a spatially replicated Before-After-Control-Impact analysis with temporal pairing to quantify for the first time the impact of the lionfish invasion on native fish abundance across a broad regional scale and over the entire duration of the lionfish invasion (1990–2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Spatially replicated BACI-P experiments are the most effective means of assessing environmental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world.

    “Spatially replicated BACI-P experiments are the most effective means of assessing environmental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world1920.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1920]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    By 2008, the maximum lionfish densities observed off North Carolina were approximately 450 lionfish ha−1, with mean densities of about 150 lionfish per hectare.

    “By 2008, the maximum lionfish densities observed off North Carolina were approximately 450 lionfish ha−1, with mean densities of about 150 lionfish per hectare9.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] Morris, J. A. Jr & Whitfield, P. E. Biology, ecology, control and management of the invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish: an updated integrated assessment. NOAA Tech Memo NOS NCCOS 99, 57 pg (2009).

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Lionfish have invaded Atlantic waters off of the southeastern United States, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean.

    “The devil firefish (Pterois miles) and the red lionfish (P. volitans), both collectively referred to as lionfish in this study, are generalist piscivores that have invaded Atlantic waters off of the southeastern United States (hereafter abbreviated as SEUS), the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean12.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Albins, M. A. & Hixon, M. A. Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce recruitment of Atlantic coral-reef fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 367, 233−238 (2008). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Tomtate is a small grunt species that schools on reefs in Atlantic waters from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Brazil.

    “Tomtate is a small grunt species that schools on reefs in Atlantic waters from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Brazil1617.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1617]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    One hundred and twenty-eight 11 km × 11 km squares were sampled 10 or more times off of the SEUS.

    “One hundred and twenty-eight 11 km × 11 km squares were sampled 10 or more times off of the SEUS (Fig. 1A).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Whitfield, P. E. et al. Abundance estimates of the Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans/miles complex in the Western North Atlantic. Biol. Invasions 9, 53–64 (2007). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Average replication per year in non-invaded sites was 237.

    “To conduct our investigation, we employed a Before-After-Control-Impact design with temporal pairing (BACI-P) and spatial replication at both control (non-invaded) and impact (invaded) sites (average replication per year in invaded sites = 204, average in non-invaded sites = 237).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study employed a Before-After-Control-Impact design with temporal pairing (BACI-P) and spatial replication at both control (non-invaded) and impact (invaded) sites.

    “To conduct our investigation, we employed a Before-After-Control-Impact design with temporal pairing (BACI-P) and spatial replication at both control (non-invaded) and impact (invaded) sites (average replication per year in invaded sites = 204, average in non-invaded sites = 237).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Changes in tomtate abundance at invaded sites relative to non-invaded sites are attributable to lionfish invasion rather than other environmental factors.
    • Rests on an assumption: The non-invaded control sites are comparable to invaded sites except for the presence of lionfish.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It was not possible to compare, in a statistically rigorous manner, changes in abundance in the invaded area relative to the non-invaded area for any of the species investigated other than tomtate.

    “Consequently, it was not possible to compare, in a statistically rigorous manner, changes in abundance in the invaded area relative to the non-invaded area for any of the species investigated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The spatially replicated BACI-P study design employed is not a manipulative experiment.

    “While a spatially replicated BACI-P study design (such as the one employed in our study) is the most effective means of assessing environmental impacts on wild populations1920, it is not a manipulative experiment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Squares with greater than 10 samples were randomly sub-sampled so that each square contained 10 samples.

    “Squares with greater than 10 samples were then randomly sub-sampled so that each square contained 10 samples.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The sampling intensity of each square was set to a constant value so that the survey's detection rate would be the same across all squares.

    “The sampling intensity of each square was set to a constant value so that our survey’s detection rate would be the same across all squares.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    After removing samples with fewer than 41 video frames and those with unusual trap soak times, 3,963 random video samples were available for analysis.

    “After removing samples with fewer than 41 video frames and those with unusual trap soak times (very long soak times may indicate an issue with the sample), 3,963 random video samples were available for analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study used a spatially replicated BACI-P analysis.

    “Our spatially replicated BACI-P analysis revealed”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Lionfish must be reducing the number of adult tomtate via predation on juveniles, which in turn reduces survivorship to the adult stage.

    “lionfish must be reducing the number of adults via predation on juveniles that in turn reduces survivorship to the adult stage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If a confounding factor is responsible for some or all of the reduction in tomtate abundance attributed to lionfish, it must vary in concert with the presence of lionfish.

    “it must vary in concert with the presence of lionfish”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If the lionfish invasion has negatively impacted tomtate abundance in non-invaded areas, then lionfish have had a larger impact in invaded areas than the study's estimate suggests.

    “If the lionfish invasion has negatively impacted tomtate abundance in non-invaded areas, it also means that lionfish have had a larger impact in invaded areas than our estimate suggests (due to the method we used to estimate the impact of the lionfish invasion).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study's sampling was designed to be random.

    “Even though our sampling was designed to be random”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A spatially replicated BACI-P study design is the most effective means of assessing environmental impacts on wild populations.

    “While a spatially replicated BACI-P study design (such as the one employed in our study) is the most effective means of assessing environmental impacts on wild populations1920”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1920]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Snappers and groupers may compete with lionfish for food.

    “snappers and groupers may compete with lionfish for food”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Samples within each invasion area may have varied across years with respect to some spatial or temporal pattern of sampling or with fluctuations in environmental conditions.

    “samples within each invasion area may have varied across years with respect to some spatial or temporal pattern of sampling or with fluctuations in environmental conditions34.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] Kimura, D. K. & Somerton, D. A. Review of statistical aspects of survey sampling for marine fisheries. Rev. Fish Sci. 14, 245–283 (2006). source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    As a result of potential competition, lionfish may further affect snappers and groupers.

    “and, as a result, lionfish may further affect snappers and groupers”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Any such sampling or environmental pattern could confound the results if it also affected tomtate abundance.

    “Any such pattern could potentially confound our results if it also affected tomtate abundance (e.g., invaded samples were made in shallower water during early years and deeper water during later years and depth affects tomtate abundance).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    Zero-inflated models are valuable tools for modeling distributions that do not fit a standard error distribution due to an excessive number of zeroes.

    “Zero-inflated models are valuable tools for modeling distributions that do not fit a standard error distribution due to an excessive number of zeroes35.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2009). source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Sampling sites are selected at random from a database of known hard-bottom habitat sites.

    “Sampling sites are selected at random from a database of known hard-bottom habitat sites.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This mechanism could potentially cause a larger effect on smaller-sized species that are susceptible to lionfish predation over their entire lifespan.

    “and potentially even a larger effect on smaller-sized species that are susceptible to lionfish predation over their entire lifespan”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    After exclusions, the analysis included 5,088 samples from the invaded area and 5,926 samples from the non-invaded area.

    “After removing samples that fell outside of squares classified as invaded or non-invaded and samples missing data on any of the predictor variables included in our analyses, we were left with 5,088 samples from the invaded area and 5,926 samples from the non-invaded area”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Only squares with 10 or more video samples (128 squares) were included in the analysis.

    “To account for a potentially low lionfish detection rate per video (though still higher than a trap’s), only squares with 10 or more video samples (128 squares) were included in the analysis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This mechanism could potentially cause a similar effect in economically important species such as snappers and groupers.

    “This mechanism could potentially cause a similar effect in economically important species such as snappers and groupers”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
41 of 41

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Tomtate is a representative model native fish species such that impacts on tomtate indicate similar impacts on other native fish species.

    “Tomtate served as a model native fish species in our analysis, and as such, it is likely that the lionfish invasion has had similar impacts on other species, some of which may be of economic importance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Lionfish abundance in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico will remain at or above current levels absent a control strategy that reverses the invasion.

    “Barring the development of a control strategy that reverses the lionfish invasion, the abundance of lionfish in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico will likely remain at or above current levels.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the absence of lionfish, impacted and control areas would have followed similar temporal trends in native fish abundance.

    “Here, we employ a spatially replicated Before-After-Control-Impact analysis with temporal pairing to quantify for the first time the impact of the lionfish invasion on native fish abundance across a broad regional scale and over the entire duration of the lionfish invasion (1990–2014).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Changes in tomtate abundance at invaded sites relative to non-invaded sites are attributable to lionfish invasion rather than other environmental factors.

    “To conduct our investigation, we employed a Before-After-Control-Impact design with temporal pairing (BACI-P) and spatial replication at both control (non-invaded) and impact (invaded) sites (average replication per year in invaded sites = 204, average in non-invaded sites = 237).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The non-invaded control sites are comparable to invaded sites except for the presence of lionfish.

    “To conduct our investigation, we employed a Before-After-Control-Impact design with temporal pairing (BACI-P) and spatial replication at both control (non-invaded) and impact (invaded) sites (average replication per year in invaded sites = 204, average in non-invaded sites = 237).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Lionfish abundances were low up to the early 2000s, relatively abundant by the late 2000s, and highest by the early 2010s.

    “We predicted that lionfish-induced reductions in tomtate abundance were minor up to the early 2000s (when lionfish abundances were low), significantly large by the late 2000s (when lionfish were relatively abundant), and even larger by the early 2010s (when lionfish reached their highest abundances to date).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Lionfish densities now exceed those of all but the most common predatory fish species on many reefs off the SEUS, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico.

    “Lionfish densities now exceed those of all but the most common predatory fish species on many reefs off of the SEUS, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the absence of lionfish invasion, tomtate abundance in invaded and non-invaded areas would have followed similar trends (parallel trends assumption).

    “Our spatially replicated BACI-P analysis revealed”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The BACI-P design implicitly assumes that any reduction in tomtate abundance occurring in both invaded and non-invaded areas is due to factors other than the lionfish invasion (e.g., climate change, fishing pressure).

    “By employing this design, any reduction in tomtate abundance that occurred in both invaded and non-invaded areas (which turned out to be a significant reduction) was implicitly assumed to be due to factors other than the lionfish invasion (e.g., climate change, fishing pressure).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Lionfish removal programs are often conducted at depths less than 20 meters.

    “Further, lionfish removal programs are often conducted at depths less than 20 meters”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The area over which lionfish are distributed in Atlantic waters off the SEUS is tens of thousands of km2.

    “the area over which lionfish are distributed in Atlantic waters off the SEUS is sufficiently large (tens of thousands of km2)”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Lionfish abundance was near 0 in both invaded and non-invaded areas prior to 1997.

    “we assumed lionfish abundance was near 0 in both invaded and non-invaded areas prior to 1997.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The average lionfish abundance in the non-invaded (control) area stayed near 0 throughout all three “after impact” invasion stages.

    “We assumed that the average lionfish abundance in the non-invaded (control) area stayed near 0 throughout all three “after impact” invasion stages.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The average lionfish abundance across the invaded (impacted) area increased slightly from the pre-invasion stage to the early-invasion stage, increased substantially from the pre-invasion stage to the mid-invasion stage, and further increased from the pre-invasion stage to the late-invasion stage.

    “we assumed that the average lionfish abundance across the invaded (impacted) area increased slightly from the pre-invasion stage to the early-invasion stage, that it increased substantially from the pre-invasion stage to the mid-invasion stage, and that it further increased from the pre-invasion stage to the late-invasion stage.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Trends in tomtate abundance are representative of native fish abundance more broadly.

    “Invasive lionfish reduce native fish abundance on a regional scale”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The non-invaded area remained uninvaded by lionfish throughout the study period and is a valid control for the invaded area.

    “The interaction effects that indicated the impact of the lionfish invasion (in invaded areas) on tomtate abundance from the pre-invasion stage up to each subsequent invasion stage were the primary focus of this study.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The assigned invasion stages (pre-invasion, early-invasion, mid-invasion, and late-invasion) accurately reflect the progression of lionfish invasion in each area.

    “First, each year effect from each invasion area was assigned an invasion stage (pre-invasion, early-invasion, mid-invasion, and late-invasion).”
17 of 17

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sedberry, G. R. Food and feeding of the tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum (Pisces, Haemulidae), in the South Atlantic Bight. Fish. Bull. 83, 461–466 (1985).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ballew, N. G., Bacheler, N. M., Kellison, G. T., & Schueller, A. M.
Affiliations
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (US)
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-08-31
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
32169-32169
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/srep32169
PMC
PMC5005992
OpenAlex
W2511179344
Semantic Scholar
02d42b7b32e6ba1eba94577a00572cfde1ee41b7
Cited by
96
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
8.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • National Marine Fisheries Service
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
invasive lionfish, Pterois volitans, forage fish, marine invasive species, Atlantic coast of the United States, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, shelf break, fisheries impacts, biodiversity loss
MeSH terms
Animals, Fishes, Models, Biological, Southeastern United States, Caribbean Region, Biodiversity, Introduced Species, Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of America

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-20.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-20.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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