Cited by 544Marine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesMarine Biology and Ecology Research

Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce recruitment of Atlantic coral-reef fishes

Open access
Albins, MA, Hixon, MA·2008·Marine Ecology Progress Series

Abstract

In this study we explored the species composition, space and temporary variations of the epifauna associated with the \ninvasive species Perna viridis (Asian green mussel) in Cienfuegos Bay. Epifauna was collected by scraping shells surface of 577 P. \nviridis individuals extracted from four sites where greater abundance: the wharves Pablo Guzmán (PG), Siete Cuadras (M7), Punta La \nCueva (PC), and the Barco Hundido (BH). The first three sites were located near to human population establishments while BH was \nrelatively far from such establishments. Barnacles (Cirripedia) were the most important group among sampled epifauna, followed by \nbryozoans and ascidians. Other groups as sponges, anemones, polychaetes, non-sessile crustaceans like brachyurans and anomurans, \nturbellaries, ophiuroids, bivalves and gasthropods, were also represented. A total of 39 species were identified as components of \nepifauna, which coexist naturally with mussels without demonstrating ecosystem affectations or mutual exclusion effects \n(displacement of species). The total biomass values decreased from February to May and increase toward November at all sampling \nsites. Significant differences were found for the main groups of the epifauna when comparing on temporal scale. Total biomass values \nshowed significant differences on spatial scale. BH was the site with less value, only vegetal elements were found. Those differences \ncould be related with anthropogenic impact, which is greater near to human population establishment (Cienfuegos City). The \ninformation providing by this study seems to be against the hypothesis that P. viridis represents an ecological damage in Cienfuegos \nBay at least for the current mussel densities, but it is not enough to reject that hypothesis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3354/meps07620

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Despite recent studies of potential impacts of lionfish to tropical reef communities in the Bahamas, impacts to warm-temperate hard bottom reefs of the Southeast US Atlantic Ocean remain unknown.

    “Despite recent studies of potential impacts of lionfish to tropical reef communities in the Bahamas (Albins & Hixon 2008, Morris & Akins 2009, Cote & Maljkoviç 2010), impacts to warm-temperate hard bottom reefs of the Southeast US Atlantic Ocean remain unknown.”
  • Lionfish are capable of reducing reef fish recruitment by 79% from experimental patch reefs.

    “Bahamian studies documented lionfish at 5 to 177 times higher densities than in their native range (Grubich et al. 2009), capable of reducing reef fish recruitment by 79% from experimental patch reefs, and preying mostly on fishes (78% by volume), including 41 species from 21 families (Albins & Hixon 2008, Green & Cote 2009, Morris & Akins 2009).”
  • The average prey/predator TL ratio was slightly higher off North Carolina (0.16-0.18 vs. 0.15 in the Bahamas), though the maximum prey/predator TL ratio was higher in the Bahamas (0.48 vs. 0.25-0.41 in North Carolina).

    “In addition, the average prey/predator TL ratio was slightly higher off North Carolina (0.16-0.18 vs. 0.15 in the Bahamas), though the maximum prey/predator TL ratio was higher in the Bahamas (0.48 vs. 0.25-0.41 in North Carolina) (Albins & Hixon 2008, Morris & Akins 2009).”
  • The overall pattern of generalist piscivory emerging from this study and others indicates the potential for significant impacts to the invaded community.

    “the overall pattern of generalist piscivory emerging from this study and others (Albins & Hixon 2008, Morris & Akins 2009, Cote & Maljkoviç 2010) indicates the potential for significant impacts to the invaded community”
  • Predation by large carnivores such as groupers and sharks may represent one of the best controls for invasive lionfish.

    “Predation by large carnivores such as groupers and sharks may represent one of the best controls for invasive lionfish”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albins, M., & Hixon, M.
Affiliations
Oregon State University (US)
Corresponding author
Albins, MA
Venue
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Published
2008-09-11
Volume
367
Pages
233-238
ISSN
  • 0171-8630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1616-1599
OpenAlex
W2136249423
Cited by
544
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 33
FWCI
17.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Marine Ecology Progress Series (publishedVersion)
  • AquaDocs (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine Ecology and Invasive Species
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine Biology and Ecology Research
Keywords
Perna viridis, invasive species, epifauna, barnacles, Bryozoa, ascidians, epibionts, seasonal variation, spatial variability, anthropogenic impacts, Cienfuegos Bay, coral reef fish, Pterois volitans

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