CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 176Marine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFish Ecology and Management StudiesPhysiological and biochemical adaptations

Thermal tolerance and potential distribution of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) on the east coast of the United States

Open access
Kimball, ME, Miller, JM, Whitfield, PE, Hare, JA·2004·Marine Ecology Progress Series
DOI 10.3354/meps283269
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 283:269-278 (2004) - doi:10.3354/meps283269 Thermal tolerance and potential distribution of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) on the east coast of the United States Matthew E. Kimball1,2,3, John M. Miller2, Paula E. Whitfield1, Jonathan A. Hare1,* 1Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, NOAA Beaufort Laboratory, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516, USA 2Department of Zoology, Campus Box 7617, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7617, USA 3Present address: Rutgers University Marine Field Station, 800 c/o 132 Great Bay Boulevard, Tuckerton, New Jersey 08087-2004, USA *Corresponding author. Email: jon.hare@noaa.gov ABSTRACT: The occurrence of lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles) complex on the southeast United States shelf represents one of the first documented invasions of a Pacific marine fish species into the western Atlantic Ocean. Temperature has been proposed as a possible factor limiting the range of this introduction. To examine this hypothesis, temperature-tolerance studies were conducted following the chronic lethal minimum protocol, with death as the endpoint. Overall, the mean chronic lethal minimum was 10.0°C and mean temperature at feeding cessation was 16.1°C. Rate of temperature decrease and acclimation temperature did not have a significant effect on chronic lethal minimum or temperature at feeding cessation. When combined with mean February water temperatures, lionfish thermal tolerance data indicated that lionfish could overwinter on the southeast United States continental shelf, with a northern limit of Cape Hatteras and an inshore limit coincident with the mean 12°C isotherm, which equates to a 10°C minimum water temperature. The mean 12°C bottom isotherm also runs along the continental shelf break (200 m isobath), marking the offshore limit for lionfish on the southeast United States continental shelf. The current southern limit of the invasion is not bound by temperature, as lionfish could survive (but have not yet been reported) on the Florida coast south of Miami, throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, extending into the southern hemisphere. Possible reasons for the constrained southern limit may include planktonic transport mechanisms, patterns of juvenile and adult movements, and the initial lionfish introduction site. KEY WORDS: Marine introduction · Biological invasion · Lionfish · Pterois volitans · Pterois miles · Invasive species · Species range limits · Temperature tolerance Full text in pdf format PreviousNextExport citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 283. Online publication date: November 30, 2004 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2004 Inter-Research.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Chronic lethal minimum experiments indicate invasive lionfish can tolerate winter temperatures on the southeast US continental shelf, with an overall mean CLmin of 10.0°C and feeding cessation at 16.1°C. Combining these limits with February water temperatures predicts overwintering from Cape Hatteras southward, bounded inshore by the 12°C isotherm and offshore near the shelf break, while the southern limit is not temperature-bound.

Key findings

  • Overall mean chronic lethal minimum was 10.0°C (SD = 0.9), and mean temperature at feeding cessation was 16.1°C.
  • Rate of temperature decline had no significant effect on CLmin: means were 10.0°C at -3°C d⁻¹, 10.6°C at -2°C d⁻¹, and 9.7°C at -1°C d⁻¹; feeding cessation means were 18.0°C, 17.0°C, and 15.3°C, respectively.
  • Acclimation temperature had no significant effect on CLmin: means were 9.3°C at 25°C, 9.2°C at 20°C, and 9.3°C at 15°C acclimation; feeding cessation occurred at 14.0°C, 15.4°C, and 15.0°C.
  • Predicted potential range extends south from Cape Hatteras onto the Gulf of Mexico shelf, with the inshore limit coincident with the mean 12°C isotherm (equating to a 10°C minimum) and the offshore limit near the 200 m isobath; the current southern limit is not bound by temperature, as lionfish could survive south of Miami, throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, and into the southern hemisphere but have not been reported there.

Methods

  • Chronic lethal minimum protocol with death as endpoint; juvenile lionfish averaged 8.0 cm standard length (SD = 1.3), held at 35 salinity and 25°C before trials.
  • Three experiments: Expt 1 tested -1°C d⁻¹ decline (n = 10); Expt 2 tested -3, -2, and -1°C d⁻¹ (n = 6, 6, 3); Expt 3 tested acclimation to 15°C (n = 6), 20°C (n = 6), and 25°C (n = 3) before -1°C d⁻¹ decline.
  • ANOVA tested effects of decline rate and acclimation temperature on CLmin and feeding cessation; distribution was predicted by comparing experimental limits with NOAA CoastWatch February sea surface temperature composites (382 images, 1995–2003) and bottom-temperature climatology.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the predicted range is based on laboratory-derived CLmin; field minimum tolerable temperatures may be higher because of long-term bioenergetic costs of prolonged sublethal cold exposure and feeding cessation above the CLmin.
  • The paper states that the range prediction uses a 50-year average of bottom water temperature and a 9-year median of sea surface temperature, so interannual variability and long-term ocean temperature changes will shift thermally suitable habitat.
  • The paper states that the offshore limit cannot resolve whether depth or temperature is limiting, because the 12°C bottom isotherm coincides with the 200 m shelf break; evident limitations include small sample sizes in some treatments, use of juvenile fish only, and experiments conducted independent of species designation because of uncertainty over *Pterois volitans/miles* status.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3354/meps283269

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

6 of 46 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Since the year 2000, adult and juvenile lionfish have been observed on the mid- and outer-continental shelf (20 to 80 m) off the southeast United States.

    “Since the year 2000, adult and juvenile lionfish have been observed on the mid-and outer-continental shelf (20 to 80 m) off the southeast United States (Whitfield et al. 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Whitfield et al. 2002 source

      The observations in Table 1 (p. 291) document adult lionfish off North Carolina and Georgia from 2000 onward, at depths of 38–43 m. They do not document juveniles on the southeastern shelf or observations across the claimed 20–80 m range: the listed juveniles were collected off Long Island at 1 m depth. (LLM, conf=0.91)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    The introduction of lionfish resulted from aquarium releases.

    “All available evidence indicates that the introduction of lionfish resulted from aquarium releases (Courtenay 1995, Whitfield et al. 2002, Hare & Whitfield 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Courtenay 1995

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

    • cites Whitfield et al. 2002 source

      The Abstract identifies aquarium releases as the most likely pathway, and the Method of introduction section gives reasons for that assessment. But the Abstract says ballast-water introduction cannot be ruled out, so the source does not establish that aquarium releases were the cause. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Hare & Whitfield 2003
  • Findingown data

    The mean CLmin value for the -1°C d-1 treatment was 9.7°C (SD = 0.6, n = 3).

    “The mean CLmin.values for the -3, -2 and -1°C d -1 treatments were 10.0°C (SD = 0, n = 6), 10.6°C (SD = 0.9, n = 5), and 9.7°C (SD = 0.6, n = 3) (Fig. 4C).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The bottom-temperature climatology showed the 12°C isotherm coinciding with the 200 m isobath.

    “the bottom-temperature climatology showed the 12°C isotherm coinciding with the 200 m isobath (Fig. 5)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The mean CLmin value in Expt 1 was 10.7°C (SD = 0.5, n = 10).

    “The mean CLmin.value was 10.7°C, with very little variation (SD = 0.5, n = 10; Fig. 4A).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • May combine two claims. 22

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The incongruence between the inshore distribution of lionfish in their native range and their primarily offshore distribution in their introduced range could be a result of temperature-limited distribution during winter.

    “Further, the incongruence between the inshore distribution of lionfish in their native range and their primarily offshore distribution in their introduced range could be a result of temperature-limited distribution during winter (Whitfield et al. 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Whitfield et al. 2002 source

      The Fig. 4 caption (listed under Future work; page not provided) identifies the February 16°C isotherm as a likely inshore limit for lionfish habitat on the southeastern U.S. shelf, supporting the proposed winter-temperature explanation. The paper also describes offshore observations, but the passages do not establish a generally inshore distribution in the native range or explicitly make the claimed native-versus-introduced comparison. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation

    Generally, as acclimation temperature increases, low temperature tolerance limits also increase.

    “Generally, as acclimation temperature increases low temperature tolerance limits also increase (Ward et al. 1993, Currie et al. 1998, Beitinger & Bennett 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ward et al. 1993 source
    • cites Currie et al. 1998 source
    • cites Beitinger & Bennett 2000

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The spread of lionfish along the entire southeast United States continental shelf occurred quickly; the area of thermally appropriate habitat was occupied within the scale of 1 to 10 yr.

    “Although limited in a zoogeographic sense, the spread of lionfish along the entire southeast United States continental shelf occurred quickly; the area of thermally appropriate habitat was occupied within the scale of 1 to 10 yr (Whitfield et al. 2002, Hare & Whitfield 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Whitfield et al. 2002 source

      The observations table and Potential survival section report adult lionfish off North Carolina in 2000–2001, Georgia in 2001, and Florida in 2002; the paper concludes that lionfish were likely established along the southeastern shelf. But its Future work section calls for determining the introduction’s spatial extent and refining the map of potential habitat. It does not establish that the entire thermally appropriate area was occupied, or give a 1-to-10-year timescale for that occupation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Hare & Whitfield 2003

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Along the southeast United States continental shelf, the majority of lionfish have been observed between 35 and 45 m, with a maximum observed depth of 80 m.

    “Along the southeast United States continental shelf, the majority of lionfish have been observed between 35 and 45 m, with a maximum observed depth of 80 m (Whitfield et al. 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Whitfield et al. 2002 source

      Table 1 (p. 291) places the documented lionfish observations off North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida at 38–43 m, supporting the 35–45 m portion of the claim. It does not report an observation at 80 m; the Future work section instead recommends searching southeastern-shelf reefs and wrecks between 30 and 50 m. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Regression intercepts were 3.70 and 6.68°C for the outer shelf locations, indicating that surface waters were warmer than bottom waters.

    “Regression intercepts were 3.70 and 6.68°C for the outer shelf locations, indicating that surface waters were warmer than bottom waters; this thermal stratification on the outer shelf probably results from the Gulf Stream water intruding onto the shelf at the surface (Atkinson 1985).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fish acclimated to 20°C displayed 'normal' behavior, but reduced feeding was observed when fish were offered food.

    “'Normal' behavior was seen in fish acclimated to 20°C, but reduced feeding was observed when fish were offered food.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Lionfish acclimated to 15°C were predominantly stationary throughout the entire holding period and fed infrequently, often abandoning efforts to catch food after a single attempt.

    “Lionfish acclimated to 15°C were predominantly stationary throughout the entire holding period and fed infrequently, often abandoning efforts to catch food after a single attempt.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fish acclimated to 25°C displayed 'normal' behavior and fed regularly when food was offered.

    “Fish acclimated to 25°C displayed 'normal' behavior (as described in Expt 1) and fed regularly when food was offered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Meristic analyses of some lionfish originating from Sumatra identified some individuals as P. miles.

    “All lionfish were initially labeled by the vendor as Pterois volitans, but meristic analyses of some lionfish originating from Sumatra (origin characterized and labeled by the vendor) identified some individuals as P. miles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Several fish in the 15°C acclimation group showed interest and attempted to feed, but quickly abandoned any offered food after an initial unsuccessful attempt.

    “Several fish in the 15°C acclimation group showed interest and attempted to feed, but quickly abandoned any offered food after an initial unsuccessful attempt.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Out of 6 fish, 5 fed in the 20°C acclimation group, while only 1 fish acclimated to 15°C fed during the experimental trial.

    “Out of 6 fish, 5 fed in the 20°C acclimation group, while only 1 fish acclimated to 15°C, fed during the experimental trial.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Feeding cessation occurred at 14.0°C (SD = 0, n = 3), 15.4°C (SD = 1.5, n = 5) and 15.0°C (SD = 0, n = 1) for fish held at acclimation temperatures of 25, 20 and 15°C, respectively.

    “Feeding cessation occurred at 14.0°C (SD = 0, n = 3), 15.4°C (SD = 1.5, n = 5) and 15.0°C (SD = 0, n = 1) for fish held at acclimation temperatures of 25, 20 and 15°C (Fig. 4F).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    All fish at each acclimation temperature fed during the holding period.

    “All fish at each acclimation temperature fed during the holding period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At temperatures of 13°C and below, lionfish were unresponsive to visual stimuli (but still responded to touch), displayed darker coloration, and became stationary and lethargic.

    “At temperatures of 13°C and below, fish were unresponsive to visual stimuli (but still responded to touch), displayed darker coloration, and became stationary and lethargic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Mean (± SE) chronic lethal minimum and average temperature at feeding cessation observed for Expts 1 (A,B), 2 (C,D), and 3 (E,F).

    “Pterois volitans/miles complex.Mean (± SE) chronic lethal minimum and average temperature at feeding cessation observed for Expts 1 (A,B), 2 (C,D), and 3 (E,F)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Satellite-derived sea surface temperature (SST) and bottom temperature (BT) at 3 North Carolina wreck sites: Naeco (r = 0.671), Papoose (r = 0.796), and Suloid (r = 0.973).

    “Satellite-derived sea surface temperature (SST) and bottom temperature (BT) at 3 North Carolina wreck sites: Naeco (r = 0.671), Papoose (r = 0.796), and Suloid (r = 0.973).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    Lionfish have been observed at all sites except the Suloid.

    “Lionfish have been observed at all sites except the Suloid.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Lionfish are typically found from shore (0 m) to approximately 50 m.

    “They are typically found from shore (0 m) to approximately 50 m (Schultz 1986).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schultz 1986 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The majority of temperature-tolerance data have been generated for temperate fish species.

    “the majority of temperature-tolerance data have been generated for temperate fish species (Brett 1956, Elliot 1981, Beitinger et al. 2000), with scant information for tropical fishes (but see Bennett et al. 1997 andMora &Ospina 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brett 1956 source
    • cites Elliot 1981

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

    • cites Beitinger et al. 2000

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    There is scant information on temperature tolerance for tropical fishes.

    “the majority of temperature-tolerance data have been generated for temperate fish species (Brett 1956, Elliot 1981, Beitinger et al. 2000), with scant information for tropical fishes (but see Bennett et al. 1997 andMora &Ospina 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bennett et al. 1997 source
    • cites Mora &Ospina 2002 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Cold temperatures are not an obvious threat to fish survival in tropical waters.

    “The fact that cold temperatures are not an obvious threat to fish survival in tropical waters (Bennett & Judd 1992), coupled with historically conservative estimates of the general thermal limits of tropical fish faunas (e.g.20°C limit, Briggs 1974), may have limited interest in examining thermal tolerances in tropical fishes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bennett & Judd 1992

      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). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) are native to tropical coral reefs and range from the southern Indian Ocean, east to Sumatra and throughout the Indo-West Pacific from southern Japan to central Australia.

    “Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex 1 ) are native to tropical coral reefs and range from the southern Indian Ocean, east to Sumatra and throughout the Indo-West Pacific from southern Japan to central Australia (Schultz 1986).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schultz 1986 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Lionfish could survive (but have not yet been reported) on the Florida coast south of Miami.

    “The current southern limit of the invasion is not bound by temperature, as lionfish could survive (but have not yet been reported) on the Florida coast south of Miami, throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, extending into the southern hemisphere.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The faunal separation at Cape Hatteras can be attributed to the effects of temperature, acting as both a limiting factor determining species distribution and a directive factor guiding species movement.

    “This faunal separation can be attributed to the effects of temperature, acting as both a limiting factor determining species distribution, and a directive factor guiding species movement (Fry 1971; see also Cossins & Bowler 1987 for coverage of thermal regulation of species distribution).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fry 1971 source
    • cites Cossins & Bowler 1987 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The abrupt difference in inshore water temperature south and north of Cape Hatteras, along with the majority of lionfish observations located south of Cape Hatteras, suggests that temperature is an important factor limiting distribution.

    “The abrupt difference in inshore water temperature south and north of Cape Hatteras (Stegmann & Yoder 1996), along with the majority of lionfish observations located south of Cape Hatteras, suggests that temperature is an important factor limiting distribution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stegmann & Yoder 1996 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The mean 12°C bottom isotherm runs along the continental shelf break (200 m isobath), marking the offshore limit for lionfish on the southeast United States continental shelf.

    “The mean 12°C bottom isotherm also runs along the continental shelf break (200 m isobath), marking the offshore limit for lionfish on the southeast United States continental shelf.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Rate of temperature decline also had no effect on low temperature tolerance of American shad Alosa sapidissima (-0.5 to -1.9°C d-1).

    “Rate of temperature decline also had no effect on low temperature tolerance of American shad Alosa sapidissima (-0.5 to -1.9°C d -1 ; Chittenden 1972).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chittenden 1972 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Lionfish were held at acclimation temperatures for at least 20 d (some for more than 40 d) prior to experimental trials.

    “Lionfish were held at acclimation temperatures for at least 20 d (some for more than 40 d) prior to 1) in February 2002.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Other temperature tolerance studies have found no influence of acclimation history on the lower thermal limit.

    “Other temperature tolerance studies have found no influence of acclimation history on the lower thermal limit (e.g.Young & Cech 1996)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Young & Cech 1996 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Juvenile lionfish have been observed on the northeast United States continental shelf during summer, but fish in these locations could not survive winter temperatures based on the CLmin values reported here.

    “Juvenile lionfish have been observed on the northeast United States continental shelf during summer, but fish in these locations could not survive winter temperatures based on the CLmin.values reported here.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The laboratory-derived chronic lethal minimum is a valid proxy for the minimum tolerable temperature of lionfish in the field.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The offshore limit of the lionfish invasion may be linked to temperature tolerance, depth, or a combination of both factors.

    “The offshore limit of the lionfish invasion may be linked to temperature tolerance, depth, or a combination of both factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The inshore portions of the southeast shelf are too cold for overwinter survival, but the offshore portions of the shelf remain warm.

    “The inshore portions of the southeast shelf are too cold for overwinter survival, but the offshore portions of the shelf remain warm.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The laboratory-derived chronic lethal minimum is a valid proxy for the minimum tolerable temperature of lionfish in the field.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    This winter-time cross-shelf gradient is caused by heating of shelf waters at their offshore edge by the Gulf Stream and heat-loss across the entire shelf owing to air-sea interactions.

    “This winter-time crossshelf gradient is caused by heating of shelf waters at their offshore edge by the Gulf Stream (Barnard et al. 1997) and heat-loss across the entire shelf owing to air-sea interactions (Atkinson 1985).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Barnard et al. 1997 source
    • cites Atkinson 1985 source

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

    Premisecitation

    McBride & Able (1998) reported a similar fate for spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus in New Jersey estuaries during winter, where juveniles were found to stop eating at 12°C and perish at temperatures below 10°C.

    “McBride & Able (1998) reported a similar fate for spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus in New Jersey estuaries during winter, where juveniles were found to stop eating at 12°C and perish at temperatures below 10°C.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McBride & Able (1998)

      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).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Depth could be limiting for lionfish on the Charleston Bump.

    “but again depth could be limiting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Brett (1956) reported that gain in resistance to low temperatures (i.e. acclimation) is a slow process, with some species requiring up to 20 d to fully acclimate.

    “Brett (1956) reported that gain in resistance to low temperatures (i.e.acclimation) is a slow process, with some species requiring up to 20 d to fully acclimate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brett (1956) source

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

    Premisecitation

    A review of previous studies concluded that lethal thermal limits were strongly affected by thermal history immediately prior to experimentation.

    “A review of previous studies by Beitinger et al. (2000) concluded that lethal thermal limits were strongly affected by thermal history immediately prior to experimentation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beitinger et al. (2000)

      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

    Lionfish temperature tolerance may be affected by faster rates of temperature decline, such as those observed in estuaries during fall and winter.

    “However, lionfish temperature tolerance may be affected by faster rates of temperature decline, such as those observed in estuaries during fall and winter.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In the field, minimum tolerable temperatures may be higher owing to long-term bioenergetic costs of prolonged exposure to low sublethal temperatures, and the effects of feeding cessation at temperatures higher than the chronic lethal minimum.

    “In the field, minimum tolerable temperatures may be higher owing to long-term bioenergetic costs of prolonged exposure to low sublethal temperatures, and the effects of feeding cessation at temperatures higher than the chronic lethal minimum (e.g.Hurst & Conover 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hurst & Conover 2002 source
    • Rests on an assumption: The laboratory-derived chronic lethal minimum is a valid proxy for the minimum tolerable temperature of lionfish in the field.

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

    Premisecitation

    Acclimation temperature is thought to be an important factor influencing thermal tolerance in fishes.

    “Acclimation temperature is also thought to be an important factor influencing thermal tolerance in fishes (Lutterschmidt & Hutchison 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lutterschmidt & Hutchison 1997 source
40 of 40

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mean 12°C February isotherm corresponds to a 10°C minimum water temperature.

    “When combined with mean February water temperatures, lionfish thermal tolerance data indicated that lionfish could overwinter on the southeast United States continental shelf, with a northern limit of Cape Hatteras and an inshore limit coincident with the mean 12°C isotherm, which equates to a 10°C minimum water temperature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Laboratory chronic lethal minimum measured in juvenile lionfish predicts overwintering survival of wild lionfish populations.

    “When combined with mean February water temperatures, lionfish thermal tolerance data indicated that lionfish could overwinter on the southeast United States continental shelf, with a northern limit of Cape Hatteras and an inshore limit coincident with the mean 12°C isotherm, which equates to a 10°C minimum water temperature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Juvenile lionfish purchased from a commercial vendor are representative of the invasive lionfish population on the southeast United States shelf.

    “Juvenile lionfish were purchased from a commercial vendor (Marine Center, Dallas, Texas) for all 3 experiments.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The laboratory-derived chronic lethal minimum is a valid proxy for the minimum tolerable temperature of lionfish in the field.

    “The potential range distribution reported here (Fig. 5) is based on the chronic lethal minimum of lionfish determined in the laboratory.”
    “In the field, minimum tolerable temperatures may be higher owing to long-term bioenergetic costs of prolonged exposure to low sublethal temperatures, and the effects of feeding cessation at temperatures higher than the chronic lethal minimum (e.g.Hurst & Conover 2002).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 50 yr average bottom water temperature and 9 yr median sea surface temperature are representative of the thermal environment for lionfish.

    “the range distribution predicted here was based on a 50 yr average of bottom water temperature and a 9 yr median of sea surface temperature.”
5 of 5

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Feeding-cessation estimates are counted as ten instead of nine

    Minor

    The reported feeding-cessation sample sizes for the three acclimation groups are 3, 5 and 1, totaling 9 estimates, not 10.

    Reported 10 · recomputed 9

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kimball, M., Miller, J., Whitfield, P., & Hare, J.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Hare, JA
ORCID
Miller, JM
Venue
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Publisher
Inter-Research Science Center
Published
2004
Volume
283
Pages
269-278
ISSN
  • 0171-8630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1616-1599
DOI
10.3354/meps283269
OpenAlex
W2014953618
Cited by
176
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Marine Ecology Progress Series (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • North Carolina State University
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • National Marine Fisheries Service
  • National Ocean 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 › Ecology › Physiological and biochemical adaptations
Keywords
invasive species, lionfish, heat tolerance, range expansion, overwintering, species distribution, continental shelf, eastern United States, thermal acclimation, range limits, feeding cessation

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