Journal of Fish Biology - 2018 - C T - The Lionfish Pterois SP Invasion Has The Worst Case Scenario Come To Pass

Journal of Fish Biology (2018) 92, 660–689
doi:10.1111/jfb.13544, available online at wileyonlinelibrary.com
The lionfish Pterois sp. invasion: Has the worst-case scenario

come to pass?
I. M. Côté* and N. S. Smith

Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, British Columbia V5A S6, Canada
This review revisits the traits thought to have contributed to the success of Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois
sp. as an invader in the western Atlantic Ocean and the worst-case scenario about their potential
ecological effects in light of the more than 150 studies conducted in the past 5 years. Fast somatic
growth, resistance to parasites, effective anti-predator defences and an ability to circumvent predator
recognition mechanisms by prey have probably contributed to rapid population increases of lionfish
in the invaded range. However, evidence that lionfish are strong competitors is still ambiguous, in part
because demonstrating competition is challenging. Geographic spread has likely been facilitated by the
remarkable capacity of lionfish for prolonged fasting in combination with other broad physiological
tolerances. Lionfish have had a large detrimental effect on native reef-fish populations in the north-
ern part of the invaded range, but similar effects have yet to be seen in the southern Caribbean. Most
other envisaged direct and indirect consequences of lionfish predation and competition, even those that
might have been expected to occur rapidly, such as shifts in benthic composition, have yet to be real-
ized. Lionfish populations in some of the first areas invaded have started to decline, perhaps as a result
of resource depletion or ongoing fishing and culling, so there is hope that these areas have already
experienced the worst of the invasion. In closing, we place lionfish in a broader context and argue that
it can serve as a new model to test some fundamental questions in invasion ecology.
© 2018 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles
Key words: biotic invasion; biotic resistance; coral reefs; environmental management; invasive species
control; Scorpaenidae.
INTRODUCTION
The invasion of the western Atlantic Ocean by Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois sp. is
undoubtedly the best documented marine invasion to date. Predatory lionfish were first
reported off the coast of Florida, U.S.A., in 1985 (Schofield, 2009), their introduction
most likely the result of aquarium releases (Whitfield et al., 2002; Semmens et al.,
2004). By 2000, lionfish were a common sight off the coast of North Carolina, U.S.A.,
(Whitfield et al., 2002), where their abundance soon rivalled that of the commonest
native grouper species, Mycteroperca phenax Jordan & Swain 1884 (Whitfield et al.,
2007). In 2004, lionfish reached Bahamian coral reefs (Schofield, 2009) and by 2010,
they had become established around every island and along most of the Central and
South American coasts of the Caribbean Sea, as well as in the eastern portion of the
Gulf of Mexico (Schofield, 2010). In 2014, the first lionfish was recorded south of the
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel. +1-778-782-3705; email: imcote@sfu.ca
660
© 2018 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles
10958649, 2018, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfb.13544 by IFRN - Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Wiley Online Library on [26/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
R E- E VA L U AT I N G T H E L I O N F I S H I N VA S I O N 661
Amazon–Orinoco Plume, on the south-eastern coast of Brazil, which is genetically

likely to be of Caribbean origin (and hence an expansion event) (Ferreira et al., 2015).
Lionfish now occur in nearly every habitat (temperate hard-bottom reefs, coral reefs,
mangroves, seagrass beds, estuaries, human-made structures) to depths of more than
300 m (Côté et al., 2013a). The challenges they present to both native fauna and
managers are formidable.
The lionfish invasion has spawned an explosion of scientific research. Prior to 2000
and their swift population increase off the coast of North Carolina, fewer than 20 papers
had been published on Pterois volitans (L. 1758) and Pterois miles (Bennett 1828), all
but two of which dealt with physiological and medical aspects of their venom (found in
glands at the base of their dorsal and ventral fin rays) (Fig. 1). Knowledge accumulation
about lionfish since then has been almost exponential, with nearly half of all papers
published since 2015 (and 83% since 2010) (Fig. 1). Many studies, especially early on,
focused on documenting their distribution and abundance, effect on native species and
potential for population control in the invaded range, while later studies have tackled a
broader range of related issues, such as indirect ecological repercussions and economic
effects.
Lionfish have generated severe apprehensions among the public, decision-makers
and scientists alike. Albins & Hixon (2013) clearly articulated these concerns by envi-
sioning a worst-case scenario of the lionfish invasion, based on ecological theory and
a sound understanding of coral-reef systems. They and others (Morris & Whitfield,
2009; Côté et al., 2013a) also outlined behavioural, life-history and ecological traits of
lionfish that were likely to have contributed to their successful establishment and rapid
spread (Table I). The goal of this paper is to revisit the contentions about life-history
and the scenario set out by Albins & Hixon (2013) in light of the vastly larger body
of relevant knowledge available since this paper was written (i.e. in 2010; M. Hixon,
pers. comm.). In doing so, whether the worst-case scenario set out in Albins & Hixon’s
(2013) seminal paper has come to pass or whether it is likely to do so in the near future
can be evaluated.
WHY HAVE LIONFISH BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL AS AN INVADER?

Invasiveness in fishes has been linked to a number of behavioural and life-history
characteristics (García-Berthou, 2007). Lionfish appear to possess many of these traits,
some of which have likely contributed to their high rate of population increase after
establishment and others to their swift geographic spread. In this section, new knowl-
edge about some of the traits that might have made lionfish a consummate invader is
reviewed.
N E W K N O W L E D G E A B O U T C O R R E L AT E S O F P O P U L AT I O N
INCREASE
The last few years have seen a rapid rise in the number of studies documenting
aspects of lionfish life-history that have a bearing on their capacity for rapid popu-
lation increase. The early contention that lionfish show high individual growth rates
(Albins & Hixon, 2013) is now well supported (Table II). Lionfish can grow up to
2·5 mm (total length, LT ) per day, depending on their initial length and geographic
© 2018 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journal of Fish Biology 2018, 92, 660–689
662
(a) (b)
40
35
30
25
20
15
Number of publications
10
1995 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year Year
Ecology, genetic or physiology Social science Venon & ciguatera Indo Pacific Mediterranean Sea Western Atlantic Ocean
I . M . CÔ TÉ A N D N . S . S M I T H
Fig. 1. Annual numbers of peer-reviewed publications on lionfish Pterois sp. by (a) research topic and (b) geographic region, based on a search of ISI Web of Science database
1900 to 7 October 2017, using the terms ‘Pterois and (volitans OR miles)’. Studies on lionfish venom and ciguatera were excluded from the regional numbers.
Table I. List of life-history and ecological traits of lionfish Pterois sp. and of fish in recipient
communities that might have contributed to the successful establishment and rapid spread of
invasive lionfish in the northwest Atlantic, according to three reviews of this invasion.
Morris & Albins & Côté et al.

Traits Whitfield (2009) Hixon (2013) (2013a)
Establishment/population increase
√
Early maturation –
√ –
√ √
High individual growth rates √
High population growth rates –
√ √ –
√
Predatory habit √ √ √
Generalist diet √ √
Native prey naïveté – √
Masquerade mimicry – √ –
√
Effective competitor – √ √
Lack of predators – √ √
Resistant to ectoparasites –
√
Long lifespan √ – –
Large body size – –
Geographic spread
√
Long-range larval dispersal –
√ –
√ √
High reproductive rates √ √
Generalized habitat use –
√ √
High physical tolerance –
location (Table II). They grow faster than ecologically similar native predatory fishes
under the same conditions (Albins, 2013). The growth parameter K, which describes
how quickly a fish reaches the theoretical asymptotic length where growth essentially
stops (i.e. L∞ ), is variable for lionfish (0·32–1·48 in the invaded range; Table II), but
much higher than matching estimates for ecologically similar Atlantic mesopredators.
For species of Caribbean groupers (Cephalopholis spp., Epinephelus spp. and Myc-
teroperca spp.) and snappers (Lutjanus spp.), for example, K usually ranges from 0·1
to 0·2 (reviewed in Côté et al., 2013a; Edwards et al., 2014). Fast growth rates, espe-
cially for females (Edwards et al., 2014), translate into early ages at maturity (<1 year;
Morris, 2009) and scope for rapid rates of population increase.
A large part of the success of lionfish as an invasive predator is thought to be its broad
diet (Morris & Whitfield, 2009; Albins & Hixon, 2013; Côté et al., 2013a). Invading
species that are ecological generalists, in terms of either food or habitat, are often more
successful at establishing new populations because they are better equipped to deal
with environmental stochasticity in the recipient region (García-Berthou, 2007). The
large number of prey species consumed by lionfish led to the early conclusion that
they were generalists (Morris & Akins, 2009). The number of lionfish diet studies and
lists of known prey has grown considerably over the past few years (Table III), with
taxonomic resolution of diet being greatly enhanced by the use of DNA barcoding
(Valdez-Moreno et al., 2012; Côté et al., 2013b; Harms-Tuohy et al., 2016). Lionfish
664
Table II. Mean daily growth rates of lionfish Pterois sp. from locations across the invaded Atlantic Ocean range
Daily growth (mm day−1 )

LS LT
Source Mean Range Mean Range K Method Location
Native range
Pusack et al., 2016 – – – – 1·62 Tagging Philippines–Guam
Invaded range
Potts et al., 2010 – – – – 0·32 Otoliths North Carolina
Barbour et al., – – – – 0·47 Otoliths North Carolina
2011
Jud & Layman, 0·46 0·18–0·78 – – – Tagging Florida (estuary)
2012
Johnson & – – – – 0·47 Length-based + otoliths Florida
Swenarton,
2016
Albins, 2013 – – 0·8 – – Visual Bahamas
Benkwitt, 2013 – – – 0·85–1·10 – Tagging Bahamas
Akins et al., 2014 0·4 0.1–0·6 – – – Tagging Bahamas

Pusack et al., 2016 – – – 0·8–1·0 1·48 Tagging Bahamas–Caymans
Fogg et al., 2015 – – – – 0·56 Otoliths Northern Gulf of Mexico
Rodriguéz-Cortés et al., 2015 – – – – 0·88 Length-based Mexico
Edwards et al., 1·13 0·80–1·86 1·55 1·10–2·55 0·42 Otoliths Little Cayman
2014
LS , Standard length; LT , total length; K, the von Bertalanffy curvature parameter; Visual refers to recognition of individual lionfish without recourse to tagging (e.g. when
single fish were kept on patch reefs).
do consume a broad diversity of prey species (Table III). A generalist diet at the popu-
lation level, however, sometimes belies individual specialization (Layman & Allgeier,
2012) as well as ontogenetic shifts from invertivory to piscivory (Morris & Akins,
2009; Dahl & Patterson III, 2014; Arredondo-Chávez et al., 2016; Dahl et al., 2017).
Moreover, a generalist habit does not preclude specific preferences. Lionfish consume
some fish species and families more than expected based on their relative abundance
(Green & Côté, 2014; Chappell & Smith, 2016). Over-consumed prey species tend
to have specific characteristics: small, shallow-bodied, solitary fishes that live on or
just above reefs, that do not remove ectoparasites and that are nocturnally active are at
greatest risk of lionfish predation (Green & Côté, 2014). Although our general under-
standing of prey selection by lionfish is now deeper, some distinct prey preferences
remain puzzling, such as the propensity to attack fairy basslet Gramma loreto Poey
1868 when the ecologically and morphologically similar congener blackcap basslet
Gramma melacara Böhlke & Randall 1963 is also available (Kindinger & Anderson,
2016), which suggests that additional prey characteristics enhance vulnerability to lion-
fish predation.
Lionfish have been described as effective competitors (Albins & Hixon, 2013), but
evidence for this contention is still ambiguous. This is at least in part because com-
petition is so difficult to demonstrate convincingly. Nevertheless, to our knowledge,
there is no indication of territoriality by lionfish or overt interference competition with
native fish in the introduced range. Instead, by virtue of their high predation rates
(Côté & Maljković, 2010; Green et al., 2011; Albins, 2013) and extensive overlap
of prey use with native predatory fishes (Layman & Allgeier, 2012; O’Farrell et al.,
2014; Curtis et al., 2017), lionfish have the potential to deplete resources shared by
native mesopredators and perhaps exercise more subtle interference competition via
fear effects. But do they? A negative relationship between the density or biomass of
lionfish and potential native competitors would be expected under strong competition
(Hardin, 1960; Bøhn et al., 2008), but such a relationship has so far been largely elu-
sive (Hackerott et al., 2013; Anton et al., 2014; Valdivia et al., 2014; Bejarano et al.,
2015; Curtis et al., 2017; but see Mumby et al., 2011). Such a purely demographic mea-
sure would, of course, overlook shifts in microhabitat or in diet that could result from
exploitation competition. Either or both shifts are suggested by the narrower isotopic
niche of graysby grouper Cephalopholis cruentata (Lacépède 1802) and the smaller
overlap with the lionfish niche at sites with abundant lionfish compared with sites with
lower lionfish biomass in Florida; the isotopic niche of lionfish, in contrast, does not
change with their abundance (Curtis et al., 2017). To date, however, no physiologi-
cal costs in terms of reduced growth rates (Albins, 2013) or body condition (Curtis
et al., 2017) of native predators have been detected to confirm that competition is
actually occurring. This conclusion could change in more resource-limited habitats.
Competition for other resources, such as shelter, could also occur and at least in meso-
cosms, Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus (Bloch 1792) change their shelter use in
the presence of lionfish, while shelter use by lionfish remains constant (Raymond et al.,
2015).
The apparent invulnerability of lionfish to predation is another factor that might
have contributed to their invasion success (Albins & Hixon, 2013). Indeed, it seems
that few predators in any ocean basin should be equipped to contend with the physical
(e.g. venomous dorsal, anal and pelvic spines; Vetrano et al., 2002) and behavioural
defences (e.g. head-down pose with dorsal spines directed towards a perceived threat;
Table III. Diet of lionfish Pterois sp. across the invaded Atlantic range
666
Number of prey species

Source Location Habitats Method n Fish Invertebrates
Muñoz et al., 2011 North Carolina Hard bottoms, algal sand Visual 183 13 –
plains, wrecks
Albins & Hixon, 2008 Bahamas Natural and experimental Visual 52 9 –
coral reefs
Morris & Akins, 2009 Bahamas Coral reefs, artificial reefs, Visual 1069 41 2
mangroves, canals
Layman & Allgeier, 2012 Bahamas Seagrass, hard-bottom, Visual 99 8 4
rocky reefs, coral reefs
Côté & Maljković, 2010 Bahamas Coral reefs In situ 96 4 N/A
Green et al., 2011 Bahamas Coral reefs In situ 92 12 N/A
Cure et al., 2012 Bahamas– Caymans Coral reefs In situ 763 10 N/A
Côté et al., 2013b Bahamas Coral reefs Visual+ barcoding 130 37 N/A
Pimiento et al., 2013 Bahamas Coral reefs, mangroves Barcoding 14 4 3
Eddy et al., 2016 Bermuda Coral reefs Visual 1352 44 19
Rojas et al., 2016 Cuba Coral reefs Visual 344 28 2
Harms-Tuohy et al., 2016 Puerto Rico Coral reefs Metabarcoding 63 39 N/A
Dahl & Patterson III, 2014 Northern Gulf of Mexico Natural & artificial reefs Visual 770 18 12
Dahl et al., 2017 Northern Gulf of Mexico Natural & artificial reefs Visual + barcoding 770 41 N/A
Valdez-Moreno et al. 2012 Mexico Coral reefs Visual + barcoding 144 34 1
Arredondo-Chávez et al., Mexico Coral reefs, seagrass Visual 962 48 29
2016 meadows, gorgonian
fields, hard pavement
Rocha et al., 2015 Belize Coral reefs Visual + barcoding 44 15 N/A
Sandel et al., 2015 Costa Rica Coral reefs Visual 298 11 1
The number of lionfish examined (n) includes only stomachs containing prey. Numbers of prey species refer only to prey identified to species. Visual method refers to
identification of prey in stomachs of lionfish; in situ method refers to direct observations of lionfish successfully hunting prey.
Whitfield et al., 2007; Green et al., 2011) of lionfish. Yet, they do sometimes get eaten.
There were early anecdotal reports that Atlantic predators [E. striatus, tiger grouper
Mycteroperca tigris (Valenciennes 1833)] occasionally consume small lionfish in the
wild (Maljković et al., 2008) and a single report of predation by Pacific cornetfish
Fistularia commersonii Rüpell 1838 in the native range (Bernadsky & Goulet, 1991).
There are now more observations of predation on lionfish. Yellow-edged moray Gym-
nothorax flavimarginatus (Rüppel 1830) and giant moray Gymnothorax javanicus
(Bleeker 1859) in the native range were observed preying on lionfish (Bos et al.,
2017), as were green moray Gymnothorax funebris Ranzani 1839 and spotted moray
Gymnothorax moringa (Cuvier 1829) in the invaded range (Barbour et al., 2011; Jud
et al., 2011; Pimiento et al., 2013; Muñoz, 2017). Moreover, native predators (e.g.
nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum (Bonnaterre 1788), E. striatus) will consume
small, tethered lionfish (Diller et al., 2014) and lionfish are sometimes cannibalistic
in the invaded range (Valdez-Moreno et al., 2012; Côté et al., 2013b; Dahl et al.,
2017). It seems, however, that these events are highly infrequent. For example, no
lionfish was found in the stomach contents of a large sample of multiple species of
Atlantic groupers (henceforth including Cephalopholis spp., Epinephelus spp. and
Mycteroperca spp.) (N. S. Smith & I. M. Côté, unpubl. data). Cannibalism, as revealed
by DNA barcoding, is also quite rare (c. 4–11% of stomachs; Valdez-Moreno et al.,
2012; Côté et al., 2013b; Dahl et al., 2017). Meanwhile, a vigorous debate about
whether healthy populations of large-bodied Atlantic groupers can control lionfish
populations through direct predation or fear effects continues, with most studies
reporting no relationship between lionfish and grouper biomass (Hackerott et al.,
2013; Anton et al., 2014, Valdivia et al., 2014, Bejarano et al., 2015; Curtis et al.,
2017; but see Mumby et al., 2011). In Florida, the presence of large red groupers
Epinephelus morio (Valenciennes 1828) mitigates the negative effect of lionfish on
reef-fish recruitment and induces a shift in lionfish diet from mostly fish, when they
are on their own, to mostly invertebrates (Ellis & Faletti, 2016). In this case, however,
the effect is triggered by grouper territorial aggression rather than fear of predation.
The bottom line is that lionfish are not invulnerable to predation, especially when
small, but their natural mortality rate is likely to be lower than that of ecologically
equivalent, but less well-defended species.
Resistance to parasites might also contribute to the performance of invasive lionfish
(Albins & Hixon, 2013). In the invaded range, lionfish have acquired a variety of
generalist macroparasites that commonly infect Atlantic fishes (Bullard et al., 2011;
Sikkel et al., 2014; Ramos-Ascherl et al., 2015; Sellers et al., 2015; Fogg et al., 2016;
Tuttle et al., 2017; Supporting Information Table S1). Although the susceptibility of
introduced species to parasites in the recipient environment can change as the invasion
progresses (Llewellyn et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2015), current evidence suggests that
lionfish have fewer and less diverse macroparasites than many native Atlantic fishes
inhabiting the same environment (Sikkel et al., 2014; Loerch et al., 2015; Sellers
et al., 2015; Tuttle et al., 2017). Interestingly and perhaps related, bacteria in lionfish
mucus exhibit anti-bacterial activity, which might confer disease resistance (Stevens
et al., 2016). A key question is whether reduced parasite loads translate to a fitness
advantage for lionfish, such as growing faster than native groupers that exploit the
same resources (Albins, 2013). The only pertinent evidence so far is that native C.
cruentata lose body condition with increasing parasite abundance, but lionfish do
not (Sellers et al., 2015). It is not clear, however, whether this difference is because
668 I . M . CÔ TÉ A N D N . S . S M I T H
lionfish are better able to bear the cost of parasitism or because they never experience
the high parasite intensities of native fishes.
Beyond invader traits, characteristics of species in the recipient communities can
facilitate population increases of invaders. One such feature invoked to explain the suc-
cess of lionfish as predators is prey naïveté, i.e. the lack of adaptive responses by prey
exposed to a novel predator (Sih et al., 2010). A number of methods have been used to
assess the naïveté of Atlantic prey fishes to lionfish, from observations of fish on natu-
ral and artificial reefs (Albins & Hixon, 2008; Côté & Maljković, 2010; Anton et al.,
2016; Benkwitt, 2017), to field presentations to prey of predators and non-predators in
cages and bottles (Black et al., 2014; Kindinger, 2015; Anton et al., 2016) and various
laboratory experiments that confront prey with visual or chemical cues of predators
and non-predators (Marsh-Hunkin et al., 2013; Eaton et al., 2016). The prey responses
measured are equally varied and range from behaviours expected to change under risk
of predation (e.g. hiding time, approach distance, group size, aggression, courtship
and foraging rates) to whole-reef recruitment rates. Taken together, these studies paint
an unclear picture of prey naïveté. Native prey fish display no more fear or aggression
towards lionfish than they do towards native non-predators or empty, control containers
(Black et al., 2014; Kindinger, 2015; Anton et al., 2016). They also readily recruit onto
reefs with lionfish while avoiding reefs inhabited by native predators (Benkwitt, 2017).
Native prey fish, however, also sometimes show responses that are consistent with the
perception of risk, such as foraging less (Eaton et al., 2016; Kindinger & Albins, 2017),
spending more time under cover (Marsh-Hunkin et al., 2013), forming larger groups
(Eaton et al., 2016) and moving less (Marsh-Hunkin et al., 2013), but these responses
are inconsistent across studies. The confusion is heightened by the recent finding that
prey fish in the native range do not recognize P. volitans as a potential threat (Lönnstedt
& McCormick, 2013; McCormick & Allen, 2016). Lionfish in the native range some-
how circumvent the mechanisms by which prey usually identify predators. How they
do this remains a mystery, but it seems unlikely that they would have lost this ability
upon introduction into the Atlantic. The predatory success of lionfish may therefore
not be premised solely on prey naïveté but also on this unique feature of the species.
N E W K N OW L E D G E A B O U T D E T E R M I NA N T S O F G E O G R A P H I C
SPREAD
The spatial spread of invasive species can be enhanced by high reproductive rates,
efficient dispersal capacity, high physical tolerance and the ability to survive in many
habitats (Table I). Little new information has emerged about the reproductive rates
of lionfish. Individuals from the Gulf of Mexico (Fogg et al., 2017) and Little Cay-
man (Gardner et al., 2015), like those from North Carolina and The Bahamas (Morris,
2009), have the potential to spawn every 2–4 days year round. Although the batch
fecundity of lionfish is low compared with native Caribbean mesopredators (Côté et al.,
2013a), their high rate of batch production translates into a high annual fecundity of c.
2 million eggs (Morris, 2009; Fogg et al., 2017). Amazingly, no one has yet witnessed
lionfish spawning in the wild.
There is also limited new information about lionfish larval dispersal. Ahrenholz &
Morris (2010) established that the pelagic larval duration of lionfish in the invaded
range is 20 to 35 days (mean 26 days). This is not especially long for a coral-reef fish
(Lester & Ruttenberg, 2005), 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.,
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. Through increased larval transport, hurri-
canes appear to have greatly hastened the expansion of lionfish across the Bahamian
archipelago and northern Greater Antilles (Johnston & Purkis, 2015a).
Lionfish tolerate a broad range of abiotic conditions, but not inordinately more than
other reef fishes in most aspects. In Florida, their preferred temperature is 28–30∘ C
(Barker et al., 2018), which is c. 5∘ warmer than in the native range (Dabruzzi et al.,
2017). Their minimum (9·5–16.5∘ C) and maximum critical temperatures (30–40∘
C), i.e. the temperatures beyond which they lose function, vary with acclimation tem-
perature and define a habitable thermal range of c. 25∘ , which is similar to that of
co-occurring native mesopredators (Barker et al., 2018). Lionfish can live in low salin-
ities: they behave and grow in long-term (i.e. > 1 month) exposures to salinities of
7–10‰ (Jud et al., 2015; Schofield et al., 2015) and they survive brief exposures to
1‰ as well as daily fluctuations of 28‰ in tidal estuaries (Jud et al., 2011; Jud et al.,
2015). But again, this tolerance for a wide range of salinity conditions is seen in other
reef fishes (Wu & Woo, 1983; Woo & Chung, 1995). Lionfish, however, might be
exceptional in their capacity for prolonged fasting. Individuals starved for 3 months lost
<20% of their body weight and survived (Fishelson, 1997). To our knowledge, there
are no other similar studies of coral-reef fishes for comparison. Surviving long-term
food deprivation might be linked to the ability of lionfish to eat extremely large meals,
which make their stomach swell to 30 times its original size (Fishelson, 1997) and to
accumulate large amounts of visceral fat (Morris & Whitfield, 2009; pers. obs.). Taken
together, these environmental tolerances, combined with their broad diet, mean that
lionfish can occupy a wide range of depths and habitats (Claydon et al., 2012; Nut-
tall et al., 2014; Switzer et al., 2015) and therefore largely overcome environmental
stochasticity, which is typically a significant barrier to non-native species establishment
and spread.
HAS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO COME TO PASS?

The lionfish invasion was highlighted in 2010 as a major issue on the global conserva-
tion horizon (Sutherland et al., 2010). This notoriety was based on early observations of
rapid population increases (Green & Côté, 2009) and of large negative effects on native
coral-reef fishes (Albins & Hixon, 2008) in the Bahamian Archipelago. In this section,
elements of the worst-case scenario envisaged about the lionfish invasion (Albins &
Hixon, 2013; Table IV) that can be illuminated by recent information are examined.
D I R E C T E F F E C T S O N F I S H P O P U L AT I O N S
Lionfish have caused marked changes in many native Atlantic fish populations
(Table I). In some places, rates of prey consumption by lionfish far exceed prey
production rates (Green et al., 2014) and the majority of native fish biomass is being
converted to lionfish biomass, as envisioned by Albins & Hixon (2013). A couple
of trends, however, are emerging from the many observational and experimental
Table IV. The current status of elements of the worst-case scenario envisaged by Albins &
Hixon (2013) about the invasion of the western Atlantic by lionfish Pterois spp.
Elements of worst-case scenario Observations to date

Direct effects on fish populations
Decline in commercially Undocumented to date. 45% decline in adult Haemulon
important species aurolineatum population in south-east U.S.A.
suggests that predation on juveniles can reverberate to
adults (Ballew et al., 2016)
Effects on fishes in aquarium Several species popular in aquarium trade targeted by
trade lionfish (references in Table III), but effects on trade
itself undocumented to date
Declines of mesopredators Mixed evidence to date: no decline of predators (Elise
et al., 2015; Ballew et al., 2016), predator declines
ascribed to lionfish (Lesser & Slattery, 2011; Tuttle,
2017), predator declines not ascribed to lionfish
(Green et al., 2012)
Increase in species not Undocumented to date
susceptible to lionfish
Local extirpations Local extinction of 2 of 14 experimental populations of
Gramma loreto (Ingeman, 2016); reductions in
species richness on reefs with lionfish (Albins, 2013,
2015; Benkwitt, 2015; Ellis & Faletti, 2016); high rate
of predation on a Belizean restricted-range endemic
(Rocha et al., 2015)
Indirect effects on benthos
Decline in coral cover and Reduction in rates of herbivory on experimental algal
increase in macroalgal cover patches (Eaton et al., 2016; Kindinger & Albins,
2017); large increases in macroalgal cover and losses
of coral over on mesophotic reefs coinciding with
arrival of lionfish (Lesser & Slattery, 2011)
Distribution expands to thermal Predicted northern range limit reached in 2000;
limits in absence of biotic predicted southern range limit not yet reached as of
resistance 2017 but Amazon-Orinoco Plume crossed in 2014
(Ferreira et al., 2015); no evidence of biotic resistance
on Atlantic coral reefs (Albins, 2013; Hackerott et al.,
2013; Anton et al., 2014; Valdivia et al., 2014;
Bejarano et al., 2015; Kindinger, 2015), except
perhaps by Epinephelus morio (Ellis & Faletti, 2016)
Increase in lionfish cannibalism Cannibalism in lionfish reported (Valdez-Moreno et al.,
as evidence of food limitation 2012; Côté et al., 2013b; Dahl et al., 2017) but
temporal changes in rates of cannibalism
undocumented to date
studies that have examined lionfish predation. First, lionfish have so far not driven the
same large declines in prey abundance everywhere. The few studies conducted in the
southern Caribbean have so far reported no declines in prey populations (Table V).
Although these studies tend to have been carried out soon after the local arrival of
lionfish (< 5 years), marked effects were already evident at that stage of the invasion
further north. Second, of those studies that report an effect, those conducted on very
small experimental patches (i.e. translocated corals and artificial concrete-block reefs
of <4 m2 ) report far larger losses (mean ± 1 S.E. = 90% ± 6%, n = 3) than studies from
natural habitats (50% ± 7%, n = 8; t9 = 3·82, P < 0·01). This difference is not simply
due to an experimental versus observational dichotomy, since the habitat difference
still holds within experimental studies (experimental patches: 90% ± 6%, natural
habitats: 49% ± 9%; t6 = 3·19, P < 0·05). Even if studies of experimental patches
inflate the apparent effect of lionfish, losing half of the abundance of prey fishes, as
seen in natural habitats in a matter of weeks, remains an extraordinary concern.
The envisioned declines in species of commercial importance have not yet been
reported, although lionfish do consume these species (Dahl et al., 2017). The losses
observed so far have affected prey-sized fishes (usually <10 cm LT ), as Albins & Hixon
(2013) had speculated, but even within longer studies, these losses have not translated
into similar deficits in larger prey size classes (Green et al., 2014; Albins, 2015). The
one possible exception is the regional decline of adult tomtate grunt Haemulon auro-
lineatum Cuvier 1830 off the south-eastern U.S.A. (Table V), which has been attributed
to lionfish predation on juveniles (Ballew et al., 2016). It might ultimately be difficult
to ascribe part or all of downward trends in commercially important species to lionfish
predation because of the coarseness of most fisheries data and the multiple stressors
(including fishing) affecting these species.
Lionfish were expected to cause other significant shifts in fish community structure,
marked especially by declines in abundance of mesopredators (owing to competition
and predation) and increases in species not susceptible to lionfish predation (Albins
& Hixon, 2013). There is mixed evidence for the former (Table V). Ballew et al.
(2016) found no changes in predatory fish numbers while lionfish density increased
and H. aurolineatum abundance tumbled on the south-east coast of the U.S.A. On one
Bahamian mesophotic reef, however, there appears to have been a wholesale replace-
ment of native mesopredators by the same density of lionfish (Lesser & Slattery, 2011),
although the mechanism by which this substitution occurred is unclear. Other declines
of mesopredators occurring concurrently with a build-up of lionfish numbers cannot
be clearly ascribed to predation or competition (Green et al., 2012; Tuttle, 2017). In
one case, transient predators stopped visiting the reefs where lionfish had eaten most
of the prey fish and some of the Elacatinus Jordan 1904 cleanerfishes (Tuttle, 2017).
Whether unpalatable species such as puffers [e.g. Canthigaster rostrata (Bloch, 1786)]
and their relatives have increased in relative abundance in fish communities exposed
to lionfish predation (Albins & Hixon, 2013) is eminently testable, but has not been
examined so far.
Finally, although not considered by Albins & Hixon (2013), the ultimate worst-case
effect is that lionfish might drive native fish species to extinction. To our knowledge,
this irreversible outcome has not occurred yet, but some evidence now points to this
idea as a realistic possibility. In several experiments, the presence of lionfish caused
a loss of prey richness that was not observed in their absence or in the presence of
native predators (Albins, 2013, 2015; Benkwitt, 2015; Ellis & Faletti, 2016; Table V).
Table V. Studies of direct (consumptive) effects of invasive lionfish Pterois sp. on Atlantic fish populations and species
672
Source Location Habitat Study type Study length Time since invasion Effects observed
Ballew et al., 2016 South-east U.S.A. Variety Survey 17 years c. 5 years pre to c. Haemulon aurolineatum
12 years post abundance ↓45%
Albins & Hixon, Bahamas Experimental Manipulative 5 weeks 2 years Abundance ↓79%
2008 patch reefs
Lesser & Slattery, Bahamas Mesophotic reefs Survey 7 years 6 years pre to 1 year Most trophic groups abundance ↓;
2011 (60–90 m) post replacement of native
Epinephelus groupers by
lionfish
Green et al., 2012 Bahamas Natural reefs Survey 2 years 4–6 years Biomass ↓ 65%
(crest)
Albins, 2013 Bahamas Experimental Manipulative 8 weeks 3 years Abundance ↓ 94%; richness ↓ by
patch reefs 4–5 spp.; evenness ↑
Benkwitt, 2015 Bahamas Experimental Manipulative 7 weeks 6 years Abundance ↓ 97% at highest
patch reefs lionfish density; richness ↓; no
effect on evenness
Benkwitt, 2016 Bahamas Natural reefs Manipulative 7 weeks 8 years Abundance ↓ in coral habitats with
(patches & lionfish; no effect on fish on
small coral sand or in seagrass
heads), seagrass
& sand
Green et al., 2014 Bahamas Natural reefs Manipulative 24 months 4–6 years Abundance ↓ 40–60%; no effect
(patches) on larger fishes
Albins, 2015 Bahamas Natural reefs Manipulative 14 months 4–5 years Abundance ↓ 38–46%; biomass ↓
patches) 32%; richness ↓ by 5 spp.; no
effect on evenness; no effect on
larger fishes
Ingeman & Bahamas Natural reefs Survey 8 years 2 year pre and Gramma loreto abundance ↓ 52%
Webster, 2015 (ledges) 6 years post
Table V. Continued
Source Location Habitat Study type Study length Time since invasion Effects observed
Ingeman & Webster, 2015 Bahamas Natural reefs Manipulative 8 weeks 6 years Gramma loreto per capita loss ↑
(ledges)
Ingeman, 2016 Bahamas Natural reefs Manipulative 4 weeks Unreported Gramma loreto abundance ↓ 34%;
(patches) local extinction of 2–14
populations
Kindinger & Albins, 2017 Bahamas Natural reefs Manipulative 24 months 4–6 years Small herbivore abundance ↓; no
(patches) effect on large herbivores
Tuttle, 2017 Bahamas Natural reefs Manipulative 9 weeks 9 years Thalassoma bifasciatum abundance ↓
(patches) 33%; large non–resident reef fish
abundance ↓ 78%; no effect on
Elacatinus gobies or large resident
reef fishes
Ellis & Faletti, 2016 Florida Karst solution Manipulative 6 weeks 4 years Recruitment ↓ 84%; richness ↓ by 4·5
holes spp.; evenness ↑
Hackerott et al., 2017 Belize Natural reefs(spur Field surveys 4 years 1 year pre to 3 years No effect on density, richness or
& groove) post community structure
Elise et al., 2015 Venezuela Natural reefs Field surveys 2 years 1–3 years No effect on density, richness or
(crest & slope) community structure
R E- E VA L U AT I N G T H E L I O N F I S H I N VA S I O N
Palmer et al., 2017 Panama Natural reefs Manipulative 12 months 4 years Stegastes partitus and Halichoeres
garnoti recruit abundance ↓, adult
abundance ↓; no effect on
Thalassoma bifasciatum; no effect
on genetic diversity
Results pertain to all fishes that are potential prey of lionfish (i.e. total length < 10–15 cm) unless otherwise specified. Studies are ordered chronologically by location
(north to south). Study length for field surveys represents the length of time series. The magnitude of observed changes is given when reported in the sources.
673
Moreover, the added mortality imposed by lionfish, over and above that of native preda-
tors, led to the extirpation of two of 14 experimental populations of G. loreto (Inge-
man, 2016). Lionfish appear to prey on G. loreto in a density-independent fashion:
unlike native predators, lionfish continue to hunt them even when their populations are
small, which increases the risk of population loss through demographic stochasticity
(Ingeman & Webster, 2015; Ingeman, 2016). While G. loreto is not at risk of global
extinction because of their broad distribution across the Caribbean, the same cannot be
said of restricted-range endemic species. For example, the critically endangered social
wrasse Halichoeres socialis Randall & Lobel 2003, which is found only around the
Pelican Cayes in Belize, appears to be a common prey of lionfish in that area (Rocha
et al., 2015). Similarly, the arrival of lionfish in Brazil is causing concern for the many
small-range endemic fishes of the region (Ferreira et al., 2015). Lionfish are also prey-
ing on fish species that have yet to be described (Tornabene & Baldwin, 2017) and for
which we have no life-history or distribution information that could help assess the
threat posed by lionfish.
INDIRECT EFFECTS ON THE BENTHOS

The predilection of lionfish for small herbivorous fishes, such as parrotfishes Scarus
spp. and Sparisoma spp. (Morris & Akins, 2009; Green & Côté, 2014), led to early
concerns about trophic cascades that might reverberate to the benthos in the form of
more macroalgae and less coral (Albins & Hixon, 2013; Table V). Lionfish might also
exacerbate the same trophic cascades in areas where they are occurring because top
predators have been overfished (Albins & Hixon, 2013). There is evidence that lion-
fish lower fish grazing rates not only through a demographic effect (i.e. consumption
of small herbivores), but also through a fear effect. The mere presence of lionfish
decreases the biting rate of herbivorous fishes by up to 80% on experimental algal
patches (Eaton et al., 2016; Kindinger & Albins, 2017). Given that macroalgal cover,
in particular, can respond swiftly to changes in intensity of herbivory (Hughes et al.,
2007; Rasher et al., 2012), it seems surprising that there are currently no reports of
these considerable experimental effects on grazing scaling up to noticeable reef-wide
benthic shifts. A possible exception is one Bahamian mesophotic reef where a large
increase in macroalgal cover (8% to 92% at 61 m) and decline in coral cover (8% to
<2%) occurred over a period encompassing lionfish establishment (Lesser & Slattery,
2011). Because of a gap in the time series, however, it is not clear whether these com-
positional differences represent a gradual change in benthic composition or an abrupt
shift that postdates the arrival of lionfish.
D I S T R I B U T I O N E X PA N D I N G T O T H E R M A L L I M I T S I N
A B S E N C E O F B I O T I C R E S I S TA N C E
In the absence of biotic resistance, i.e. a high diversity or abundance of native preda-
tors, competitors or parasites that can constrain invader numbers (Stachowicz et al.,
1999; Levine et al., 2004), the distribution of lionfish might eventually expand and be
limited only by thermal tolerance (Albins & Hixon, 2013). Based on a 10∘ C lower
thermal limit (Kimball et al., 2004), the geographic range of lionfish in the Atlantic
Ocean is expected to span from Cape Hatteras in the north to Uruguay in the south
(Morris & Whitfield, 2009). Lionfish reached the predicted northern edge in 2000,
moving even further north to the Gulf-Stream-warmed waters of Bermuda (Whitfield

et al., 2002; Schofield, 2010). The predicted southern edge has not been reached so far,
with the southernmost lionfish reported from central Brazil (Ferreira et al., 2015). The
spread of lionfish might have been temporarily slowed by the Orinoco–Amazon Plume
and prevailing northward currents along northern Brazil (Luiz et al., 2013), but not by
biotic resistance across the invaded range. Many lines of circumstantial evidence point
to low resistance by native Atlantic biota. Lionfish have few natural predators and have
lower parasite burdens than co-occurring native species in the invaded range (Sikkel
et al., 2014; Tuttle et al., 2017). Lionfish grow faster than ecologically similar native
predators when given the same resources (Albins, 2013). Even damselfishes Stegastes
planifrons (Cuvier 1830), whose territorial aggression towards intruders can provide
a refuge for reef-fish recruits (Green, 1998), do not chase away lionfish (Kindinger,
2015). At the regional scale, there is no relationship between lionfish and the abundance
of groupers and other piscivores that could potentially compete with or prey on lionfish
(Hackerott et al., 2013; Anton et al., 2014; Valdivia et al., 2014; Bejarano et al., 2015).
Lionfish abundance is lower in some marine protected areas (MPA; Hackerott et al.,
2013; Valdivia et al., 2014), where species diversity and abundance are often higher
(Lester et al., 2009) and predatory fishes are larger (Valdivia et al., 2014), but lionfish
are often culled in MPAs. The only hint of biotic resistance so far is the strong, depress-
ing effect of large, native E. morio on lionfish foraging, which occurs not through
predation but via aggression (Ellis & Faletti, 2016). Unfortunately, E. morio is near
threatened because of overfishing throughout most of its range (Garcia-Moliner &
Eklund, 2004).
TOWARDS SOLUTIONS TO THE LIONFISH PROBLEM

Eradication of lionfish from the western Atlantic Ocean was already an impossible
goal a decade ago. Instead, a number of management actions were considered, or imple-
mented, to alleviate the problem. In addition to encouraging local removals of lionfish,
Albins & Hixon (2013) pinned hope on the development of a lionfish fishery and on
the enhancement of biotic resistance, either by training piscivores to consume lionfish
or by protecting species (via fishing regulations and marine reserves) that can control
lionfish abundance. What have we learned so far about controlling lionfish?
Culling by concerned citizens or during organized tournaments is the most common
form of lionfish control (Akins, 2012; Malpica-Cruz et al., 2016). Regular culling at
targeted sites can significantly reduce abundance and average size (Arias-González
et al., 2011; Barbour et al., 2011; Frazer et al., 2012; de León et al., 2013; Green
et al., 2014; Johnston & Purkis, 2015b; Alemu, 2016) and can sometimes promote the
recovery of native prey fishes (Green et al., 2014). Intensified lionfish removals have
therefore been recommended in mangrove lagoons, inside MPAs, spawning aggrega-
tion sites and nursery habitats (Morris & Whitfield, 2009; Barbour et al., 2011), but
culling is costly and labour intensive. To be effective, the number of lionfish removed
from the population must be high (e.g. 35–65% annually at large spatial scales to
achieve recruitment overfishing, Barbour et al., 2011), which might be achievable only
at very high culling frequencies (e.g. at least monthly) over many years (Morris et al.,
2011a; Green et al., 2014; Johnston & Purkis, 2015b). Given the limited resources
available to marine managers, several studies have recently examined the trade-offs
between the ecological effectiveness of culling and reductions in management costs or

effort (Dahl et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2017; Usseglio et al., 2017). These studies under-
score the challenges of finding a viable solution to the lionfish problem. For instance,
although less frequent culling reduced lionfish abundances on artificial reefs in the Gulf
of Mexico (Dahl et al., 2016) and natural reefs in The Bahamas (Smith et al., 2017),
it was insufficient to stem the decline in native prey fishes. Moreover, culling can have
unintended consequences: lionfish behaviour can change to make further culling less
effective (Côté et al., 2014) and lionfish recruitment spiked on culled reefs after a hur-
ricane (Smith et al., 2017). Equally troubling is emerging evidence that the largest and
most fecund lionfish might reside on mesophotic reefs at depths beyond the reach of
diver-led culls, which potentially undermines culling efforts by providing a continu-
ous supply of recruits to adjacent, shallow-water reefs (Andradi-Brown et al., 2017a,
2017b). Overall, the initial enthusiasm for culling as a viable management strategy
might be tempered somewhat as new studies uncover some of the nuances and com-
plexities of lionfish behaviour and movement.
Lionfish are tasty and nutritious (Morris et al., 2011b). It is therefore an easy step
to go from culling lionfish for conservation to harvesting them recreationally or
commercially for human consumption. There are fledgling lionfisheries in several
Caribbean nations (Chapman et al., 2016; Carrillo-Flota & Aguilar-Perera, 2017).
There are barriers to their development, however, including the highly seasonal,
tourist-linked demand, the difficulty in meeting the large minimum sizes required for
export markets and the relatively low price fishers fetch for lionfish compared with
native target fisheries (Chapman et al., 2016). The latter can be addressed by devel-
oping value-added products from unused parts of carcasses (e.g. jewellery from fins)
and by increasing awareness since consumers are willing to pay more for lionfish once
they understand the ecological problems caused by the invaders (Huth et al., 2016).
Controlling invasive species through gastronomy, however, can sometimes bring a
suite of problems and unintended consequences. For example, exploited invasive
populations might not be reduced enough to mitigate their ecological effects, targeted
fishing creates a demand and hence a need to maintain supply rather than drive it down
and a successful fishery might promote more invasions as people want to replicate
that market elsewhere (Nuñez et al., 2012). Nevertheless, with adequate marketing,
education and monitoring, targeted lionfishing could be a valuable component of a
lionfish management strategy.
Native predators such as large-bodied groupers could also contribute to regulating
lionfish populations. The problem with this idea, in addition to the fact that native fish
predators are now at a fraction of their historical abundances (Paddack et al., 2009;
Sadovy de Mitcheson et al., 2013), is that they consume lionfish far too infrequently to
be an effective form of biotic resistance (see above). Some researchers have suggested
that this problem can be overcome by training native predators to eat lionfish (Diller
et al., 2014), which is premised on the notion that most Atlantic predators fail to recog-
nize lionfish as prey (Morris, 2009; Albins & Hixon, 2013). To our knowledge, the only
supporting evidence is the finding that four grouper species [i.e. black sea bass Cen-
tropristis striata (L 1758), E. morio, gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis (Goode &
Bean 1879) and goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara (Lichtenstein 1822)] avoided juve-
nile lionfish during laboratory trials (Morris, 2009). These species are not among those
reported to consume lionfish in the wild. Furthermore, most reports of native preda-
tors consuming lionfish involved either injured (Barbour et al., 2011; Pimiento et al.,
2013) or tethered (Diller et al., 2014) lionfish. Low predation on lionfish is therefore
more likely a result of lionfish being well defended against predators in general than
of Atlantic predator naïveté. Even if predator training were possible, scaling up from
learning by individual fish to the regional scale needed for effective biocontrol seems
unachievable.
Finally, implementing fishing restrictions and networks of MPAs could increase the
abundance and body size of species that could prey on, compete with, or scare lionfish
(Albins & Hixon, 2013). Both measures have a track record of success at rebuilding
depleted fish populations (Lester et al., 2009; Hilborn & Ovando, 2014). There is cur-
rently limited evidence, however, for biotic resistance of Atlantic marine communities
(see above). Moreover, marine reserves are sometimes havens for non-native species
(Simberloff, 2000; Byers, 2005; Klinger et al., 2006; Burfeind et al., 2013). It is not
clear whether this is the case for lionfish. The only comparison of lionfish abundance
in and out of an MPA (Mumby et al., 2011) might have been confounded by culling
(Hackerott et al., 2013; Valdivia et al., 2014). There are many good reasons to establish
marine reserves, but controlling lionfish is probably not one of them.
LIONFISH IN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF INVASION ECOLOGY

Can all that has been learned about lionfish contribute to the prevention and manage-
ment of marine invasions? The answer depends on the extent to which lionfish are novel
invaders. Invasive fishes are not uncommon in the marine realm (Molnar et al., 2008)
and the lionfish invasion shares many features with other marine fish invasions. Lion-
fish, like most invasive fishes from two hotspots of marine invasions, i.e. the Hawaiian
Archipelago (Coles & Eldredge, 2002) and the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Rilov &
Galil, 2009; Edelist et al., 2013), hail from the species-rich Indo-Pacific region and
were introduced to regions more depauperate in species diversity, which might have
facilitated invader establishment (Stachowicz & Tilman, 2005). Moreover, like many
other invasive fish species, lionfish arrived in the new range as juveniles and adults
(Semmens et al., 2004; Edelist et al., 2013), which probably increased the likelihood
of propagule survival (Lockwood et al., 2005). Many invasive fishes, like lionfish, have
higher densities (Dierking et al., 2009) and grow faster and larger (e.g. Meyer & Dierk-
ing, 2011) in some areas of their invaded range than in their native range. Despite these
similarities in invasion process, it is not clear whether other invasive fishes have had
similarly large, adverse effects on some native fish communities. Many marine inva-
sive fishes are, like lionfish, generalist predators that consume a variety of smaller fishes
and invertebrates (Dierking et al., 2009; Rilov & Galil, 2009), but experimental stud-
ies that quantify their predatory effect are lacking. It is also not known whether the
long-term demographic trajectories of lionfish populations will mirror those of other
invasive fishes, partly because trajectories for most other fish invaders are poorly docu-
mented and partly because insufficient time has passed to ascertain the general patterns
of lionfish population change in the Atlantic Ocean. It is too soon therefore to know
whether lionfish is a truly unique invader or a potential model for other fish invasions.
Notwithstanding their potential uniqueness, lionfish have numerous attributes that
make them a good study organism to test fundamental ideas in invasion ecology. They
are abundant in the invaded range (Whitfield et al., 2007; Darling et al., 2011; Ballew
et al., 2016), widely distributed across multiple habitats and depths (Schofield, 2010;
Côté et al., 2013a; Andradi-Brown et al., 2017a, 2017b), relatively easy to catch, tag
and release (Akins, 2012; Akins et al., 2014) and many aspects of their ecology and
behaviour are now well understood (Fig. 1). Their large body sizes (Darling et al.,
2011), however, and sometimes extensive movement between habitat patches (Tam-
burello & Côté, 2014), make them less tractable to experimental manipulation than
other taxa like terrestrial plants, which have fuelled the development of invasion the-
ory (Lockwood et al., 2005; Fridley et al., 2007; Catford et al., 2009; Jeschke, 2014).
These drawbacks, however, are surmountable (Green et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2017).
Lionfish can be used as a model system for testing prominent invasion hypotheses.
For example, the importance of biotic resistance (Elton, 1958) in predation- rather than
competition-driven systems could be tested by introducing lionfish into experimen-
tally assembled reef communities or examining their establishment and effect along
geographic gradients of species richness. Similarly, investigations of lionfish parasites
in both the native and invaded ranges are empirically relevant to the ‘enemy release’
hypothesis (Keane & Crawley, 2002) and can be used to test the ‘evolution of increased
competitive ability’ hypothesis, whereby escape from parasites can lead to invaders
reallocating resources from defences towards reproduction or growth (Blossey & Nöt-
zold, 1995). Other key hypotheses, however, cannot be easily tested with lionfish. For
example, propagule pressure (i.e. the size and frequency of release events as well as the
composition of propagules) is arguably the most important determinant of establish-
ment success (Lockwood et al., 2005; Simberloff, 2009). Information on this crucial
aspect of the invasion process, however, is scarce for lionfish and must be largely
inferred from genetic studies. Lionfish might therefore serve as a useful model system
to address at least a few general ideas in invasion ecology.
CONCLUSION
This overview of the lionfish invasion focused on recent information pertaining to the
traits that have made lionfish effective invaders, their realized and predicted effects and
how to manage them. This is a small fraction of the knowledge gained about lionfish
over the past few years. Great strides have been made in understanding their ecology
in the native range [Darling et al., 2011; Cure et al., 2012, 2014; Kulbicki et al., 2012;
Sikkel et al., 2014; Stevens & Olson, 2015; Pusack et al., 2016; Tuttle et al., 2017;
Fig. 1(b)], how best to survey them (Green et al., 2013; Tilley et al., 2016; Bacheler
et al., 2017), their movement patterns (Tamburello & Côté, 2014; Bacheler et al., 2015;
Benkwitt, 2016) and their genetic structure (Hamner et al., 2007; Freshwater et al.,
2009; Betancur-R et al., 2011; Toledo-Hernández et al., 2014; Butterfield et al., 2015;
Johnson et al., 2016). There is also recent molecular evidence that P. volitans in the
native range might in fact be a hybrid between two sister lineages (Indian Ocean P.
miles x Pacific Ocean Pterois russelii Bennett 1831; Wilcox et al., 2018). This could
partly explain both the extraordinary performance of lionfish in the invaded range (i.e. a
result of heterosis) and why P. miles, a pure species, has not invaded the Mediterranean
Sea with the same swiftness as a Lessepsian migrant (Johnston & Purkis, 2014).
There is no doubt that lionfish have had a tremendous detrimental effect on some
native reef-fish populations in the northern part of the invaded range. Similar large
effects, however, have yet to be seen in the southern Caribbean. Most of the other
envisaged direct and indirect consequences of lionfish predation and competition, even
(a) 90 (b) 2·2

80 2·0
Lionfish sighting frequency (%)
70 1·8
Lionfish density index

1·6
60
1·4
50 1·2
40 1·0
30 0·8
0·6
20
0·4
10 0·2
0 0·0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Year
Fig. 2. Mean ± S.E. changes in lionfish Pterois sp. (a) sighting frequency and (b) density since it was first reported
in The Bahamas in 2004. Data are from the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (www.REEF.org)
volunteer survey project database for natural and artificial reefs in the central Bahamas (n = 3 island groups;
the Exumas, New Providence and San Salvador). Sighting frequency refers to the percentage of all surveys
in which lionfish were reported; density index is a measure of how many lionfish were observed during a
survey, and ranges from one (a single individual) to four (over 100 individuals). A score of 2 (the 2008
maximum) represents 2–10 individuals.
those that might have been expected to occur rapidly (e.g. shifts in benthic composi-
tion as a result of lower herbivory), have yet to pass (Table IV). This is not to say that
they will not, given more time and better data. For example, the continued expansion
of lionfish to its thermal limit in the southern hemisphere is almost a certainty. Lionfish
populations in some of the first areas invaded, however, have started to decline (Fig. 2;
Benkwitt et al., 2017), perhaps as a result of resource depletion, fishing and culling,
so there might be hope that these areas have already experienced the worst of the
invasion.
Many key questions remain as the lionfish invasion continues to unfold in the west-
ern Atlantic Ocean; we highlight four. First, is there an ontogenetic shift from shal-
low to deep water? Such a shift is assumed to occur (Johnson & Swenarton, 2016;
Andradi-Brown et al., 2017a, 2017b) and it has large implications for strategies to
control lionfish, which currently focus on scuba-diveable depths (i.e. < 30 m). Sec-
ond, what are the effects of lionfish on invertebrates? The vast majority of research to
date has focused on prey fish, but lionfish consume a variety of invertebrates (Table III).
There is evidence that the proportion of invertebrates in their diet has increased over
time (Green et al., 2014) and that lionfish can reduce invertebrate populations drasti-
cally (Layman et al., 2014; Ellis & Faletti, 2016). Third, how do lionfish circumvent
predator recognition mechanisms in prey fish? Figuring out how lionfish manage to
cloak themselves and how to disable this mechanism could provide a new tool to
mitigate their effect on other fish. Finally, what factors limit and regulate lionfish in
the native range? Benkwitt (2013) showed density-dependent growth but no density
dependence in recruitment, immigration or loss (i.e. emigration + mortality) in inva-
sive lionfish, which may or may not reflect population processes in the native range.
The rarity of lionfish in the Indian and Pacific Oceans has made this question difficult
to address but it remains one of the most important questions to answer.
We thank the organizers of the 50th Anniversary Symposium of The Fisheries Society of the
British Isles, S. Simpson and I. Barber, for the invitation to give a plenary presentation on the
lionfish invasion and for the opportunity to contribute this paper.
Supporting Information
Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this paper:
Table S1. List of parasite taxa found on lionfish Pterois sp.
References
Ahrenholz, D. W. & Morris, J. A. Jr. (2010). Larval duration of the lionfish, Pterois volitans
along the Bahamian archipelago. Environmental Biology of Fishes 88, 305–309.
Akins, J. L. (2012). Control strategies: tools and techniques for local control. In Invasive Lion-
fish: A Guide to Control and Management (Morris, J. A. Jr., ed), pp. 24–50. Marathon,
FL: Gulf and Fisheries.
Akins, J. L., Morris, J. A. Jr. & Green, S. J. (2014). In situ tagging technique for fishes pro-
vides insight into growth and movement of invasive lionfish. Ecology and Evolution 4,
3768–3777.
Albins, M. A. (2013). Effects of invasive Pacific red lionfish Pterois volitans versus a native
predator on Bahamian coral-reef fish communities. Biological Invasions 15, 29–43.
Albins, M. A. (2015). Invasive Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce abundance and species
richness of native Bahamian coral-reef fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 522,
231–243.
Albins, M. A. & Hixon, M. A. (2008). Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce
recruitment of Atlantic coral-reef fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367, 233–238.
Albins, M. A. & Hixon, M. A. (2013). Worst case scenario: potential long-term effects of
invasive predatory lionfish (Pterois volitans) on Atlantic and Caribbean coral-reef com-
munities. Environmental Biology of Fishes 96, 1151–1157.
Alemu, J. B. (2016). The status and management of the lionfish, Pterois sp. in Trinidad and
Tobago. Marine Pollution Bulletin 109, 402–408.
Andradi-Brown, D. A., Grey, R., Hendrix, A., Hitchner, D., Hunt, C. L., Gress, E., Madej, K.,
Parry, R. K., Régnier-McKellar, C., Jones, O. P., Arteaga, M., Izaguirre, A. P., Rogers, A.
D. & Exton, D. A. (2017a). Depth-dependent effects of culling – do mesophotic lionfish
populations undermine current management? Royal Society Open Science 4, 170027.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos. 170027
Andradi-Brown, D. A., Vermeij, M. J. A., Slattery, M., Lesser, M., Bejarano, I., Appeldoorn, R.,
Goodbody-Gringley, G., Chequer, A. D., Pitt, J. M., Eddy, C., Smith, S. R., Brokovich,
E., Pinheiro, H. T., Jessup, M. E., Shepherd, B., Rocha, L. A., Curtis-Quick, J., Eyal,
G., Noyes, T. J., Rogers, A. D. & Exton, D. A. (2017b). Large-scale invasion of western
Atlantic mesophotic reefs by lionfish potentially undermines culling-based management.
Biological Invasions 19, 939–954.
Anton, A., Simpson, M. S. & Vu, I. (2014). Environmental and biotic correlates to lionfish
invasion success in Bahamian coral reefs. PLoS One 9, e106229. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0106229
Anton, A., Cure, K., Layman, C. A., Puntila, R., Simpson, M. S. & Bruno, J. F. (2016). Prey
naiveté to invasive lionfish Pterois volitans on Caribbean coral reefs. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 544, 257–269.
Arias-González, J. E., González-Gándara, C., Cabrera, J. L. & Christensen, V. (2011). Predicted
impact of the invasive lionfish Pterois volitans on the food web of a Caribbean coral reef.
Environmental Research 111, 917–925.
Arredondo-Chávez, A. T., Sánchez-Jimenez, J. A., Ávila-Morales, O. G., Torres-Chávez,
P., Herrerias-Diego, Y., Medina-Nava, M., Madrigal-Guridi, X., Campos-Mendoza,
A., Domínguez-Domínguez, O. & Caballero-Vázquez, J. A. (2016). Spatio-temporal
variation in the diet composition of red lionfish, Pterois volitans (Actinopterygii:
Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae), in the Mexican Caribbean: insights into the ecological

effect of the alien invasion. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 46, 185–200.
Bacheler, N. M., Whitfield, P. E., Muñoz, R. C., Harrison, B. B., Harms, C. A. & Buckel, C.
A. (2015). Movement of invasive adult lionfish Pterois volitans using telemetry: impor-
tance of controls to estimate and explain variable detection probabilities. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 527, 205–220.
Bacheler, N. M., Geraldi, N. R., Burton, M. L., Muñoz, R. C. & Kellison, G. T. (2017). Compar-
ing relative abundance, lengths and habitat of temperate reef fishes using simultaneous
underwater visual census, video and trap sampling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 574,
141–155.
Ballew, N. G., Bacheler, N. M., Kellison, G. T. & Schueller, A. M. (2016). Invasive lionfish
reduce native fish abundance on a regional scale. Scientific Reports 6, 32169. https://doi
.org/10.1038/srep32169
Barbour, A. B., Allen, M. S., Frazer, T. K. & Sherman, K. D. (2011). Evaluating the potential
efficacy of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) removals. PLoS One 6, e19666. https://doi
.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019666
Barker, D. B., Horodysky, A. Z. & Kerstetter, D. W. (2018). Hot or not? Comparative behavioral
thermoregulation, critical temperature regimes and thermal tolerances of the invasive
lionfish Pterois Sp. versus native western North Atlantic reef fishes. Biological Invasions
20, 45–58.
Bejarano, S., Lohr, K., Hamilton, S. & Manfrino, C. (2015). Relationships of invasive lionfish
with topographic complexity, groupers and native prey fishes in little Cayman. Marine
Biology 162, 253–266.
Benkwitt, C. E. (2013). Density-dependent growth in invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans). PLoS
One 8, e66995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066995
Benkwitt, C. E. (2015). Non-linear effects of invasive lionfish density on native coral-reef fish
communities. Biological Invasions 17, 1383–1395.
Benkwitt, C. E. (2016). Central- place foraging and ecological effects of an invasive predator
across multiple habitats. Ecology 97, 2729–2739.
Benkwitt, C. E. (2017). Predator effects on reef fish settlement depend on predator origin and
recruit density. Ecology 98, 896–902.
Benkwitt, C. E., Albins, M. A., Buch, K. L., Ingeman, K. E., Kindinger, T. L., Pusack, T. J. K.,
Stallings, C. D. & Hixon, M. A. (2017). Is the lionfish invasion waning?Evidence from
The Bahamas. Coral Reefs (Online) 36, 1255–1261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-
017-1620-7
Bernadsky, G. & Goulet, D. (1991). A natural predator of the lionfish Pterois miles. Copeia
1991, 230–231.
Betancur-R, R., Hines, A., Acero, P. A., Ortí, G., Wilbur, A. E. & Freshwater, D. W. (2011).
Reconstructing the lionfish invasion: insights into greater Caribbean biogeography. Jour-
nal of Biogeography 38, 1281–1293.
Black, A. N., Weimann, S. R., Imhoff, V. E., Richter, M. L. & Itzkowitz, M. (2014). A differ-
ential prey response to invasive lionfish, Pterois volitans: prey naiveté and risk-sensitive
courtship. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 460, 1–7.
Blossey, B. & Nötzold, R. (1995). Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive non-
indigenous plants: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 83, 887–889.
Bøhn, T., Amundsen, P. A. & Sparrow, A. (2008). Competitive exclusion after invasion? Bio-
logical Invasions 10, 359–368.
Bos, A. R., Sanad, A. M. & Elsayed, K. (2017). Gymnothorax spp. (Muraenidae) as natural
predators of the lionfish Pterois miles in its native biogeographical range. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 100, 745–748.
Brown, G. P., Phillips, B. L., Dubey, S. & Shine, R. (2015). Invader immunology: invasion his-
tory alters immune system function in cane toads (Rhinella marina) in tropical Australia.
Ecology Letters 18, 57–65.
Bullard, S. A., Barse, A. M., Curran, S. S. & Morris, J. A. (2011). First record of a digenean from
invasive lionfish, Pterois cf . volitans, (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) in the northwest-
ern Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Parasitology 97, 833–837.
Burfeind, D. D., Pitt, K. A., Connolly, R. M. & Byers, J. E. (2013). Performance of non-native
species within marine reserves. Biological Invasions 15, 17–28.
Butterfield, J. S. S., Díaz-Ferguson, E., Silliman, B. R., Saunders, J. W., Buddo, D.,
Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A., Searle, L., Allen, A. C. & Hunter, M. E. (2015). Wide-ranging
phylogeographic structure of invasive red lionfish in the western Atlantic and greater
Caribbean. Marine Biology 162, 773–781.
Byers, J. E. (2005). Marine reserves enhance abundance but not competitive impacts of a har-
vested nonindigenous species. Ecology 86, 487–500.
Carrillo-Flota, E. d. C. & Aguilar-Perera, A. (2017). Stakeholder perceptions of red lionfish
(Pterois volitans) as a threat to the ecosystem and its potential for human consumption
in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management 136, 113–119.
Catford, J. A., Jansson, R. & Nilsson, C. (2009). Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by
integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Diversity and Distributions
15, 22–40.
Chapman, J. K., Anderson, L. G., Gough, C. L. A. & Harris, A. R. (2016). Working up an
appetite for lionfish: a market-based approach to manage the invasion of Pterois volitans
in Belize. Marine Policy 73, 256–262.
Chappell, B. F. & Smith, K. V. (2016). Patterns of predation of native reef fish by invasive
Indo-Pacific lionfish in the western Atlantic: evidence of selectivity by a generalist preda-
tor. Global Ecology and Conservation 8, 18–23.
Claydon, J. A. B., Calosso, M. C. & Traiger, S. B. (2012). Progression of invasive lionfish in
seagrass, mangrove and reef habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 448, 119–129.
Coles, S. L. & Eldredge, L. G. (2002). Nonindigenous species introductions on coral reefs: a
need for information. Pacific Science 56, 191–209.
Côté, I. M. & Maljković, A. (2010). Predation rates of Indo-Pacific lionfish on Bahamian coral
reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 404, 219–225.
Côté, I. M., Green, S. J. & Hixon, M. A. (2013a). Predatory fish invaders: insights from
indo-Pacific lionfish in the western Atlantic and Caribbean. Biological Conservation
164, 50–61.
Côté, I. M., Green, S. J., Morris, J. A., Akins, J. L. & Steinke, D. (2013b). Diet richness of inva-
sive Indo-Pacific lionfish revealed by DNA barcoding. Marine Ecology Progress Series
472, 249–256.
Côté, I. M., Darling, E. S., Malpica-Cruz, L., Smith, N. S., Green, S. J., Curtis-Quick, J. &
Layman, C. (2014). What doesn’t kill you makes you wary? Effect of repeated culling
on the behaviour of an invasive predator. PLoS One 9, e94248. https://doi.org/10.1371/
Cure, K., Benkwitt, C. E., Kindinger, T. L., Pickering, E. A., Pusack, T. J., McIlwain, J.
L. & Hixon, M. A. (2012). Comparative behavior of red lionfish Pterois volitans on
native Pacific versus invaded Atlantic coral reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 467,
181–192.
Cure, K., McIlwain, J. L. & Hixon, M. A. (2014). Habitat plasticity in native Pacific red lionfish
Pterois volitans facilitates successful invasion of the Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 506, 243–253.
Curtis, J. S., Wall, K. R., Albins, M. A. & Stallings, C. D. (2017). Diet shifts in a native meso-
predator across a range of invasive lionfish biomass. Marine Ecology Progress Series
573, 215–228.
Dabruzzi, T. F., Bennett, W. A. & Fangue, N. A. (2017). Thermal ecology of red lionfish Pterois
volitans from southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, with comparisons to other Scorpaenidae.
Aquatic Biology 26, 1–14.
Dahl, K. A. & Patterson, W. F. III (2014). Habitat-specific density and diet of rapidly expanding
invasive red lionfish, Pterois volitans, populations in the northern Gulf of Mexico. PLoS
One 9, e105852. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105852
Dahl, K. A., Patterson, W. F. III & Snyder, R. A. (2016). Experimental assessment of lionfish
removals to mitigate reef fish community shifts on northern Gulf of Mexico artificial
reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 558, 207–221.
Dahl, K. A., Patterson, W. F. III, Robertson, A. & Ortmann, A. C. (2017). DNA barcoding
significantly improves resolution of invasive lionfish diet in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
Biological Invasions 19, 1917–1933.
Darling, E. S., Green, S. J., O’Leary, J. K. & Côté, I. M. (2011). Indo-Pacific lionfish are larger
and more abundant on invaded reefs: a comparison of Kenyan and Bahamian lionfish
populations. Biological Invasions 13, 2045–2051.
Dierking, J., Williams, I. D. & Walsh, W. J. (2009). Diet composition and prey selection of
the introduced grouper species peacock hind (Cephalopholis argus) in Hawaii. Fishery
Bulletin 107, 464–476.
Diller, J. L., Frazer, T. K. & Jacoby, C. A. (2014). Coping with the lionfish invasion: evidence
that naïve, native predators can learn to help. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology 455, 45–49.
Edwards, M. A., Frazer, T. K. & Jacoby, C. A. (2014). Age and growth of invasive lionfish
(Pterois spp .) in the Caribbean Sea, with implications for management. Bulletin of
Marine Science 90, 953–966.
Eaton, L., Sloman, K. A., Wilson, R. W., Gill, A. B. & Harborne, A. R. (2016). Non-consumptive
effects of native and invasive predators on juvenile Caribbean parrotfish. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 99, 499–508.
Edelist, D., Rilov, G., Golani, D., Carlton, J. T. & Spanier, E. (2013). Restructuring the sea: pro-
found shifts in the world’s most invaded marine ecosystem. Diversity and Distributions
19, 69–77.
Eddy, C., Pitt, J., Morris, J. A. Jr., Smith, S., Goodbody-Gringley, G. & Bernal, D. (2016). Diet
of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) in Bermuda. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 558, 193–206.
Elise, S., Urbina-Barreto, I., Boadas-Gil, H., Galindo-Vivas, M. & Kulbicki, M. (2015). No
detectable effect of lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) invasion on a healthy reef fish
assemblage in Archipelago Los Roques National Park, Venezuela. Marine Biology 162,
319–330.
Ellis, R. D. & Faletti, M. E. (2016). Native grouper indirectly ameliorates the negative effects
of invasive lionfish. Marine Ecology Progress Series 558, 267–279.
Elton, C. S. (1958). The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Ferreira, C. E. L., Luiz, O. J., Floeter, S. R., Lucena, M. B., Barbosa, M. C., Rocha, C. R. &
Rocha, L. A. (2015). First record of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) for the Brazilian
Coast. PLoS One 10, e0123002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123002
Fishelson, L. (1997). Experiments and observations on food consumption, growth and starvation
in Dendrochirus brachypterus and Pterois volitans (Pteroinae, Scorpaenidae). Environ-
mental Biology of Fishes 50, 391–403.
Fogg, A. Q., Evans, J. T., Ingram, W. G. Jr., Peterson, M. S. & Brown-Peterson, N. J. (2015).
Comparing age and growth patterns of invasive lionfish among three ecoregions of the
northern Gulf of Mexico. Annual Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Insti-
tute 68, 197–198.
Fogg, A. Q., Ruiz, C. F., Curran, S. S. & Bullard, S. A. (2016). Parasites from the red lionfish,
Pterois volitans, from the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf and Caribbean Research 27, SC1–SC5.
Fogg, A. Q., Brown-Peterson, N. J. & Peterson, M. S. (2017). Reproductive life history charac-
teristics of invasive red lionfish (Pterois volitans) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin
of Marine Science 93, 791–813. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms. 2016. 1095
Frazer, T. K., Jacoby, C. A., Edwards, M. A., Barry, S. C. & Manfrino, C. M. (2012). Coping with
the lionfish invasion: can targeted removals yield beneficial effects? Reviews in Fisheries
Science 20, 185–191.
Freshwater, D. W., Hines, A., Parham, S., Wilbur, A., Sabaoun, M., Woodhead, J., Akins,
L., Purdy, B., Whitfield, P. E. & Paris, C. B. (2009). Mitochondrial control region
sequence analyses indicate dispersal from the US East Coast as the source of the invasive
Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans in the Bahamas. Marine Biology 156, 1213–1221.
Fridley, J. D., Stachowicz, J. J., Naeem, S., Sax, D. F., Seabloom, E. W., Smith, M. D., Stohlgren,
T. J., Tilman, D. & Von Holle, B. (2007). The invasion paradox: reconciling pattern and
process in species invasions. Ecology 88, 3–17.
García-Berthou, E. (2007). The characteristics of invasive fishes: what has been learned so far?
Journal of Fish Biology 71(Suppl D), 33–55.
Gardner, P. G., Frazer, T. K., Jacoby, C. A. & Yanong, R. P. E. (2015). Reproductive

biology of invasive lionfish (Pterois spp .). Frontiers in Marine Science 2, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars. 2015. 00007
Green, A. L. (1998). Spatio-temporal patterns of recruitment of labroid fishes (Pisces: Labridae
and Scaridae) to damselfish territories. Environmental Biology of Fishes 51, 235–244.
Green, S. J. & Côté, I. M. (2009). Record densities of Indo-Pacific lionfish on Bahamian coral
reefs. Coral Reefs 28, 107–107.
Green, S. J. & Côté, I. M. (2014). Trait-based diet selection: prey behaviour and morphology
predict vulnerability to predation in reef fish communities. Journal of Animal Ecology
283, 1451–1460.
Green, S. J., Akins, J. L. & Côté, I. M. (2011). Foraging behaviour and prey consumption in
the Indo-Pacific lionfish on Bahamian coral reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 433,
159–167.
Green, S. J., Akins, J. L., Maljković, A. & Côté, I. M. (2012). Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic
coral reef fish declines. PLoS One 7, e32596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone
.0032596
Green, S. J., Tamburello, N., Miller, S., Akins, J. L. & Côté, I. M. (2013). Habitat complexity
and fish size affect the detection of Indo-Pacific lionfish on invaded coral reefs. Coral
Reefs 32, 413–421.
Green, S. J., Dulvy, N. K., Brooks, A. M. L., Akins, J. L., Cooper, A. B., Miller, S. & Côté,
I. M. (2014). Linking removal targets to the ecological effects of invaders: a predictive
model and field test. Ecological Applications 24, 1311–1322.
Hackerott, S., Valdivia, A., Green, S. J., Côté, I. M., Cox, C. E., Akins, L., Layman, C. A.,
Precht, W. F. & Bruno, J. F. (2013). Native predators do not influence invasion success of
Pacific lionfish on Caribbean reefs. PLoS One 8, e68259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
.pone.0068259
Hackerott, S., Valdivia, A., Cox, C. E., Silbiger, N. J. & Bruno, J. F. (2017). Invasive lionfish
had no measurable effect on prey fish community structure across the Belizean Barrier
Reef. PeerJ 5, e3270.
Hamner, R. M., Freshwater, D. W. & Whitfield, P. E. (2007). Mitochondrial cytochrome b
analysis reveals two invasive lionfish species with strong founder effects in the western
Atlantic. Journal of Fish Biology 71(Suppl. B), 214–222.
Hardin, G. (1960). The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131, 1292–1297.
Harms-Tuohy, C. A., Schizas, N. V. & Appeldoorn, R. S. (2016). Use of DNA metabarcoding for
stomach content analysis in the invasive lionfish Pterois volitans in Puerto Rico. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 558, 181–191.
Hilborn, R. & Ovando, D. (2014). Reflections on the success of traditional fisheries manage-
ment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71, 1040–1046.
Hughes, T. P., Rodrigues, M. J., Bellwood, D. R., Ceccarelli, D., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., McCook,
L., Moltschaniwskyj, N., Pratchett, M. S., Steneck, R. S. & Willis, B. (2007). Phase
shifts, herbivory and the resilience of coral reefs to climate change. Current Biology 17,
360–365.
Ingeman, K. E. (2016). Lionfish cause increased mortality rates and drive local extirpation of
native prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 558, 235–245.
Ingeman, K. E. & Webster, M. S. (2015). Native prey mortality increases but remains
density-dependent following lionfish invasion. Marine Ecology Progress Series 531,
241–252.
Jeschke, J. M. (2014). General hypotheses in invasion ecology. Diversity and Distributions 20,
1229–1234.
Johnson, E. G. & Swenarton, M. K. (2016). Age, growth and population structure of invasive
lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles) in northeast Florida using a length-based, age-structured
population model. PeerJ 4, e2730. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2730
Johnson, J., Bird, C. E., Johnston, M. A., Fogg, A. Q. & Hogan, J. D. (2016). Regional genetic
structure and genetic founder effects in the invasive lionfish: comparing the Gulf of Mex-
ico, Caribbean and North Atlantic. Marine Biology 163, 216. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00227-016-2981-0
Johnston, M. W. & Purkis, S. J. (2014). Are lionfish set for a Mediterranean invasion? Modelling
explains why this is unlikely to occur. Marine Pollution Bulletin 88, 138–147.
Johnston, M. W. & Purkis, S. J. (2015a). Hurricanes accelerated the Florida–Bahamas lionfish

invasion. Global Change Biology 21, 2249–2260.
Johnston, M. W. & Purkis, S. J. (2015b). A coordinated and sustained international strategy is
required to turn the tide on the Atlantic lionfish invasion. Marine Ecology Progress Series
533, 219–235.
Jud, Z. R., Layman, C. A., Lee, J. A. & Arrington, D. A. (2011). Recent invasion of a Florida
(USA) estuarine system by lionfish Pterois volitans / P. miles. Aquatic Biology 13, 22–26.
Jud, Z. R. & Layman, C. A. (2012). Site fidelity and movement patterns of invasive lionfish,
Pterois spp., in a Florida estuary. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
414–415, 69–74.
Jud, Z. R., Nichols, P. K. & Layman, C. A. (2015). Broad salinity tolerance in the invasive lion-
fish Pterois Spp. may facilitate estuarine colonization. Environmental Biology of Fishes
98, 135–143.
Keane, R. M. & Crawley, M. J. (2002). Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17, 164–170.
Kimball, M. E., Miller, J. M., Whitfield, P. E. & Hare, J. A. (2004). Thermal tolerance and
potential distribution of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) on the east
coast of the United States. Marine Ecology Progress Series 283, 269–278.
Kindinger, T. L. (2015). Behavioral response of native Atlantic territorial three spot damselfish
(Stegastes planifrons) toward invasive Pacific red lionfish (Pterois volitans). Environmen-
tal Biology of Fishes 98, 487–498.
Kindinger, K. L. & Albins, M. A. (2017). Consumptive and non-consumptive effects of an inva-
sive marine predator on native coral-reef herbivores. Biological Invasions 19, 131–146.
Kindinger, T. L. & Anderson, E. R. (2016). Preferences of invasive lionfish and native grouper
between congeneric prey fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 558, 247–253.
Kitchens, L. L., Paris, C. B., Vaz, A. C., Ditty, J. G., Cornic, M., Cowan, J. H. Jr. & Rooker, J. R.
(2017). Occurrence of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) larvae in the northern Gulf of
Mexico: characterization of dispersal pathways and spawning areas. Biological Invasions
19, 1971–1979.
Klinger, T., Padilla, D. K. & Britton-Simmons, K. (2006). Two invaders achieve higher densities
in reserves. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16, 301–311.
Kulbicki, M., Beets, J., Chabanet, P., Cure, K., Darling, E., Floeter, S. R., Galzin, R., Green, A.,
Harmelin-Vivien, M., Hixon, M., Letourneur, Y., Lison de Loma, T., McClanahan, T.,
McIlwain, J., MouTham, G., Myers, R., O’Leary, J. K., Planes, S., Vigliola, L. & Wantiez,
L. (2012). Distributions of Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois spp. in their native ranges: impli-
cations for the Atlantic invasion. Marine Ecology Progress Series 446, 189–205.
Layman, C. A. & Allgeier, J. E. (2012). Characterizing the trophic ecology of generalist con-
sumers: a case study of the invasive lionfish in the Bahamas. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 448, 131–141.
Layman, C. A., Jud, Z. R. & Nichols, P. (2014). Lionfish alter benthic invertebrate assemblages
in patch habitats of a subtropical estuary. Marine Biology 161, 2179–2182.
de León, R., Vane, K., Bertuol, P., Chamberland, V. C., Simal, F., Imms, E. & Vermeij, M. J. A.
(2013). Effectiveness of lionfish removal efforts in the southern Caribbean. Endangered
Species Research 22, 175–182.
Lesser, M. P. & Slattery, M. (2011). Phase shift to algal dominated communities at mesophotic
depths associated with lionfish (Pterois volitans) invasion on a Bahamian coral reef. Bio-
logical Invasions 13, 1855–1868.
Lester, S. E. & Ruttenberg, B. I. (2005). The relationship between pelagic larval duration and
range size in tropical reef fishes: a synthetic analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B 272, 585–591.
Lester, S. E., Halpern, B. S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B. I., Gaines, S. D.,
Airamé, S. & Warner, R. R. (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a
global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384, 33–46.
Levine, J. M., Adler, P. B. & Yelenik, S. G. (2004). A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic
plant invasions. Ecology Letters 7, 975–989.
Llewellyn, D., Thompson, M. B., Brown, G. P., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. (2012). Reduced
investment in immune function in invasion-front populations of the cane toad (Rhinella
marina) in Australia. Biological Invasions 14, 999–1008.
Lockwood, J. L., Cassey, P. & Blackburn, T. (2005). The role of propagule pressure in explaining
species invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20, 223–228.
Loerch, S. M., McCammon, A. M. & Sikkel, P. C. (2015). Low susceptibility of invasive
indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans to ectoparasitic Neobenedenia in the eastern
Caribbean. Environmental Biology of Fishes 98, 1979–1985.
Lönnstedt, O. M. & McCormick, M. I. (2013). Ultimate predators: lionfish have evolved to
circumvent prey risk assessment abilities. PLoS One 8, e75781. https://doi.org/10.1371/
Luiz, O. J., Floeter, S. R., Rocha, L. A. & Ferreira, C. E. L. (2013). Perspectives for the lion-
fish invasion in the South Atlantic: are Brazilian reefs protected by the currents? Marine
Maljković, A., Van Leeuwen, T. E. & Cove, S. N. (2008). Predation on the invasive red lionfish,
Pterois volitans (Pisces: Scorpaenidae), by native groupers in the Bahamas. Coral Reefs
27, 501–501.
Malpica-Cruz, L., Chaves, L. C. T. & Côté, I. M. (2016). Managing marine invasive species
through public participation: lionfish derbies as a case study. Marine Policy 74, 158–164.
Marsh-Hunkin, K. E., Gochfeld, D. J. & Slattery, M. (2013). Antipredator responses to invasive
lionfish, Pterois volitans: interspecific differences in cue utilization by two coral reef
gobies. Marine Biology 160, 1029–1040.
McCormick, M. I. & Allen, B. J. M. (2016). Lionfish misidentification circumvents an optimized
escape response by prey. Conservation Physiology 4, cow064. https://doi.org/10.1093/
conphys/cow064
Meyer, A. L. & Dierking, J. (2011). Elevated size and body condition and altered feeding ecol-
ogy of the grouper Cephalopholis argus in non-native habitats. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 439, 203–212.
Molnar, J. L., Gamboa, R. L., Revenga, C. & Spalding, M. D. (2008). Assessing the global threat
of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6,
485–492.
Morris, J. A. Jr (2009). The biology and ecology of the invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish. PhD
Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, U.S.A.
Morris, J. A. Jr. & Akins, J. L. (2009). Feeding ecology of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) in
the Bahamian archipelago. Environmental Biology of Fishes 86, 389–398.
Morris, J. A. Jr., Shertzer, K. W. & Rice, J. A. (2011a). A stage-based matrix population model
of invasive lionfish with implications for control. Biological Invasions 13, 7–12.
Morris, J. A. Jr., Thomas, A., Rhyne, A. L., Breen, N., Akins, L. & Nach, B. (2011b). Nutritional
properties of the invasive lionfish: a delicious and nutritious approach for controlling the
invasion. AACL Bioflux 4, 21–26.
Mumby, P. J., Harborne, A. R. & Brumbaugh, D. R. (2011). Grouper as a natural biocontrol of
invasive lionfish. PLoS One 6, e21510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021510
Muñoz, R. C. (2017). Evidence of natural predation on invasive lionfish, Pterois spp., by the
spotted moray eel, Gymnothorax moringa. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 93, 789–790.
Muñoz, R. C., Currin, C. A. & Whitfield, P. E. (2011). Diet of invasive lionfish on hard bottom
reefs of the Southeast USA: insights from stomach contents and stable isotopes. Marine
Nuñez, M. A., Kuebbing, S., Dimarco, R. D. & Simberloff, D. (2012). Invasive species: to eat
or not to eat, that is the question. Conservation Letters 5, 334–341.
Nuttall, M. F., Johnston, M. A., Eckert, R. J., Embesi, J. A., Hickerson, E. L. & Schmahl, G. P.
(2014). Lionfish (Pterois volitans [Linnaeus, 1758] and P. miles [Bennett, 1828]) records
within mesophotic depth ranges on natural banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico.
BioInvasions Records 3, 111–115.
O’Farrell, S., Bearhop, S., McGill, R. A. R., Dahlgren, C. P., Brumbaugh, D. R. & Mumby, P. J.
(2014). Habitat and body size effects on the isotopic niche space of invasive lionfish and
endangered Nassau grouper. Ecosphere 5, 1–11.
Paddack, M. J., Reynolds, J. D., Aguilar, C., Appeldoorn, R. S., Beets, J., Burkett, E. W., Chit-
taro, P. M., Clarke, K., Esteves, R., Fonseca, A. C., Forrester, G. E., Friedlander, A. M.,
García-Sais, J., González-Sansón, G., Jordan, L. K. B., McClellan, D. B., Miller, M. W.,
Molloy, P. P., Mumby, P. J., Nagelkerken, I., Nemeth, M., Navas-Camacho, R., Pitt, J.,
Polunin, N. V. C., Reyes-Nivia, M. C., Robertson, D. R., Rodríguez Ramírez, A., Salas,
E., Smith, S. R., Spieler, R. E., Steele, M. A., Williams, I. D., Wormald, C., Watkinson, A.
R. & Côté, I. M. (2009). Recent region-wide declines in Caribbean reef fish abundance.
Current Biology 19, 590–595.
Palmer, G., Hogan, J. D., Sterba-Boatwright, B. D. & Overath, R. D. (2017). Invasive lion-
fish Pterois volitans reduce the density but not the genetic diversity of a native reef fish.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 558, 223–234.
Pimiento, C., Monaco, E., Barbour, A. B. & Silliman, B. R. (2013). Predation on speared lion-
fish, Pterois volitans, by spotted moray, Gymnothorax moringa. Florida Scientist 76,
391–394.
Potts, J. C., Berrane, D. & Morris, J. A. Jr. (2010). Age and growth of lionfish from the western
North Atlantic. Annual Proceedings of the Gulf Caribbean Fisheries Institute 63, 314.
Pusack, T., Benkwitt, C. E., Cure, K. & Kindinger, T. L. (2016). Invasive red lionfish (Pterois
volitans) grow faster in the Atlantic Ocean than in their native Pacific range. Environ-
mental Biology of Fishes 99, 571–579.
Ramos-Ascherl, Z., Williams, E. H., Bunkley-Williams, L., Tuttle, L. J., Sikkel, P. C. & Hixon,
M. A. (2015). Parasitism in Pterois volitans (Scorpaenidae) from coastal waters of Puerto
Rico, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas. Journal of Parasitology 101, 50–56.
Rasher, D. B., Engel, S., Bonito, V., Fraser, G. J., Montoya, J. P. & Hay, M. E. (2012). Effects
of herbivory, nutrients and reef protection on algal proliferation and coral growth on a
tropical reef. Oecologia 169, 187–198.
Raymond, W. W., Albins, M. A. & Pusack, T. J. (2015). Competitive interactions for shelter
between invasive Pacific red lionfish and native Nassau grouper. Environmental Biology
of Fishes 98, 57–65.
Rilov, G. & Galil, B. (2009). Marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea: history, distribution
and ecology. In Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems (Rilov, G. & Crooks, J. A.,
eds), pp. 549–575. Berlin: Springer.
Rocha, L. A., Rocha, C. R., Baldwin, C. C., Weigt, L. A. & McField, M. (2015). Invasive lionfish
preying on critically endangered reef fish. Coral Reefs 34, 803–806.
Rodriguéz-Cortés, K. D., Aguilar-Perera, A. & Bonilla-Gómez, J. L. (2015). Growth and mor-
tality of red lionfish, Pterois volitans (Actinopterygii: Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae),
in the Parque Nacional Arrecife Alacranes, southern Gulf of Mexico, as determined by
size-frequency analysis. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 45, 175–179.
Rojas, D. C., Chevalier Monteagudo, P., Schmitter-Soto, J. J., Corrada Wong, R. I., Salvat Torres,
H., Cabrera Sansón, E., García Rodríguez, A., Fernández Osorio, A., Espinosa Pantoja,
L., Cabrera Guerra, D., Pantoja Echevaria, L. M., Caballero Aragón, H. & Perera Valder-
rama, S. (2016). Density, size, biomass, and diet of lionfish in Guanahacabibes National
Park, western Cuba. Aquatic Biology 24, 219–226.
Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y., Craig, M. T., Bertoncini, A. A., Carpenter, K. E., Cheung, W. W. L.,
Choat, J. H., Cornish, A. S., Fennessy, S. T., Ferreira, B. P., Heemstra, P. C., Liu, M.,
Myers, R. F., Pollard, D. A., Rhodes, K. L., Rocha, L. A., Russell, B. C., Samoilys, M.
A. & Sanciangco, J. (2013). Fishing groupers towards extinction: a global assessment of
threats and extinction risks in a billion dollar fishery. Fish and Fisheries 14, 119–136.
Sandel, V., Martínez-Fernández, D., Wangpraseurt, D. & Sierra, L. (2015). Ecology and manage-
ment of the invasive lionfish Pterois volitans/miles complex (Perciformes: Scorpaenidae)
in southern Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical 63, 213–221.
Schofield, P. J. (2009). Geographic extent and chronology of the invasion of non-native lion-
fish (Pterois volitans [Linnaeus 1758] and P. miles [Bennett 1828]) in the western North
Atlantic and Caribbean Sea. Aquatic Invasions 4, 473–479.
Schofield, P. J. (2010). Update on geographic spread of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans
[Linnaeus, 1758] and P. miles [Bennett, 1828]) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Invasions 5, S117–S122.
Schofield, P. J., Huge, D. H., Rezek, T. C., Slone, D. H. & Morris, J. A. Jr. (2015). Survival and
growth of invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish at low salinities. Aquatic Invasions 10, 333–337.
Sellers, A. J., Ruiz, G. M., Leung, B. & Torchin, M. E. (2015). Regional variation in parasite
species richness and abundance in the introduced range of the invasive lionfish Pterois
volitans. PLoS One 10, e0131075. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131075
Semmens, B. X., Buhle, E. R., Salomon, A. K. & Pattengill-Semmens, C. V. (2004). A hotspot

of non-native marine fishes: evidence for the aquarium trade as an invasion pathway.
Sih, A., Bolnick, D. I., Luttbeg, B., Orrock, J. L., Peacor, S. D., Pintor, L. M., Preisser, E.,
Rehage, J. S. & Vonesh, J. R. (2010). Predator-prey naïveté, antipredator behavior and
the ecology of predator invasions. Oikos 119, 610–621.
Sikkel, P. C., Tuttle, L. J., Cure, K., Coile, A. M. & Hixon, M. A. (2014). Low susceptibility of
invasive red lionfish (Pterois volitans) to a generalist ectoparasite in both its introduced
and native ranges. PLoS One 9, e95854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095854
Simberloff, D. (2000). No reserve is an island: marine reserves and nonindigenous species. Bul-
letin of Marine Science 66, 567–580.
Simberloff, D. (2009). The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 40, 81–102.
Smith, N. S., Green, S. J., Akins, J. L., Miller, S. & Côté, I. M. (2017). Density-dependent
colonization and natural disturbance limit the effectiveness of invasive lionfish culling
efforts. Biological Invasions 19, 2385–2399.
Stachowicz, J. J. & Tilman, D. (2005). Species invasions and the relationships between species
diversity, community saturation and ecosystem functioning. In Species Invasions:
Insights into Ecology, Evolution and Biogeography (Sax, D. F., Stachowicz, J. J. &
Gaines, S. D., eds), pp. 4–64. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Stachowicz, J. J., Whitlatch, R. B. & Osman, R. W. (1999). Species diversity and invasion resis-
tance in a marine ecosystem. Science 286, 1577–1579.
Stevens, J. L. & Olson, J. B. (2015). Bacterial communities associated with lionfish in their
native and invaded ranges. Marine Ecology Progress Series 531, 253–262.
Stevens, J. L., Jackson, R. L. & Olson, J. B. (2016). Bacteria associated with lionfish (Pterois
volitans/miles complex) exhibit antibacterial activity against known fish pathogens.
Sutherland, W. J., Clout, M., Côté, I. M., Daszak, P., Depledge, M. H., Fellman, L., Fleishman,
E., Garthwaite, R., Gibbons, D. W., De Lurio, J., Impey, A. J., Lickorish, F., Lindenmayer,
D., Madgwick, J., Margerison, C., Maynard, T., Peck, L. S., Pretty, J., Prior, S., Redford,
K. H., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Spalding, M. & Watkinson, A. R. (2010). A horizon scan
of global conservation issues for 2010. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25, 1–7.
Switzer, T. S., Tremain, D. M., Keenan, S. F., Stafford, C. J., Parks, S. L. & McMichael, R. H.
Jr. (2015). Temporal and spatial dynamics of the lionfish invasion in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico: perspectives from a broadscale trawl survey. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 7,
1–8.
Tamburello, N. & Côté, I. M. (2014). Movement ecology of Indo-Pacific lionfish on Caribbean
coral reefs and its implications for invasion dynamics. Biological Invasions 17,
1639–1653.
Tilley, A., Carer, E., Wassermann, S. & López-Angarita, J. (2016). Enhancing management
effectiveness of invasive lionfish using distance sampling and detection probability.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26, 279–288.
Toledo-Hernández, C., Vélez-Zuazo, X., Ruiz-Diaz, C. P., Patricio, A. R., Mège, P., Navarro,
M., Sabat, A. M., Betancur-R, R. & Papa, R. (2014). Population ecology and genetics of
the invasive lionfish in Puerto Rico. Aquatic Invasions 9, 227–237.
Tornabene, L. & Baldwin, C. C. (2017). A new mesophotic goby, Palatogobius incendius
(Teleostei: Gobiidae) and the first record of invasive lionfish preying on undescribed
biodiversity. PLoS One 12, e0177179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177179
Tuttle, L. J. (2017). Direct and indirect effects of invasive lionfish on coral-reef cleaning mutu-
alists. Marine Ecology Progress Series 569, 163–172.
Tuttle, L. J., Sikkel, P. C., Cure, K. & Hixon, M. A. (2017). Parasite-mediated enemy release and
low biotic resistance may facilitate invasion of Atlantic coral reefs by Pacific red lionfish
(Pterois volitans). Biological Invasions 19, 563–575.
Usseglio, P., Selwyn, J. D., Downey-Wall, A. M. & Hogan, J. D. (2017). Effectiveness of
removals of the invasive lionfish: how many dives are needed to deplete a reef? PeerJ 5,
e3043. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3043
Valdez-Moreno, M., Quintal-Lizama, C., Gómez-Lozano, R. & García-Rivas, M. D. C. (2012).
Monitoring an alien invasion: DNA barcoding and the identification of lionfish and their
prey on coral reefs of the Mexican Caribbean. PLoS One 7, e36636. https://doi.org/10
.1371/journal.pone.0036636
Valdivia, A., Bruno, J. F., Cox, C. E., Hackerott, S. & Green, S. J. (2014). Re-examining the
relationship between invasive lionfish and native grouper in the Caribbean. PeerJ 2, e348.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.348
Vásquez-Yeomans, L., Carrillo, L., Morales, S., Malca, E., Morris, J. A. Jr., Schultz, T. &
Lamkin, J. T. (2011). First larval record of Pterois volitans (Pisces: Scorpaenidae) col-
lected from the ichthyoplankton in the Atlantic. Biological Invasions 13, 2635–2640.
Vetrano, S. J., Lebowitz, J. B. & Marcus, S. (2002). Lionfish envenomation. The Journal of
Emergency Medicine 23, 379–382.
Whitfield, P. E., Gardner, T., Vives, S. P., Gilligan, M. R., Courtenay, W. R., Ray, G. C. & Hare,
J. A. (2002). Biological invasion of the Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans along the
Atlantic coast of North America. Marine Ecology Progress Series 235, 289–297.
Whitfield, P. E., Hare, J. A., David, A. W., Harter, S. L., Muñoz, R. C. & Addison, C. M. (2007).
Abundance estimates of the Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans/miles complex in the
western North Atlantic. Biological Invasions 9, 53–64.
Wilcox, C. L., Motomura, H., Matsunuma, M. & Bowen, B. W. (2018). Phylogeography of lion-
fish (Pterois) indicate taxonomic over splitting and hybrid origin of the invasive Pterois
volitans. Journal of Heredity 109, 162–175.
Woo, N. Y. S. & Chung, K. C. (1995). Tolerance of Pomacanthus imperator to hypoosmotic
salinities: changes in body composition and hepatic enzyme activities. Journal of Fish
Biology 47, 70–81.
Wu, R. S. S. & Woo, N. Y. S. (1983). Tolerance of hypo-osmotic salinities in 13 species of adult
marine fish – implications for estuarine fish culture. Aquaculture 32, 175–181.
Electronic References
Garcia-Moliner, G. & Eklund, A. -M. 2004. Epinephelus morio. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2004: e. T44681A10923778. Available online at www. Iucnredlist.
Org/details/44681/0
Huth, W. L., McEvoy, D. M. & Morgan, O. A. (2016). Controlling invasive species through con-
sumption: private and public values of eating lionfish. Working Paper No. 16-05. Boone,
NC: Appalachian State University Department of Economics. Available at www.econ
.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp1605.pdf
Morris, J. A. Jr & Whitfield, P. E. (2009). Biology, ecology, control and management of the
invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish: An updated integrated assessment. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS NCCOS 99, 1–57. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. Available at https://cdn.coastalscience.noaa.gov/
publication-attachments/nccos-tech-memos/NCCOS-TM-99_Morris_2009.pdf

Journal of Fish Biology - 2018 - C T - The Lionfish Pterois SP Invasion Has The Worst Case Scenario Come To Pass

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Fish Biology - 2018 - C T - The Lionfish Pterois SP Invasion Has The Worst Case Scenario Come To Pass

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Fish Biology (2018) 92, 660–689

doi:10.1111/jfb.13544, available online at wileyonlinelibrary.com

The lionfish Pterois sp. invasion: Has the worst-case scenario

I. M. Côté* and N. S. Smith

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel. +1-778-782-3705; email: imcote@sfu.ca

Amazon–Orinoco Plume, on the south-eastern coast of Brazil, which is genetically

WHY HAVE LIONFISH BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL AS AN INVADER?

Morris & Albins & Côté et al.

Daily growth (mm day−1 )

Akins et al., 2014 0·4 0.1–0·6 – – – Tagging Bahamas

Number of prey species

HAS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO COME TO PASS?

Elements of worst-case scenario Observations to date

INDIRECT EFFECTS ON THE BENTHOS

moving even further north to the Gulf-Stream-warmed waters of Bermuda (Whitfield

TOWARDS SOLUTIONS TO THE LIONFISH PROBLEM

between the ecological effectiveness of culling and reductions in management costs or

LIONFISH IN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF INVASION ECOLOGY

(a) 90 (b) 2·2

Lionfish density index

Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae), in the Mexican Caribbean: insights into the ecological

Gardner, P. G., Frazer, T. K., Jacoby, C. A. & Yanong, R. P. E. (2015). Reproductive

Johnston, M. W. & Purkis, S. J. (2015a). Hurricanes accelerated the Florida–Bahamas lionfish

Semmens, B. X., Buhle, E. R., Salomon, A. K. & Pattengill-Semmens, C. V. (2004). A hotspot

You might also like