Field Guide to Nonindigenous Marine Fishes of Florida

The purpose of this field guide is to provide information on nonindigenous (i.e., non-native) fishes that have been observed in Florida’s marine waters. Introductions of non-native marine fishes into Florida’s waters could be intentional or unintentional, and are likely from a variety of sources, including aquarium releases, escape from aquaculture, loss due to extreme weather events (e.g., flooding from hurricanes), and possibly transfer with ballast water or hull-fouling. Presently the lionfishes (Pterois volitans and P. miles) are the only non-native marine fish species known to be established along the coast of Florida. All other marine fishes in this guide (except the euryhaline species, see below) have infrequent occurrences, occur singly or in small groups, and have not yet become self-sustaining populations. Aquarium releases are one of the major pathways whereby nonindigenous fishes gain access to new environments (Ruiz et al. 1997; Fuller et al. 1999). Most of the nonindigenous marine fishes found in Florida’s waters are thought to be aquarium fishes that either were illegally released into the ocean or escaped captivity (e.g., during severe storm/flooding events). Indeed, south Florida is a hotspot for nonindigenous marine aquarium fishes (Semmens et al. 2004). Increased public awareness of the problems caused by released or escaped aquarium fishes may aid in stemming the frequency of releases. For example, HabitattitudeTM (www.habitattitude.net) is a national public awareness and partnership campaign that encourages aquarists and water gardeners to prevent the release of unwanted aquarium plants, fish and other animals. It prompts hobbyists to adopt alternative actions when dealing with these aquatic plants and animals. (PDF file contains 133 pages.

Rapid Invasion of Indo-Pacific Lionfishes (\u3cem\u3ePterois Volitans\u3c/em\u3e and \u3cem\u3ePterois Miles\u3c/em\u3e) in the Florida Keys, USA: Evidence from Multiple Pre- and Post-Invasion Data Sets

Over the past decade, Indo-Pacific lionfishes, Pterois volitans (Linnaeus, 1758) and Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828), venomous members of the scorpionfish family (Scorpaenidae), have invaded and spread throughout much of the tropical and subtropical northwestern Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea. These species are generalist predators of fishes and invertebrates with the potential to disrupt the ecology of the invaded range. Lionfishes have been present in low numbers along the east coast of Florida since the 1980s, but were not reported in the Florida Keys until 2009. We document the appearance and rapid spread of lionfishes in the Florida Keys using multiple long-term data sets that include both pre- and post-invasion sampling. Our results are the first to quantify the invasion of lionfishes in a new area using multiple independent, ongoing monitoring data sets, two of which have explicit estimates of sampling effort. Between 2009 and 2011, lionfish frequency of occurrence, abundance, and biomass increased rapidly, increasing three- to six-fold between 2010 and 2011 alone. In addition, individuals were detected on a variety of reef and non-reef habitats throughout the Florida Keys. Because lionfish occurrence, abundance, and impacts are expected to continue to increase throughout the region, monitoring programs like those used in this study will be essential to document ecosystem changes that may result from this invasion

The Role of Citizens in Detecting and Responding to a Rapid Marine Invasion

Documenting and responding to species invasions requires innovative strategies that account for ecological and societal complexities. We used the recent expansion of Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles) throughout northern Gulf of Mexico coastal waters to evaluate the role of stakeholders in documenting and responding to a rapid marine invasion. We coupled an online survey of spearfishers and citizen science monitoring programs with traditional fishery-independent data sources and found that citizen observations documented lionfish 1–2 years earlier and more frequently than traditional reef fish monitoring programs. Citizen observations first documented lionfish in 2010 followed by rapid expansion and proliferation in 2011 (+367%). From the survey of spearfishers, we determined that diving experience and personal observations of lionfish strongly influenced perceived impacts, and these perceptions were powerful predictors of support for initiatives. Our study demonstrates the value of engaging citizens for assessing and responding to large-scale and time-sensitive conservation problems

Relationship between lionfish density (ind 100 m⁻²) and abundance of large Caribbean groupers (density [ind 100 m⁻²] and biomass [g 100 m⁻²]).

<p>Lionfish density versus biomass and density of Nassau, black, and tiger grouper.</p

The relationship between the biomass of large grouper species and lionfish biomass.

<p>Note the log-log scale. Each point represents a site mean. GLMM analysis indicated lionfish and large grouper biomass were not significantly related. “Grouper” in this plot includes all “large grouper species” as defined by Mumby et al. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0068259#pone.0068259-Mumby1" target="_blank">[14]</a>, i.e., <i>Epinephelus striatus</i> (nassau grouper), <i>Mycteroperca tigris</i> (tiger grouper), <i>M. bonaci</i> (black grouper), <i>M. venenosa</i> (yellowfin grouper), and <i>M. interstitialis</i> (yellowmouth grouper).</p

Location of survey sites.

<p>Location of surveys sites. For site abbreviations, surveys dates and coordinates refer to Table S1.</p

Relationship between lionfish density (ind 100 m⁻²) and abundance of potential native competitors (density [ind 100 m⁻²] and biomass [g 100 m⁻²]).

<p>Lionfish density versus biomass and density of coney, graysby, and red hind.</p

Relationship between lionfish density (ind 100 m⁻²) and total grouper abundance (density [ind m⁻²] and biomass [g m⁻²]).

<p>Lionfish density versus total grouper biomass and density.</p

Relationship between lionfish density (ind 100 m⁻²) and abundance of native Caribbean predatory fishes (density [ind 100 m⁻² ] and biomass [g 100 m⁻²]).

<p>Lionfish density versus “total predators”, “large predators”, and “small predators” density and biomass.</p

Coefficient estimates (mean, ±1 standard deviation and ±95% confidence interval) for each of the glmmADMB models.

<p>We ran ten models, five with density and five with biomass of biotic groups. Every model was run with the same abiotic factors. The biotic groups were: total predators, large predators, small predators, total grouper, and groupers by species (black+Nassau+tiger+coney+graysby+red hind). Each color represents a model for either density or biomass of biotic groups.</p