Skip to main content

Optimum lionfish yield: a non-traditional management concept for invasive lionfish (Pterois spp.) fisheries

Abstract

This paper describes a non-traditional fisheries management concept and an indicator-based framework to encourage and guide management of invasive lionfish (Pterois spp.) fisheries in the temperate and tropical western Atlantic. We introduce the concept of optimum lionfish yield (OLY)—an extension of the concept of ecologically sustainable yield—which considers local ecological health in the establishment of fishery management targets. In contrast to traditional fishery targets, OLY is a target exceeding maximum sustainable yield (MSY) that still provides relatively high sustainable yield, but further contributes to population suppression beyond what is achievable through targets at or below MSY. Thus, OLY seeks to balance management trade-offs from both natural resource and invasive species management perspectives. In this study, we developed an age-structured population model and applied the concept of OLY to quantify targets to initiate management of a nationally-managed lionfish fishery in Belize. Socioeconomic and ecological data were used as indicators to formulate OLY values. The model indicates that lionfish in Belize are biologically robust to fishing pressure, which corroborates previous findings. Fishing lionfish at rates above MSY levels is expected to substantially reduce population abundance, much more so than fishing at rates below MSY levels, while having relatively minimal impacts on yield. Population suppression can be further enhanced by reducing size at selection, but this is expected to be done at a significant cost to landings. Together, these data support continued establishment of (managed) commercial lionfish fisheries throughout the invaded range to provide an alternative sustainable fishery resource and serve as a means of national- and international-level control. While the concept and framework described here is introduced for management of invasive lionfish, it could be applied to management of other invasive species, both aquatic and terrestrial.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Albins MA (2015) Invasive Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce abundance and species richness of native Bahamian coral-reef fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 522:231–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albins MA, Hixon MA (2008) Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce recruitment of Atlantic coral-reef fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 367:233–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ballew NG, Bacheler NM, Kellison GT, Schueller AM (2016) Invasive lionfish reduce native fish abundance on a regional scale. Sci Rep 6:32169

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbour AB, Allen MS, Frazer TK, Sherman KD (2011) Evaluating the potential efficacy of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) removals. PLoS ONE 6(5):e19666

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baranov FI (1918) On the question of the biological basis of fisheries. Izvestiya 1:81–128

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fish. Invest. Minist. Agric. Fish. Food G.B. Ser. II 19.533 p.

  7. Chagaris D, Binion-Rock S, Bogdanoff AK, Dahl K, Granneman J, Harris H, Mohan J, Rudd MB, Swenarton MK, Ahrens R, Patterson WF, Morris JA, Allen M (2017) An ecosystem based approach to evaluating impacts and management of invasive lionfish. Fisheries 42(8):421–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chapman JK, L Anderson, ML Fruitema, J Solomon, S Green, AK Bogdanoff, J Sabattis, Bueso D (2019) Belize National Lionfish Management Strategy, 2019–2023. Blue Ventures Conservation, London, UK, 102 p.

  9. Côté IM, Green SJ, Hixon MA (2013) Predatory fish invaders: insights from Indo-Pacific lionfish in the western Atlantic and Caribbean. Biol Cons 164:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dahl KA, Patterson WF, Snyder RA (2016) Experimental assessment of lionfish removals to mitigate reef fish community shifts on northern Gulf of Mexico artificial reefs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 558:207–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Edwards MA, Frazer TK, Jacoby CA (2014) Age and growth of invasive lionfish (Pterois spp.) in the Caribbean Sea, with implications for management. Bull Mar Sci 90:953–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellner SP, Guckenheimer J (2006) Dynamic models in biology. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 352 pp.

  13. Fogg AG, Brown-Peterson NJ, Peterson MS (2017) Reproductive life history characteristics of invasive red lionfish (Pterois volitans) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Bull Mar Sci 93(3):791–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Forrest RE, McAllister MK, Dorn MW, Martell SJD, Stanley RD (2010) Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of recruitment parameters and reference points for Pacific rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) under alternative assumptions about the stock-recruit function. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 67(10):1611–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frazer TK, Jacoby CA, Edwards MA, Barry SC, Manfrino CM (2012) Coping with the lionfish invasion: can targeted removals yield beneficial effects? Rev Fish Sci 20:185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gardner PG, Fraser TK, Jaconby CA, Yanong RPE (2015) Reproductive biology of invasive lionfish (Pterois spp.). Front Mar Sci 2:7.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goodyear CP (1993) Spawning stock biomass per recruit in fisheries management: foundation and current use. In: Smith SJ, Hunt JJ, Rivard R (eds) Risk evaluation and biological reference points for fisheries management. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, pp. 67–81.

  18. Green SJ, Akins JL, Maljkovi A, Côté IM (2012) Invasive Lionfish drive Atlantic Coral Reef Fish declines. PLoS ONE 7(3):e32596

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Green SJ, Dulvy NK, Brooks ALM, Cooper AB, Akins JL, Miller S, Côté IM (2014) Linking removal targets to the ecological effects of invaders: a predictive model and field test. Ecol Appl 24(6):1311–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Green SJ, Underwood EM, Akins JL (2017) Mobilizing volunteers to sustain local suppression of a global marine invasion. Conserv Lett 10:726–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hardison DR, Holland WC, Darius HT, Chinain M, Tester PA, Shea D, Bogdanoff AK, Morris JA, Quintana HAF, Loeffler CR, Buddo D, Litaker RW (2018) Investigation of ciguatoxins in invasive lionfish from the greater Caribbean region: implications for fishery development. PLoS ONE 13(6):e0198358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnston MA, Gittings SR, Morris JA Jr (2015) NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries Lionfish Response Plan (2015–2018): responding, controlling, and adapting to an active marine invasion. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-15–01. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 55 pp.

  23. Johnston MW, Purkis SJ (2015) A coordinated and sustained international strategy is required to turn the tide on the Atlantic lionfish invasion. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 533:219–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson EG, Swenarton MK (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Larkin PA (1977) An Epitaph for the concept of maximum sustained yield. Trans Am Fish Soc 106(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mace P (2001) A new role for MSY in single-species and ecosystem approaches to fisheries stock assessment and management. Fish Fish 2:2–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Merrick R (2018) Mechanisms for science to shape US living marine resource conservation policy. ICES J Mar Sci 75:2319–2324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Morris JA (2009) The biology and ecology of invasive indo-pacific lionfish. PhD Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 168 pp.

  29. Morris JA, Thomas A, Rhyne AL, Breen N, Akins L, Nash B (2011a) Nutritional properties of the invasive lionfish: a delicious and nutritious approach for controlling the invasion. Aquac Aquar Conserv Legis 5:99–102.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Morris JA, Shertzer KW, Rice JA (2011b) A stage-based matrix population model of invasive lionfish with implications for control. Biol Invas 13:7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Oficialdegui FJ, Delibes-Mateos M, Green AJ, Sanchez MI, Boyero L, Clavero M (2020) Rigid laws and invasive species management. Conserv Biol 34:1047–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Potts JC, Berrane D, Morris JA (2010) Age and growth of lionfish from the western north Atlantic. Proc Gulf Caribbean Fish Institute 63:314

    Google Scholar 

  33. Prager MH, Shertzer KW (2010) Deriving acceptable biological catch from the overfishing limit: Implications for assessment models. North Am J Fish Manag 30:289–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/

  35. Schofield PJ (2010) Update on geographic spread of invasive lionfishes (Pterois volitans [Linnaeus, 1758] and P. miles [Bennett, 1828]) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Aquat Invasions 5:S117–S122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Searle L, Chacon N, Bach L (2012) The Belize Lionfish management plan: an overview of the invasion, mitigation activities and recommendations. ECOMAR Technical Publication No 1. 80 p.

  37. Shertzer KW, Conn PB (2012) Spawner-recruit relationships of demersal marine fishes: prior distributions of steepness. Bull Mar Sci 88:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Then AY, Hoenig JM, Hall NG, Hewitt DA (2015) Evaluating the predictive performance of empirical estimators of natural mortality rate using information on over 200 fish species. ICES J Mar Sci 72(1):82–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Thorson JT (2020) Predicting recruitment density dependence and intrinsic growth rate for all fishes worldwide using a data-integrated life-history model. Fish Fish 21:237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tremain M, O’Donnell D (2014) Total mercury levels in invasive lionfish, Pterois volitans and Pterois miles (Scorpaenidae), from Florida waters. Bull Mar Sci 90(2):565–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Von Bertalanffy L (1957) Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Quart Rev Biol 32:217–2331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zabel RW, Harvey CJ, Katz SL, Good TP, Levin PS (2003) Ecologically sustainable yield: marine conservation requires a new ecosystem-based concept for fisheries management that looks beyond sustainable yield for individual fish species. Am Sci 91(2):150–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank T. Kwak, P. Tester, D. Nowacek, C. Harms, L. Lee, S. Binion-Rock, S. Gittings, M. Balling, A. Chester, G. Piniak, E. García-Berthou, M. Allen, and one anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments that improved the manuscript. We thank the Belize Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute for the geospatial data used to estimate total initial abundance, and we thank Blue Ventures Expeditions staff and volunteers that collected lionfish data in Belize. Financial support was provided by The Joseph E. and Robin C. Hightower Endowment, The Mesoamerican Reef Fund, The Summit Foundation, NOAA Fisheries International Affair’s Program, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Aquatic Nuisance Species Grant program. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views and opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of any government agency.

Funding

Financial support was provided by The Joseph E. and Robin C. Hightower Endowment, The Mesoamerican Reef Fund, The Summit Foundation, NOAA Fisheries International Affair’s Program, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Aquatic Nuisance Species Grant program.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex K. Bogdanoff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent for publication

All authors have given consent for publication.

Availability of data and material

All data are available upon request.

Code availability

All code is available upon request.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Additional analyses

Appendix: Additional analyses

Part 1: Exploring uncertainty in landings and abundance

As described in the main text, the 2015 field estimates of abundance and landings were 733,257 lionfish and 89,902 lionfish. Abundance and landings directly affect estimates of the current fishing mortality rate (current F) and the asymptotic recruitment of age-1 fish (R0) and, therefore, model output (see “Model Description” in the main text). Here, we explore uncertainty in our point estimates of abundance and landings on current F, R0, and model output.

To do this, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations (N = 2000 iterations in each analysis) in which each iteration repeated our analysis but with different values of (1) abundance and landings and then (2) current F and R0. First, we drew a new value of abundance and a new value of landings each from a normal distribution with mean equal to the 2015 field estimates and an assumed coefficient of variation (CV) of CV = 0.1 (Appendix Fig. 5a, b). Using these values, we computed distributions of current F (Appendix Fig. 5c) and of R0 (Appendix Fig. 5d). We then propagated uncertainty in current F and R0 into the estimated management quantities. Similar to above, we conducted Monte Carlo simulations (N = 2000 iterations) in which each iteration repeated our analysis but with different values of current F and R0 drawn from their distributions produced above (i.e., Appendix Fig. 5c, d). This produced distributions of current landings (Lcurrent), MSY, and OLY (Appendix Fig. 6a), as well as in the levels of abundance associated with those values (Appendix Fig. 6b). The general conclusion presented in the main text remains the same as that inferred from the corresponding point estimates—fishing at OLY provides current levels of landings (by design) while suppressing the abundance to substantially lower levels than current.

Fig. 5
figure5

Assumed distributions of initial lionfish abundance (a) and landings (b) used to compute the current fishing rate (current F) (c) and the asymptotic recruitment of age-1 fish (R0) (d). Vertical lines indicate the 2015 field estimates of abundance and landings (a, b) and the point estimates of current F and R0 derived from those field estimates (c, d)

Fig. 6
figure6

Distributions of results derived from assumed distributions of field estimates of abundance and landings. Panel A shows distributions of landings corresponding to Lcurrent (blue), OLY (purple), and MSY (green). Note that Lcurrent is not apparent because it overlaps entirely with OLY (by design). Panel B shows the levels of abundance that correspond to the landings in Panel A

We additionally propagated uncertainty in current F and R0 into estimates of equilibrium landings and abundance as a function of fishing rate (Appendix Fig. 7). We caution that this analysis does not produce true confidence bands as it is predicated on our assumed value of CV = 0.1. It does, however, indicate the conditional degree of uncertainty in results stemming from the field estimates of abundance and landings.

Fig. 7
figure7

Equilibrium landings (a) and abundance (b) of lionfish in Belize across a range of fishing mortality rates: FMIN = 0 (filled square), FCURRENT = 0.32 (filled circle), FMSY = 0.67 (filled triangle), FOLY = 1.51 (filled diamond), and FHIGH = 5.0. Intervals shown represent the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles from N = 2000 Monte Carlo simulations with variability in the 2015 field estimates of lionfish abundance and landings

Part 2: Exploring Uncertainty in the standard deviation of size-at-age

As part of our analyses in the main text, we examined the effects of size-at-selection on equilibrium abundance and landings (see Fig. 4 in main text). The size-at-selection, along with growth characteristics including the standard deviation of size-at-age, determined the pattern of selectivity as the proportion of fish-at-age that were vulnerable to fishing. In Appendix Fig. 8, we show how size-at-selection and standard deviation of size-at-age affect the resulting selectivity curves. In general, the curves are far more sensitive to the size-at-selection (our pivot) than to the standard deviation.

Fig. 8
figure8

Selectivity as a function of the size-at-selection (Lvuln) and the standard deviation (SD) of size-at-age. Our base values were Lvuln = 250 mm and SD = 28.2, and values used to create Fig. 4 (main text) varied Lvuln over the range 200 mm to 300 mm, with SD = 28.2 in all cases. For this figure, we additionally varied SD ± 25% of the base value

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bogdanoff, A.K., Shertzer, K.W., Layman, C.A. et al. Optimum lionfish yield: a non-traditional management concept for invasive lionfish (Pterois spp.) fisheries. Biol Invasions 23, 795–810 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02398-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Age structure
  • Belize
  • Fishery management
  • Invasive species
  • Maximum sustainable yield
  • Optimum lionfish yield
  • Population model