Lionfish Awareness and Elimination

[jupitermermaid]

Today I went out for a 4 tank dive. On the first dive we went to a popular site which we frequent. I caught two lionfish. On the second dive we went to a part of the reef system we haven't been to in quite a while. I killed 10 lionfish, 2 as large as snapper. On the third and fourth dive, we went back to often visited reef areas, where I caught one lionfish on the third dive, and 2 little ones on the fourth that I left behind hoping something will eventually eat them. We may never be able to eradicate this INVASIVE species, but no one can tell me that the small amount of catching we do doesn't make a difference. I will eat well for the next couple of nights!

 

[AnotherNewguy]

I really hope as I read through this thread that there is some sarcasm that I'm missing. If not, some of these posts and ecological theories fall somewhere between humorous (if you find ignorance amusing) and so silly it's a struggle to merely format a logical response.

Yes, in the end, there would be an ecological balance. The issue is simply what that balance would look like. I dive to see the variations in life in the water and enjoy the natural habitat. I don't want to dive and just see 8 gazillion lionfish. IF there are no true predators (which in many areas, there aren't any known ones that I'm aware of), that is exactly what would happen. An unchecked species will dominate an ecosystem - it's tried, proven, and indisputable. The only thing that can eventually check a system is the environment's carrying capacity for that particular species and in a reef environment where all these colorful but generally defenseless fish reside, that carrying capacity would be near infinite until the reef populations have been decimated.

Which leads us to our other nugget of wisdom, the fish will just evolve and deal with the problem or die. Well, my wise friend, the problem is that a fish cannot simply evolve. If you have a clever way of attaching a pole spear to a reef fish's fin, maybe they can fight back. As the poster mentioned, even a moray eel got knocked back by a large Lionfish. Who exactly would you pick to be next up the food chain to come eat that fish? A fish can't pull an all-nighter, think up a clever way to combat the lionfish invasion, and leave us with a sound ecosystem in the morning.

In most land species, a creature has a niche that they fill and a series of prey that they particularly eat. The ecosystem is generally in balance as long as it's left unaltered and the populations generally reflect a predator/prey correlation to some degree. What happens though, if you have a creature that has no known predators? See the current population booms of white tailed deer, coyotes, wild hogs, etc. If we let lionfish go without a common or competent predator, what happens to its population? It continues to grow exponentially. Now, as the LF population grows larger and larger, guess what happens to our reef population. They become one big, colorful buffet. Reef fish continue to get eaten, LF continue to grow and reproduce, and the population gets larger and larger again. Even for the most prolific of breeders, the LF population will eventually grow to a capacity capable of even outdoing that reproduction rate. THIS would be the point at which the LF would begin to reach the carrying capacity but when even the best breeding fish are being overtaken by LF, what do you think happened to all those fish that weren't quite as good at breeding? Yeah, we wont be seeing them on the reef anymore and unless there's a secluded population somewhere, they might not be coming back.

Then there's the beautiful nugget of wisdom that suggests humans shouldn't interfere with the natural progression of things. Well, sorry fella, but you didn't actually come from a stork dropping you on the doorstep and neither did that lionfish. The reason we have this problem is because a non-native fish with no known local predators (and a pretty mean defense system) was introduced into the wild. Humans upset the balance but now you want to say, "Hey man, it's nature, we gotta let it run its course". Yeah, well, that idea is stupid and about as likely to succeed as if we'd taken that theory with the oil well that we blew up in the gulf a while back. There's some mistakes that Mother Nature WILL correct for us but we may not like the timeline nor the method of correction. IF the LF invasion were simply a matter of a fierce predator expanding its territory, the fish that fed on the LF would also expand as their prey did. The populations would remain in balance but, really, if this were possible then in all the years that the ocean and reef had been there before humans learned to put big ol' bubbles on our back and go swimming, the fish would've already been here. This means that the expanse between the LF populations we have now and those fish who naturally prey on them is probably too large to be corrected by nature absent we humans introducing yet ANOTHER non-native fish into our environment. Whoever eats LF in the Indian Ocean wont be getting a call from Cousin Elvin in Florida that there's an unchecked LF population that nobody's eating and they should swim on down for a weekend.

There, I think that got some of my ranting out of my system. I'll spare everyone from having to listen to more of my mockery and condescension but anyone who thinks an unchecked (and especially non-native) predator being released into the wild wont have an effect on the ecosystem just leaves me uttering, "Really!?" repeatedly and in increasing octaves.

 

[Guba]

I went to Grand Bahama Island specifically to meet Fred, dive with him, and see for myself the ecosystem changes/balances he describes in the video. While the jury is still out, much of what he says appears to have merit, though conclusive evidence is sorely needed to verify his hypotheses. I've begun writing articles (starting on my local level) concerning the need for in-depth study of the effects of mid-level predator loss, the efficiency of lionfish in claiming ecological niches, and the effect of lionfish populations on reef fish communities. Hopefully, if enough folks express interest in the science of this encroachment, then professional researchers will begin to look into the true nature of the problem. I suspect if we do that, we will find that the "solution" goes much further than simply spearing some lionfish...it will mean drastically changing the way we harvest biota from the ocean and moving to true conservation measures on a sweeping scale.

By the way...a question for AnotherNewGuy: This is not to be construed as argumentative, but I think it's relevant. The lionfish occupies a mid-level predator niche, one often filled by grouper, cod, snapper, etc... Under the logic of your ecological description, shouldn't reefs "undisturbed by lionfish" (such as those that existed before the lionfish invasion began) have been drastically overpopulated by other midlevel predators? i.e. shouldn't grouper have been devouring reef fish at an alarming rate until the carrying capacity of the species was reached? What would have prevented that?

 

[AnotherNewguy]

I went to Grand Bahama Island specifically to meet Fred, dive with him, and see for myself the ecosystem changes/balances he describes in the video. While the jury is still out, much of what he says appears to have merit, though conclusive evidence is sorely needed to verify his hypotheses. I've begun writing articles (starting on my local level) concerning the need for in-depth study of the effects of mid-level predator loss, the efficiency of lionfish in claiming ecological niches, and the effect of lionfish populations on reef fish communities. Hopefully, if enough folks express interest in the science of this encroachment, then professional researchers will begin to look into the true nature of the problem. I suspect if we do that, we will find that the "solution" goes much further than simply spearing some lionfish...it will mean drastically changing the way we harvest biota from the ocean and moving to true conservation measures on a sweeping scale.

You know, I should've mentioned in my above rant that it is not the educated concepts I have problems with. In that video, he obviously has reasoning for his hypothesis. The preference would be for no change whatsoever to take place so even if spearing the fish doesn't change it entirely, it also doesn't hurt the cause.

The end result though is that a fish cannot be introduced and NOT have impacts on the environment unless it finds an absolutely vacated niche which isn't going to happen, particularly in the sea. SOME native fish will be impacted. If there were the excess food, habitat, etc then another fish would've expanded and the population grown.

Whatever the case, learning more about the subject can only lead to improvements. We just have to be careful about how that gets interpreted and "Lionfish may not be bad after all" is slightly too simplistic on its surface.

 

[danvolker]

I really hope as I read through this thread that there is some sarcasm that I'm missing. If not, some of these posts and ecological theories fall somewhere between humorous (if you find ignorance amusing) and so silly it's a struggle to merely format a logical response.

Yes, in the end, there would be an ecological balance. The issue is simply what that balance would look like. I dive to see the variations in life in the water and enjoy the natural habitat. I don't want to dive and just see 8 gazillion lionfish. IF there are no true predators (which in many areas, there aren't any known ones that I'm aware of), that is exactly what would happen. An unchecked species will dominate an ecosystem - it's tried, proven, and indisputable. The only thing that can eventually check a system is the environment's carrying capacity for that particular species and in a reef environment where all these colorful but generally defenseless fish reside, that carrying capacity would be near infinite until the reef populations have been decimated.

Which leads us to our other nugget of wisdom, the fish will just evolve and deal with the problem or die. Well, my wise friend, the problem is that a fish cannot simply evolve. If you have a clever way of attaching a pole spear to a reef fish's fin, maybe they can fight back. As the poster mentioned, even a moray eel got knocked back by a large Lionfish. Who exactly would you pick to be next up the food chain to come eat that fish? A fish can't pull an all-nighter, think up a clever way to combat the lionfish invasion, and leave us with a sound ecosystem in the morning.

In most land species, a creature has a niche that they fill and a series of prey that they particularly eat. The ecosystem is generally in balance as long as it's left unaltered and the populations generally reflect a predator/prey correlation to some degree. What happens though, if you have a creature that has no known predators? See the current population booms of white tailed deer, coyotes, wild hogs, etc. If we let lionfish go without a common or competent predator, what happens to its population? It continues to grow exponentially. Now, as the LF population grows larger and larger, guess what happens to our reef population. They become one big, colorful buffet. Reef fish continue to get eaten, LF continue to grow and reproduce, and the population gets larger and larger again. Even for the most prolific of breeders, the LF population will eventually grow to a capacity capable of even outdoing that reproduction rate. THIS would be the point at which the LF would begin to reach the carrying capacity but when even the best breeding fish are being overtaken by LF, what do you think happened to all those fish that weren't quite as good at breeding? Yeah, we wont be seeing them on the reef anymore and unless there's a secluded population somewhere, they might not be coming back.

Then there's the beautiful nugget of wisdom that suggests humans shouldn't interfere with the natural progression of things. Well, sorry fella, but you didn't actually come from a stork dropping you on the doorstep and neither did that lionfish. The reason we have this problem is because a non-native fish with no known local predators (and a pretty mean defense system) was introduced into the wild. Humans upset the balance but now you want to say, "Hey man, it's nature, we gotta let it run its course". Yeah, well, that idea is stupid and about as likely to succeed as if we'd taken that theory with the oil well that we blew up in the gulf a while back. There's some mistakes that Mother Nature WILL correct for us but we may not like the timeline nor the method of correction. IF the LF invasion were simply a matter of a fierce predator expanding its territory, the fish that fed on the LF would also expand as their prey did. The populations would remain in balance but, really, if this were possible then in all the years that the ocean and reef had been there before humans learned to put big ol' bubbles on our back and go swimming, the fish would've already been here. This means that the expanse between the LF populations we have now and those fish who naturally prey on them is probably too large to be corrected by nature absent we humans introducing yet ANOTHER non-native fish into our environment. Whoever eats LF in the Indian Ocean wont be getting a call from Cousin Elvin in Florida that there's an unchecked LF population that nobody's eating and they should swim on down for a weekend.

There, I think that got some of my ranting out of my system. I'll spare everyone from having to listen to more of my mockery and condescension but anyone who thinks an unchecked (and especially non-native) predator being released into the wild wont have an effect on the ecosystem just leaves me uttering, "Really!?" repeatedly and in increasing octaves.

Excellent Post!!!

 

[Hank49]

There, I think that got some of my ranting out of my system. I'll spare everyone from having to listen to more of my mockery and condescension but anyone who thinks an unchecked (and especially non-native) predator being released into the wild wont have an effect on the ecosystem just leaves me uttering, "Really!?" repeatedly and in increasing octaves.

How would you suggest we go about controlling the population in the Caribbean?
I would estimate that about 20% or so maximum of the Belize barrier reef has divers on it. Most goes unmolested, especially at depths greater than 130 feet or so. And who really knows at this point where our populations are even coming from, or where our lionfish larvae are ending up?
But the biggest drawback to long term control in my opinion will be that the next generation, or kids who grow up having seen them their whole life, will lose interest in a continued effort to control them on a wide scale. Yes, heavily dived tourist areas may be able to control them now but remember, for long term control, your grandkid's grandkid's grandkids will have tohave the same determination that you seem to show in some form of control. That will be the biggest challenge.
Our only hope here is that there are predators eating tiny LF larvae and will keep their numbers in check. This may already be the case given that they breed so prolifically yet their numbers of adults don't seem to reflect that number.

 

[danvolker]

One thing that may be good for this discussion, is what we will get from our Project Baseline study in Palm Beach...we have good baseline information/videos of the 60 foot reef on many of the reef sites, where you can see a relative absence of Lionfish, due to Human intervention....We are about to start doing runs on the deeper reefs... a nice comparison will occur..maybe the healthier deep reefs will be holding their own...maybe they will be full of lion fish...videos will show the typical ledges in each area.
Ultimately the data all gets mapped to a Google Earth interface, making constructive discussions like this more productive.
If we see tons of lionfish on the 220 foot ledges, someone will need to invent an "underwater gattling gun" for us to mount on the scooters

 

[AnotherNewguy]

How would you suggest we go about controlling the population in the Caribbean?
I would estimate that about 20% or so maximum of the Belize barrier reef has divers on it. Most goes unmolested, especially at depths greater than 130 feet or so. And who really knows at this point where our populations are even coming from, or where our lionfish larvae are ending up?
But the biggest drawback to long term control in my opinion will be that the next generation, or kids who grow up having seen them their whole life, will lose interest in a continued effort to control them on a wide scale. Yes, heavily dived tourist areas may be able to control them now but remember, for long term control, your grandkid's grandkid's grandkids will have tohave the same determination that you seem to show in some form of control. That will be the biggest challenge.
Our only hope here is that there are predators eating tiny LF larvae and will keep their numbers in check. This may already be the case given that they breed so prolifically yet their numbers of adults don't seem to reflect that number.

I absolutely agree with everything you say. Reality is we're fighting an uphill battle that unless we get some magical solution, we'll probably eventually lose. The best we can do is to defend those areas where we might even have a marginal impact. Calling attention to the cause in the way they currently have seems to be an amazing success so far.

The one X factor here that may help the cause is what I've always referred to as the lazy sportsman. I know lots of people who enjoy the thrill of a hunt but they're not so into it that they'll go through the effort of cleaning a fish or game animal that they hunt. Morally, though, responsible outdoorsman are taught that any game you take is done responsibly and you take no more than you can consume. Well, lionfish are the 'out' there. You can have the thrill of the hunt, get a fish, feel good about saving the reef, and then dump the fish on the bottom of the ocean and you're avoiding the work of cleaning it. The beauty of it is that by dumping it on the bottom, current theory suggest you could be helping the reef even more than taking it. It's a win(hunters)/Win(reef)/Win(other predator fish) scenario. You can do this as much as you'd like and you'll never do anything but help the reef. It's like catch and release with a spear. THAT could be the X factor that keeps future generations as interested in the preservation of the ecosystem as we currently are.

 

[b-dog]

The real problem with the situation is that there is overfishing and there are a lack of both mid-level and high level predators. The lack of mid-level predators is one reason why lionfish are thriving because there is a huge amount of small fish to eat that would have been eaten if there were some medium sized groupers. And because there are few big groupers there are few things that eat the lionfish so they have few predators. Now if people were serious about reducing the lionfish numbers then they would stop eating groupers.

 

[Guba]

Hank49 hit the mark spot on. Around here, we call that the "mesquite conundrum". Farmers and ranchers have been waging war on the mesquite tree, an invasive species, for better than a century. Grubbing, aerial spraying, and "chaining" can only control areas through expensive, time consuming, and constant effort. However, these measures are effective only in relatively small areas such as crop fields and beloved pastures worth the effort. The sad truth is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to eradicate the mesquite from the vast majority of pastureland in this area. The other sad truth is that it is the same for virtually ALL invasive species...that's why they are called "invasive".

Bottom line is the lionfish is here to stay and the best that can be hoped for (not necessarily realized) is that control in small, localized areas might achieve some modicum of success. A miracle would be for some indigenous species to decide that lionfish should be on their menu and begin leveling the playing field, ecologically.

To b-dog...There may be truth in what you propose, but again data simply isn't there to support it...yet. I've corresponded to multiple researchers concerning the same hypothesis, and while they agree that it would make a very intriguing study, no one has yet made a direct correlation between high fishing pressure and the success of the lionfish in claiming territory, or low fishing pressure and an area's resistance to the onslaught. While there may be data (REEF studies, etc...) available, I know of no one who has yet to analyze the information and make solid, data-supported conclusions on the matter. Trust me, I'm anticipating that study.

Finally, another place that is being watched carefully is the Flower Gardens Banks NMS. That area has been carefully documented and studied for over two decades and a vast bank of data exists for its population density. In all likelihood, lionfish will arrive there this summer (already reported on Sonnier Banks...about 70 miles to the east). Researchers will pretty much be able to document the very day they get there, and we'll be able to watch in real time the exact effect upon reef fish density, etc...as time goes on.

Just a few thoughts.