Lionfish Awareness and Elimination

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

For the lionfish being more likely to hide as they become more hunted by scuba divers could interpreted by evolution as well. There could be a variety of different behaviors that lionfish might have based on there slight differences in genetics. So the ones that are more fearless tend to be the ones that are killed by scuba divers leaving the ones that are more reclusive to survive and reproduce. I think it is less likely that the lionfish are communicating or that they have seen their friends killed by scuba divers and that they have learned to hide. I think there is a trait that that the lionfish have that makes them more fearless or more likely to hide.

The same is true of the fish that survive the lionfish on the reef. I think there is variation in genes that influence behavior and those behaviors or abilities to detect predators that allow the fish to survive will be passed on to the next generation. This is evolution even if it is just a slight shift in frequencies of genetics. Evolution does not need to to have huge changes just enough to allow the organism to survive.
 
What I am going for, in this discussion, is that Lionfish are here because of Man....they did not get to Belize or Florida naturally. When "man" almost destroys a population of fish like the jewfish, Man had to step in and PUT AN END to "man's" killing of jewfish...And, it is working nicely :D

Man caused the Nasau grouper to become functionally extinct in Florida waters, the nasaus never "learned' to avoid spearfishing human divers.


This is why WE need to shoot and kill every lionfish we see...each is like a member of an exponentially growing commercial fishing fleet, fishing in waters facing a fishery collapse, and as such, each offender needs to be taken down. Evolution will not save these fish populations being decimated. Only Man can stop or slow what Man has initiated here.

Here, Here ! I'm anxious to fry a few, I'm told they are EXCELLENT !!! A little Panco breading, and viola, dinner is served! :)

Cheers,
Jack
 
Does the padi course teach you how to dynomite those lions of the fish?
 
For the lionfish being more likely to hide as they become more hunted by scuba divers could interpreted by evolution as well. There could be a variety of different behaviors that lionfish might have based on there slight differences in genetics. So the ones that are more fearless tend to be the ones that are killed by scuba divers leaving the ones that are more reclusive to survive and reproduce. I think it is less likely that the lionfish are communicating or that they have seen their friends killed by scuba divers and that they have learned to hide. I think there is a trait that that the lionfish have that makes them more fearless or more likely to hide.

The same is true of the fish that survive the lionfish on the reef. I think there is variation in genes that influence behavior and those behaviors or abilities to detect predators that allow the fish to survive will be passed on to the next generation. This is evolution even if it is just a slight shift in frequencies of genetics. Evolution does not need to to have huge changes just enough to allow the organism to survive.

Yes, that could be construed to be a type of evolution but that's most likely not what we're seeing here. I know of someone not too long ago using the hook from a dive flag trying to skewer the lionfish. He tried this on about 3 in a single dive. The likelihood is that these fish are learning from being harassed and a bit of learned behavior by watching other fish flee. There's probably not just a skittish gene at work here and we're killing all the bold ones off.
 
The only reason that I tend not to support the kill on site plan for lionfish is because I think that they have become part of the ecosystem now and the more it is disturbed the more problem that are caused. People over fish the snappers, groupers and other large fish and this probably leaves the small reef fish overpopulated because there are no predators to control them. This might be why the lionfish are so numerous, maybe because the number of small reef fish are numerous. Anyway, I think it is probably ok to eat the lionfish instead of the snappers and groupers and this might be useful because it reduces the amount of native fish that are eaten. I also agree that the lionfish looks out of place in the Caribbean because the lionfish has an intricate striped pattern and feather-like fins and looks very different from the plain looking Caribbean reef fish. It fits better with the more wildly colored fish of the Indo-Pacific like the clown triggerfish, moorish idols, powder blue tangs, emperor angelfish etc.
 
The only reason that I tend not to support the kill on site plan for lionfish is because I think that they have become part of the ecosystem now and the more it is disturbed the more problem that are caused. .

Let's get in to the current scientific thought on the idea of a brand new uncontrolled predator in the mix....
from Extinction of woolly mammoth, saber-toothed cat may have been caused by human predators
ScienceDaily (July 1, 2010) — A new analysis of the extinction of woolly mammoths and other large mammals more than 10,000 years ago suggests that they may have fallen victim to the same type of "trophic cascade" of ecosystem disruption that scientists say is being caused today by the global decline of predators such as wolves, cougars, and sharks.

In each case the cascading events were originally begun by human disruption of ecosystems, a new study concludes, but around 15,000 years ago the problem was not the loss of a key predator, but the addition of one -- human hunters with spears.
In a study published in the journal BioScience, researchers propose that this mass extinction was caused by newly-arrived humans tipping the balance of power and competing with major predators such as saber-toothed cats. An equilibrium that had survived for thousands of years was disrupted, possibly explaining the loss of two-thirds of North America's large mammals during this period.
"For decades, scientists have been debating the causes of this mass extinction, and the two theories with the most support are hunting pressures from the arrival of humans, and climate change," said William Ripple, a professor of forest ecosystems and society at Oregon State University, and an expert on the ecosystem alterations that scientists are increasingly finding when predators are added or removed.
"We believe humans indeed may have been a factor, but not as most current theory suggests, simply by hunting animals to extinction," Ripple said. "Rather, we think humans provided competition for other predators that still did the bulk of the killing. But we were the triggering mechanism that disrupted the ecosystem."
In the late Pleistocene, researchers say, major predators dominated North America in an uneasy stability with a wide range of mammals: mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, camels, horses, and several species of bison. The new study cites previous evidence from carnivore tooth wear and fracture, growth rates of prey, and other factors that suggest that there were no serious shortages of food caused by environmental change 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
Quite contrary to that, the large herbivores seemed to be growing quickly and just as quickly had their numbers reduced by a range of significant carnivorous predators, not the least of which was lions, dire wolves, and two species of saber-toothed cats. Food was plentiful for herbivores, the system was balanced, but it was dominated by predators.
"When human hunters arrived on the scene, they provided new competition with these carnivores for the same prey," said Blaire Van Valkenburgh, an expert at UCLA on the paleobiology of carnivores, and a co-author with Ripple on this study.
"The humans were also omnivores, and could live on plant foods if necessary," Van Valkenburgh said. "We think this may have triggered a sequential collapse not only in the large herbivores but ultimately their predators as well. Importantly, humans had some other defenses against predation, such as fire, weapons and living in groups, so they were able to survive."
But the driving force in eliminating the large mammals, according to the new theory, was not humans -- they just got the process started. After that, predators increasingly desperate for food may have driven their prey to extinction over long periods of time -- and then eventually died out themselves.
In recent studies in Yellowstone National Park and elsewhere, scientists from OSU and other institutions have explored these "trophic cascades," often caused by the loss or introduction of a single major predator in an ecosystem. With the elimination of wolves from Yellowstone, for instance, the numbers of elk exploded. This caused widespread overgrazing; damage to stream ecosystems; the slow demise of aspen forests; and ultimate effects on everything from trees to beaver, fish, birds, and other life forms. When wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone, studies are showing that those processes have begun to reverse themselves.
"We think the evidence shows that major ecosystem disruptions, resulting in these domino effects, can be caused either by subtracting or adding a major predator," Ripple said. "In the case of the woolly mammoths and saber-toothed tiger, the problems may have begun by adding a predator, in this case humans."
The new analysis draws on many other existing studies in making its case.
For instance, other research describes this process with a model in modern times in Alaska. There, the allowance of relatively limited human hunting on moose caused wolves to switch some of their predation to sheep, ultimately resulting in a precipitous decline in populations not only of moose but also wolves and sheep.
The loss of species in North America during the late Pleistocene was remarkable -- about 80 percent of 51 large herbivore species went extinct, along with more than 60 percent of important large carnivores. Previous research has documented the growth rates of North American mammoths by studying their tusks, revealing no evidence of reduced growth caused by inadequate food -- thus offering no support for climate-induced habitat decline.
It seems that diverse and abundant carnivores kept herbivore numbers below levels where food becomes limiting. By contrast, the large population of predators such as dire wolves and saber tooth cats caused them to compete intensely for food, as evidenced by heavy tooth wear.
"Heavily worn and fractured teeth are a result of bone consumption, something most carnivores avoid unless prey is difficult to acquire," says Van Valkenburgh.
Trophic cascades initiated by humans are broadly demonstrated, the researchers report. In North America, it may have started with the arrival of the first humans, but continues today with the extirpation of wolves, cougars and other predators around the world. The hunting of whales in the last century may have led to predatory killer whales turning their attention to other prey such as seals and sea otters -- and the declines in sea otter populations has led to an explosion of sea urchins and collapse of kelp forest ecosystems.
"In the terrestrial realm, it is important that we have a better understanding of how Pleistocene ecosystems were structured as we proceed in maintaining and restoring today's ecosystems," the researchers wrote in their conclusion. "In the aquatic realm, the Earth's oceans are the last frontier for megafaunal species declines and extinctions."
"The tragic cascade of species declines due to human harvesting of marine megafauna happening now may be a repeat of the cascade that occurred with the onset of human harvesting of terrestrial megafauna more than 10,000 years ago. This is a sobering thought, but it is not too late to alter our course this time around in the interest of sustaining Earth's ecosystems."
 
My point being that Lionfish, like humans suddenly thrown in to the mix, catastrophically disturbed a delicate balance that had evolved over tens of thousands of years. So many extinction events can be linked to either a loss of a major predator, or the sudden appearance of a non-native predator, that the current understanding of our eco-systems is about to undergoe a major change.....we will be looking more at how the top level and mid level predators are doing, to figure out how well the lower levels are doing, and how healthy the system really is....

If we had the wall to wall Jewfish he had up to the 50's , and the enormous shark populations of back then, ANY mid or low level predator ( ie., the lionfish) that suddenly exploded in numbers, and began over-consuming multiple forms of prey, would have been immediately "controlled" by the big apex predators....unfortunately, sharks have been slaughered for so many decades now, there are only a fraction left, certainly insufficient to act as a controlling element as "Nature intended" :) ..and the same can be said for the Jewfish.
 
There seems to be some confusion on evolution in this discussion. The first is mixing up the concepts of ‘selection’ with ‘speciation’. Evolution is happening all the time, with every action that living organisms take. Evolution is happening when you decide ‘hamburger or chicken’, or you swat a mosquito, spray a hornet’s nest or in your decision whether or not to wear a condom. Evolution is in the medical news, with ‘super-bugs’ more correctly called ‘anti-biotic resistant’ strains. Each time an anti-biotic is used, selection, or evolution is being exerted. The rapidity of this evolution belies the ‘thousands of years’ mentioned in the previous discussion.
Much research has been done lately on how fast selection can cause genetic change. For those of you who keep asking for references, here is a link to a study on fish showing change in the absence or presence of predators.
The long version;
http://www.rw.ttu.edu/patino/teachi...erials/predation and guppy life histories.pdf
The cliff notes version;
Evolution Can Occur In Less Than 10 Years, Guppy Study Finds
Said another way;
When Evolution Is Not So Slow And Gradual
Similar studies have shown the same sort of changes on lizards, in the Bahamas, ground dwelling ‘native’ lizards became arboreal in response to an invasive predator, and I seem to remember a study on lizards on Greek islands that managed to switch from herbivore to carnivore (or vice-versa) after being introduced to new environments in WWII.
BTW-I thought everyone who learned biology had to read a paper called “Industrial Melanism in Moths” Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a recap.


As to the mention of ‘BASELINE’, while it is great that the Flower Gardens and such may have a ‘great’ baseline data, the real fact of the matter is there is no significant baseline relevant to this discussion.
Here are some tidbits that together may help you to understand where I’m coming from with this talk of baseline; Two years ago the Caribbean Monk Seal was declared extinct. The last one was seen in the 1950’s. Oddly enough the last colony did not perish because of hunting, which has been the case of all too many species, the last of the seals died of starvation. Their main food item was spiny lobster, and people out competed them for food. So you don’t have an accurate baseline unless you have LOTS more spiny lobster and Caribbean Monk Seals. The Spanish reported so many turtles in the Caribbean that it looked like the very ocean was walking ashore during turtle egg laying events. Now they are critically endangered. Acropora corals, once the dominant coral of the shallow waters, are now on the endangered list. Manatees are not found anywhere in their historic range other than a small colony in Puerto Rico.

Two weeks ago a gray whale was sighted in the Atlantic. It was the first time in two hundred years that a gray whale has swum the Atlantic, they were wiped out by whalers that long ago. This particular whale swam in from the Pacific, able to do so because for the first time in millennia the ice melted back and opened a channel above Alaska and Canada. Several species of plankton also made this historic voyage this year. Do we declare the gray whale ‘invasive’ and kill it? Do we decide it belongs? Should we move some females from the Pacific to keep him company or let him die lonely? Should we strain the northern Atlantic water to remove the invasive plankton?

There is no meaningful baseline unless we can get accurate data on what the reef was like 40,000 years ago before humans became invasive and started changing every ecosystem they encountered. And Dan, I love your paper on ‘extinction’ of the Wooly Mammoths, it reflects a paper that I am writing. As an aside, the mammoths did not go extinct until 3000 years ago, not 10,000 as the paper said. Their range was drastically reduced to islands that were not inhabited by humans, and they disappeared from those islands as they were settled. Interestingly, the ground sloth had a similar fate, it was alive on Cuba until 3000 years ago, a time that coincides with human colonization.

My original point, way back in the start of this thread, the reef is a mess, everywhere in the world. Part of the problem seems to be overfishing of the predator species allowing small fish, mostly predators themselves, to overpopulate the reef. Some marine researchers have evidence that this overfishing of predators actually started to have an affect over one thousand years ago. With the advent of the colonization of lionfish in the waters I dive, the reef is showing signs of returning to health. This should not be such a hard stretch to imagine. Ask any aquarist who wants to keep live coral in an aquarium. The first advice is to set up a tank with NO fish and add a few fish, very carefully chosen, after the coral has stabilized many months later. People who should know better keep talking about how the fish are necessary for the ecology, but the real job of almost all the fish is to keep control of the other fish. The coral would just as soon not have to deal with fish at all.

I feel the need to make this point a different way. EVERYONE who is studying the lionfish keeps talking, looking, and publishing on the effects of the lionfish on other fish. No one is looking at the effects the lionfish is having on coral, sponges, and the other invertebrates that make up a reef system. Fish do NOT make up a coral reef, but they have the capacity to kill one.

Small note, my video was meant to be simplistic; the title said ‘Part I’. It is the first three minutes of a presentation that takes about an hour and a half. (and at an hour and a half is still simplistic, it is a very complicated subject)

I haven’t decided which part of the subject to make into ‘Part II’, so if you would like to comment on the You Tube video itself, (on the You Tube comments section) I’ll think on it.
 
There seems to be some confusion on evolution in this discussion. The first is mixing up the concepts of ‘selection’ with ‘speciation’. Evolution is happening all the time, with every action that living organisms take. Evolution is happening when you decide ‘hamburger or chicken’, or you swat a mosquito, spray a hornet’s nest or in your decision whether or not to wear a condom. Evolution is in the medical news, with ‘super-bugs’ more correctly called ‘anti-biotic resistant’ strains. Each time an anti-biotic is used, selection, or evolution is being exerted.snip.

Fred,
First, I should say that you write too well to post here :)

Second, I do think you are discussing evolutionary pressure issues, and when you actually are dealing with evolution in the short term, it is with creatures that live for hours or days or weeks.... sharks live lifespans closer to humans, as do Jewfish. Evolution for them is nothing like what it is for fruitflies or bacteria.


The new direction I like the most so far on this subject...from the paper "Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth",
is one in which the MOST significant effects for the main ecosystem are seen in the health of the Apex Predators....for our purposes, the shark populations.

The research follows sharks as a perfect example of their concept, and specifically uses shark depletion and resultant explosion of cow nosed rays, which then ate so much of the bivalve population that many reastaurants could no longer serve Clam Chowder ! :)

The idea expressed more at a 6:00 News complexity level :) .......

"Sharks are like the sheriffs of the reef systems, and since the shark population has been decimated by the eco-criminals for sale of the fins for "shark fin soup", there is no one on the reefs to prevent low and mid level predators from exploding in numbers, and eating everything in sight.

Back in the 60's, even in to the 70's when I began scuba diving, there were perhaps 10 to 20 sharks minimum on every juno reef ( ledge in 80-90 feet of water) dive. Species included bull sharks, sand tigers, blacktips, Tiger sharks, hamerheads, and several others. Also in the time frame, if you dived the channel into the Palm Beach inlet ( a 40 foot deep dive with the sides being like walls) the channel could have schools of hundreds or thousands of grouper, and the moment we shot one ( spearfishing) , there would be 30 to 50 spinner sharks all over us.
In contrast, today, on juno reef, you may see one or two carribean reef sharks...may. Maybe one dive in 4.
No bulls unless you spearfish something and they travel. No tigers. Sand tigers are functionally extinct in these waters now. Go to the Inlet dive, and there are no grouper to speak of..maybe one or two juveniles, and if you did shoot something ( no one would now), there would be no sharks coming in, and we have not seen spinner sharks in the inlet in over 15 years.
So here we have this invasive lionfish...if it arrived in the 60's, everything would have been different. The groupers running from 20 to 80 pounds were everywhere, and they would have looked at lionfish as something the might eat before one of their brother or sister groupers did...there was competition for prey. The Jewfish were everywhere also, they ran 100 to 600 pounds at least, some bigger. The jewfish would swallow anything they could swallow, and not worry too much about taste..they would have been sucking up lion fish is the lionfish became common on the reefs.
And then the sharks....the sharks would be involved if any one fish overpopulated ( lets say the Lionfish) , and began eating too much of one or more species...as soon as the lionfish presented in this manner, they would be part of a new dinner menu for sharks. And there were really alot of sharks! A lot of sherriffs to control the reefs.

We don't have any of this today. MAN has destroyed the apex and higher level predators, and the oceans are already experiencing this trophic downgrading the new articles are describing. Since we do not have the upper level predators or apex predators to control the lionfish, Man needs to step in ( man killed off the sharks, jewfish and groupers, just to name a few).
 
I just got back from a night dive, a 172 foot wreck we call Duncan's Wreck, in 93 feet of water. During the dive I saw two adult lionfish, asleep, or at least doing a very good imitation of parrotfish nighttime behavior. What was of note-to me- is that I observed the smallest lionfish I have seen to date, about 35 mm (measured against my finger, then measured with a ruler). Oddly enough this small fish was hiding in a clump of Tubastea, AKA orange cup coral, which is an invasive coral from the Pacific. Orange Cup coral has been a resident of the Caribbean and Atlantic for about fifty years. When it arrived everyone thought that it would overrun all the reefs and choke out the native coral, but so far its spread has been limited to wrecks and dock pilings.

If anyone is thinking that I didn't see any smaller fish because I either don't see well, or notice much, I observed a 5 mm trigger-fish. (I saw fish smaller than that, but couldn't tell what they were)

Thanks for the compliment on my writing, I will get back to this thread when it isn't midnight after a long, long day of diving! (and I'll have a better chance of making sense.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom