1b:I[42426,["/_next/static/immutable/chunks/1xctgzqre-wsy.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/06_-wz6pdtp2b.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/30e52g49hg40p.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/02yq6tul2z-oh.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/10bx_ec2vj7n_.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/33bfn03fo8xnt.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/0tfjf78scu61b.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/31xnvej4n1bi9.js"],"default"] 1c:T155e,

Methods from Kindinger and Albins (2016) "Consumptive and non-consumptive effects of an invasive marine predator on native coral-reef herbivores" doi: 10.1007/s10530-016-1268-1

Visual surveys of reef fishes were conducted by a pair of SCUBA divers throughout (seafloor to surface) two permanent square plots (10 9 10 m) and four permanent strip transects (2 9 25 m), for a total area of 400 m2 per reef (see Albins 2015 for detailed description). We positioned square plots to include areas of the reef with the highest apparent relief, and strip transects were placed randomly across the remaining hard substrate, with the intent of including all important high-relief habitat features. Divers conducted censuses of each sampling unit whereby each fish was identified to the species-level and total length (TL) was visually estimated to the nearest cm. Paired reefs (low- and high-lionfish-densities) were surveyed within 24 h by the same set of observers, and all reefs were surveyed by the author (M. Albins). Every 3–5 months thereafter, we resurveyed the fish community at all experimental reefs.

We quantified CEs of invasive lionfish on native herbivorous fish populations throughout the 2-year experiment by comparing the change in density and biomass of small and large herbivorous fishes between lionfish-density treatments. Small fish were B 10 cm TL, which encompasses the majority of prey fish sizes reported in invasive lionfish gut-content studies for the size range of lionfish (2–35 cm TL) observed on our experimental reefs (Morris and Akins 2009 ; Mun˜oz et al. 2011 ). Responses of fish [ 10 cm TL were consistent, regardless of whether individuals were binned into medium (11–20 cm TL) and large ([ 20 cm TL) size classes, so hereafter we refer to all fish[ 10 cm TL as large . To determine the relative response of different sub guilds of herbivorous fishes, we also calculated the change in small and large fish density and biomass by fish family: (1) parrotfishes (Labridae); (2) surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae); (3) angelfishes (Pomacanthidae); and (4) damselfishes (Pomacentridae). We used published length-weight conversions to calculate fish biomass; parameters of closely related species were used when conversions were not available (Online Resource 1). We calculated changes in fish density and biomass at every survey interval by subtracting the baseline value (prior to initial lionfish manipulation) for each sub-sample (plots and transects) from the corresponding value of each subsequent survey.

To test for an effect of invasive lionfish through time on changes in density and/or biomass of each group of native fishes (described above), we fitted linear mixed effects models (LMMs) with lionfish density treatment and time as categorical fixed effects, and sub -sample nested within reef as random effects (Pinheiro and Bates 2000 ; Bolker et al. 2009 ; Zuur et al. 2009 ). Time was a categorical variable because we had no a priori reason to assume any linear relationships with response variables. Full models included weighted terms allowing variances to differ among reefs and AR1 covariance structures to account for temporal autocorrelation (Zuur et al. 2009 ). We fitted full and reduced models (with vs. without weighted terms and/or AR1 structures) using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and compared full and reduced models using Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) and likelihood ratio tests (LRTs, Online Resource 2). Visual examination of residuals of the best-fit models indicated that the assumptions of normality, homogeneity, and independence were all met.

To assess the significance of fixed effects, we refit each model using maximum likelihood estimation (ML) and applied LRTs (Zuur et al. 2009 ). Fixed effects that were not significant were sequentially dropped from models. The resulting best-fit models in terms of variance structure, temporal correlation, and fixed effects were refit using REML in order to estimate the fixed-effects parameters and associated effect sizes. If LRTs indicated the lionfish 9 time interaction was significant, we made simultaneous inferences about the marginal effects of the lionfish treatment at each survey period, and adjusted the associated p values to maintain an approximately 5 % family-wise error rate (Hothorn et al. 2008 ). Regardless of whether the lionfish 9 time interaction was significant, we estimated expected values and standard error of the means (SEMs) for all response variables from low- and high-lionfish-density treatments during each survey period. We also fit LMMs to compare the baseline levels of each response variable between lionfish-density treatments using a similar procedure to the one outlined above, but with density and biomass of each group of small and large fishes (described above) as the response (rather than the change in these variables). Additionally, we fit LMMs to assess whether small (B 10 cm) and large ([ 10 cm) native mesopredators (Online Resource 1) that are potentially ecologically-similar to invasive lionfish differed between the reefs assigned to each lionfish density treatment at the baseline survey (mesopredator density and biomass) and at each subsequent survey period (change in mesopredator density and biomass).

1d:T695,The Pacific red lionfish (Pterois volitans), a popular aquarium fish, was introduced to the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Florida in the late 20th century. Voraciously consuming small native coral-reef fishes, including the juveniles of fisheries and ecologically important species, the invader has undergone a population explosion that now ranges from the U.S. southeastern seaboard to the Gulf of Mexico and across the greater Caribbean region. The PI's past research determined that invasive lionfish (1) have escaped their natural enemies in the Pacific (lionfish are much less abundant in their native range); (2) are not yet controlled by Atlantic predators, competitors, or parasites; (3) have strong negative effects on populations of native Atlantic fishes; and (4) locally reduce the diversity (number of species) of native fishes. The lionfish invasion has been recognized as one of the major conservation threats worldwide. The Bahamas support the highest abundances of invasive lionfish globally. This system thus provides an unprecedented opportunity to understand the direct and indirect effects of a major invader on a diverse community, as well as the underlying causative mechanisms. The PI will focus on five related questions: (1) How does long-term predation by lionfish alter the structure of native reef-fish communities? (2) How does lionfish predation destabilize native prey population dynamics, possibly causing local extinctions? (3) Is there a lionfish-herbivore-seaweed trophic cascade on invaded reefs? (4) How do lionfish modify cleaning mutualisms on invaded reefs? (5) Are lionfish reaching densities where natural population limits are evident? 6:["$","$L1b",null,{"dataset":{"_id":"700226","description":"

Abundance through time on reefs during surveys of native herbivorous fishes in response to the presence of invasive lionfish.

For related datasets, please visit the project link listed at the top of the page.

\n","problem":"","acquisition":"$1c","processing":"

BCO-DMO Processing Notes:

- reformatted column names to comply with BCO-DMO standards
\n- reformatted dates
\n- nd used to fill blank cells

\n","bcodmoProcessing":"","title":"Fish species survey from the Bahamas from 2009-2012.","nickname":"Fish species survey","dataUrl":"","currentState":"Final no updates expected","currentStateId":"7","validated":true,"restricted":false,"version":"1","version_date":"2017-05-16T04:00:00.000Z","abstract":"Fish species survey from the Bahamas from 2009-2012.","citation":"Hixon, M., Albins, M. (2017) Fish species survey from the Bahamas from 2009-2012. Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO). (Version 1) Version Date 2017-05-16 [if applicable, indicate subset used]. doi:10.1575/1912/bco-dmo.700226.1 [access date]","citationParts":{"identifier":"doi:10.1575/1912/bco-dmo.700226.1","versionDate":"2017-05-16","versionId":"1","year":"2017","title":"Fish species survey from the Bahamas from 2009-2012.","authors":"Hixon, M., Albins, M.","publisher":"Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)."},"doi":"10.1575/1912/bco-dmo.700226.1","release_date":null,"field_dataset_location":"","temporal_extent":{"start":null,"end":null},"temporal":{"resolution":"","type":"","start":{"value":"","label":""},"end":{"value":"","label":""}},"spatial_extent":{"shape":"","center":{"latitude":0,"longitude":0},"wkt":"","north":0,"east":0,"south":0,"west":0},"dataset_type":["Other Field Results"],"keywords":["oceans"],"data_files":[{"id":"901621","title":"fish_survey.csv","url":"https://datadocs.bco-dmo.org/dataset/700226/file/7DDMmLniW8L1Aw/fish_survey.csv","showTableUrl":"https://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/700226/data/view/901621","description":"Primary data file for dataset ID 700226","filename":"fish_survey.csv","bytesize":443615,"checksum":{"value":"6c37c4ac90605d222f8227e47abd8342","Algorithm":{"_id":"190","name":"MD5"}},"mimetype":"text/csv","fileType":{"_id":"192","name":"Comma Separated Values (.csv)"},"isErddap":"bcodmo_dataset_700226","date":"","isPublicDuringEmbargo":false,"primaryDataFile":true,"showTable":true,"restricted":false}],"supplemental_files":[],"roles":[{"role":{"_id":"138","name":"Principal Investigator"},"performedBy":{"_id":"51647","name":"Mark Hixon"},"performedAtOrganization":{"_id":"62","name":"University of Hawai'i"}},{"role":{"_id":"130","name":"Scientist"},"performedBy":{"_id":"51666","name":"Mark A. Albins"},"performedAtOrganization":{"_id":"321","name":"Auburn University"}},{"role":{"_id":"133","name":"Contact"},"performedBy":{"_id":"51707","name":"Tye L. Kindinger"},"performedAtOrganization":{"_id":"9","name":"Oregon State University"}},{"role":{"_id":"145","name":"BCO-DMO Data Manager"},"performedBy":{"_id":"650173","name":"Hannah Ake"},"performedAtOrganization":{"_id":"191","name":"Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution"}}],"deployments":[{"_id":"59019","name":"LSI_Reef_Surveys_09-12","synonyms":[],"dates":{"start":"2009-05-30T00:00:00.000Z","end":"2012-08-18T00:00:00.000Z"},"platform":{"_id":"54255","name":"Tropical Marine Lab at Lee Stocking Island"},"chiefScientists":[]}],"funding":[{"_id":"561016","name":"OCE-1233027","fundingSource":{"_id":"355","name":"NSF Division of Ocean Sciences"},"url":"https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award?AWD_ID=1233027"}],"instruments":[],"parameters":[{"_id":"700235","name":"year","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Year of observation

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"1062","name":"year","description":"

year, reported as YYYY, e.g. 1995

"}},{"_id":"700236","name":"time","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Time step of observation (0 -7 where 0 = baseline)

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"472026","name":"time_point","description":"

Arbitrary time point of sampling in a sampling sequence (T0, T1,....Tn)

"}},{"_id":"700237","name":"site","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Name of study site (reef)

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"1124","name":"site","description":"

Sampling site identification.

"}},{"_id":"700238","name":"site_treatment","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Lionfish treatment of site (reef): Low-lionfish-density reef or High-lionfish-density reef

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"489066","name":"treatment","description":"

Experimental conditions applied to experimental units. In comparative experiments, members of the complementary group, the control group, receive either no treatment or a standard treatment.

"}},{"_id":"700239","name":"site_pair","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Site pairs

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"1124","name":"site","description":"

Sampling site identification.

"}},{"_id":"700240","name":"sample_type","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Sampling method used: PLOT = square 10 x 10 m plots; STRIP = 2 x 25 m line transects

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"1742","name":"sample_type","description":"

text description of type of sample collected (rock, bio, fluid, etc)

"}},{"_id":"700241","name":"subsample_ID","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

ID of sampling area per study site

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"960","name":"sample","description":"

unique sample identification or number; any combination of alpha numeric characters; precise definition is file dependent

"}},{"_id":"700242","name":"family","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Family of fish

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"830","name":"family","description":"

Family. One of the levels in the taxonomic system of classification; typically ends in 'ae'. . May include super-family and sub-family.

"}},{"_id":"700243","name":"species","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Species of fish: species codes are first two letters of genus and species (see species key)

","units":{"_id":"","name":"unitless"},"type":{"_id":"976","name":"species","description":"

a taxonomic binomial that consists of a genus name followed by the species name of an organism

"}},{"_id":"700244","name":"size_1","format":"","frictionlessType":"","description":"

Number of individuals counted of each size (1 cm total body length)