http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset/700226
eng; USA
utf8
dataset
Highest level of data collection, from a common set of sensors or instrumentation, usually within the same research project
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
pointOfContact
2017-05-18
ISO 19115-2 Geographic Information - Metadata - Part 2: Extensions for Imagery and Gridded Data
ISO 19115-2:2009(E)
Fish species survey from the Bahamas from 2009-2012.
2017-05-16
publication
2017-05-16
revision
Marine Biological Laboratory/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Library (MBLWHOI DLA)
2019-03-28
publication
https://doi.org/10.1575/1912/bco-dmo.700226.1
Mark Hixon
University of Hawai'i
principalInvestigator
Mark A. Albins
Auburn University
principalInvestigator
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
publisher
Cite this dataset as: 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]
Survey of fish species on each study site. Dataset Description: <p>Abundance through time on reefs during surveys of native herbivorous fishes in response to the presence of invasive lionfish.&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>For related datasets, please visit the project link listed at the top of the page.</strong></p> Methods and Sampling: <p><strong>Methods from Kindinger and Albins (2016) "Consumptive and non-consumptive effects of an invasive marine predator on native&nbsp;</strong><strong>coral-reef</strong><strong>&nbsp;herbivores"&nbsp;doi:&nbsp;<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10530-016-1268-1" target="_blank">10.1007/s10530-016-1268-1</a></strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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).</p>
Funding provided by NSF Division of Ocean Sciences (NSF OCE) Award Number: OCE-1233027 Award URL: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award?AWD_ID=1233027
completed
Mark Hixon
University of Hawai'i
Department of Zoology 3029 Cordley Hall
Corvallis
OR
97331-2914
USA
hixonm@science.oregonstate.edu
pointOfContact
Mark A. Albins
Auburn University
541-740-7747
Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Marine Fish Laboratory 8300 STATE HIGHWAY 104
Fairhope
AL
36532
USA
mark.albins@auburn.edu
pointOfContact
asNeeded
Dataset Version: 1
Unknown
year
time
site
site_treatment
site_pair
sample_type
subsample_ID
family
species
size_1
size_2
size_3
size_4
size_5
size_6
size_15
size_20
size_25
size_30
size_35
size_40
size_45
size_50
size_100
size_150
size_200
size_250
theme
None, User defined
year
time_point
site
treatment
sample type
sample identification
family
species scientific name (binomial)
fish_len
featureType
BCO-DMO Standard Parameters
LSI_Reef_Surveys_09-12
service
Deployment Activity
Lee Stocking Island, Bahamas
place
Locations
otherRestrictions
otherRestrictions
Access Constraints: none. Use Constraints: Please follow guidelines at: http://www.bco-dmo.org/terms-use Distribution liability: Under no circumstances shall BCO-DMO be liable for any direct, incidental, special, consequential, indirect, or punitive damages that result from the use of, or the inability to use, the materials in this data submission. If you are dissatisfied with any materials in this data submission your sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue use.
Mechanisms and Consequences of Fish Biodiversity Loss on Atlantic Coral Reefs Caused by Invasive Pacific Lionfish
http://hixon.science.oregonstate.edu/content/highlight-lionfish-invasion
Mechanisms and Consequences of Fish Biodiversity Loss on Atlantic Coral Reefs Caused by Invasive Pacific Lionfish
<p>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.</p>
<p>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? </p>
BiodiversityLossEffects_lionfish
largerWorkCitation
project
eng; USA
oceans
Lee Stocking Island, Bahamas
2017-05-16
Three Bahamian sites: 24.8318, -076.3299; 23.8562, -076.2250; 23.7727, -076.1071; Caribbean Netherlands: 12.1599, -068.2820
0
BCO-DMO catalogue of parameters from Fish species survey from the Bahamas from 2009-2012.
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
pointOfContact
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700235.rdf
Name: year
Units: unitless
Description: <p>Year of observation</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700236.rdf
Name: time
Units: unitless
Description: <p>Time step of observation (0 -7 where 0 = baseline)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700237.rdf
Name: site
Units: unitless
Description: <p>Name of study site (reef)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700238.rdf
Name: site_treatment
Units: unitless
Description: <p>Lionfish treatment of site (reef): Low-lionfish-density reef or High-lionfish-density reef</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700239.rdf
Name: site_pair
Units: unitless
Description: <p>Site pairs</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700240.rdf
Name: sample_type
Units: unitless
Description: <p>Sampling method used: PLOT = square 10 x 10 m plots; STRIP = 2 x 25 m line transects</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700241.rdf
Name: subsample_ID
Units: unitless
Description: <p>ID of sampling area per study site</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700242.rdf
Name: family
Units: unitless
Description: <p>Family of fish</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700243.rdf
Name: species
Units: unitless
Description: <p>Species of fish: species codes are first two letters of genus and species (see species key)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700244.rdf
Name: size_1
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (1 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700245.rdf
Name: size_2
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (2 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700246.rdf
Name: size_3
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (3 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700247.rdf
Name: size_4
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (4 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700248.rdf
Name: size_5
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (5 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700249.rdf
Name: size_6
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (6 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700250.rdf
Name: size_15
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (15 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700251.rdf
Name: size_20
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (20 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700252.rdf
Name: size_25
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (25 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700253.rdf
Name: size_30
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (30 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700254.rdf
Name: size_35
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (35 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700255.rdf
Name: size_40
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (40 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700256.rdf
Name: size_45
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (45 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700257.rdf
Name: size_50
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (50 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700258.rdf
Name: size_100
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (100 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700259.rdf
Name: size_150
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (150 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700260.rdf
Name: size_200
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (200 cm total body length)</p>
http://lod.bco-dmo.org/id/dataset-parameter/700261.rdf
Name: size_250
Units: count
Description: <p>Number of individuals counted of each size (250 cm total body length)</p>
GB/NERC/BODC > British Oceanographic Data Centre, Natural Environment Research Council, United Kingdom
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
pointOfContact
443615
https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/1912/23937/1/dataset-700226_fish-species-survey__v1.tsv
download
https://doi.org/10.1575/1912/bco-dmo.700226.1
download
onLine
dataset
<p><strong>Methods from Kindinger and Albins (2016) "Consumptive and non-consumptive effects of an invasive marine predator on native&nbsp;</strong><strong>coral-reef</strong><strong>&nbsp;herbivores"&nbsp;doi:&nbsp;<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10530-016-1268-1" target="_blank">10.1007/s10530-016-1268-1</a></strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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).</p>
Specified by the Principal Investigator(s)
<p><span style="font-size:14px"><strong>BCO-DMO Processing Notes:</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14px">- reformatted column names to comply with BCO-DMO standards</span><br />
<span style="font-size:14px">- reformatted dates&nbsp;</span><br />
<span style="font-size:14px">- nd used to fill blank cells</span></p>
Specified by the Principal Investigator(s)
asNeeded
7.x-1.1
Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO)
Unavailable
508-289-2009
WHOI MS#36
Woods Hole
MA
02543
USA
info@bco-dmo.org
http://www.bco-dmo.org
Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm
For questions regarding this resource, please contact BCO-DMO via the email address provided.
pointOfContact
Deployment: LSI_Reef_Surveys_09-12
LSI_Reef_Surveys_09-12
Tropical Marine Lab at Lee Stocking Island
laboratory
LSI_Reef_Surveys_09-12
Mark Hixon
Oregon State University
Tropical Marine Lab at Lee Stocking Island
laboratory