An Integrated Assessment of the Introduction of 

Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to the 

Western Atlantic Ocean 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 2 
This report was subject to an independent peer-review overseen by Donald 

Scavia, Chief Scientist, National Ocean Service. 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for their use by the United States 

government. 

Citation for this Report 

Hare, J.A., and P. E. Whitfield. 2003. An integrated assessment of the introduction of 

lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to the western Atlantic Ocean. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 2. 21 pp.
An Integrated Assessment of the Introduction of 

Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to the 

Western Atlantic Ocean

Jonathan A. Hare and Paula E. Whitfield 

Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research 

NOAA/NOS/NCCOS 

101 Pivers Island Road 

Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 2 

December 2003 

United States Department of National Oceanic and National Ocean Service 

Commerce Atmospheric Administration 

Donald L. Evans Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. Richard W. Spinrad 

Secretary Administrator Assistant Administrator 
Executive Summary 

Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) are venomous coral reef fishes from the 

Indian and western Pacific oceans that are now found in the western Atlantic Ocean. 

Adult lionfish have been observed from Miami, Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 

and juvenile lionfish have been observed off North Carolina, New York, and Bermuda. 

The large number of adults observed and the occurrence of juveniles indicate that lionfish 

are established and reproducing along the southeast United States coast. 

Introductions of marine species occur in many ways. Ballast water discharge, a 

very common method of introduction for marine invertebrates, is responsible for many 

freshwater fish introductions. In contrast, most marine fish introductions result from

intentional stocking for fishery purposes. Lionfish, however, likely were introduced via 

unintentional or intentional aquarium releases, and the introduction of lionfish into 

United States waters should lead to an assessment of the threat posed by the aquarium 

trade as a vector for fish introductions. 

Currently, no management actions are being taken to limit the effect of lionfish on 

the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem. Further, only limited funds have 

been made available for research. Nevertheless, the extent of the introduction has been 

documented and a forecast of the maximum potential spread of lionfish is being 

developed. Under a scenario of no management actions and limited research, three 

predictions are made: 

● With no action, the lionfish population will continue to grow along the southeast 

United States shelf. 

● Effects on the marine ecosystem of the southeast United States will become more 

noticeable as the lionfish population grows. 

● There will be incidents of lionfish envenomations of divers and/or fishers along 

the east coast of the United States. 

Removing lionfish from the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem

would be expensive and likely impossible. A bounty could be established that would 

encourage the removal of fish and provide specimens for research. However, the bounty 

would need to be lower than the price of fish in the aquarium trade (~$25-$50 each) to 

ensure that captured specimens were from the wild. Such a low bounty may not provide 

enough incentive for capturing lionfish in the wild. Further, such action would only 

increase the interaction between the public and lionfish, increasing the risk of lionfish 

envenomations. 

As the introduction of lionfish is very likely irreversible, future actions should 

focus on five areas. 1) The population of lionfish should be tracked. 2) Research should 

be conducted so that scientists can make better predictions regarding the status of the 

i 
invasion and the effects on native species, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. 3) 

Outreach and education efforts must be increased, both specifically toward lionfish and 

more generally toward the aquarium trade as a method of fish introductions. 4) 

Additional regulation should be considered to reduce the frequency of marine fish 

introduction into U.S. waters. However, the issue is more complicated than simply 

limiting the import of non-native species, and these complexities need to be considered

simultaneously. 5) Health care providers along the east coast of the United States need to 

be notified that a venomous fish is now resident along the southeast United States. 

The introduction and spread of lionfish illustrates the difficulty inherent in 

managing introduced species in marine systems. Introduced species often spread via 

natural mechanisms after the initial introduction. Efforts to control the introduction of 

marine fish will fail if managers do not consider the natural dispersal of a species 

following an introduction. Thus, management strategies limiting marine fish 

introductions need to be applied over the scale of natural ecological dispersal to be 

effective, pointing to the need for a regional management approach defined by natural 

processes not by political boundaries. 

The introduction and success of lionfish along the east coast should change the 

long-held perception that marine fish invasions are a minimal threat to marine 

ecosystems. Research is needed to determine the effects of specific invasive fish species 

in specific ecosystems. More broadly, a cohesive plan is needed to manage, mitigate and 

minimize the effects of marine invasive fish species on ecosystems that are already 

compromised by other human activities. Presently, the magnitude of marine fish 

introductions as a stressor on marine ecosystems cannot be quantified, but can no longer 

be dismissed as negligible. 

Lionfish juvenile in an aquarium after collection off 

Long Island, New York. Photo taken by John

Morrissey, Hofstra University.

Cover photo: Adult lionfish on a wreck

off the North Carolina coast. Tomtate 

(Haemulon aurolineatum) are in the 

background. Photo taken by Paula 

Whitfield, NOAA Beaufort Laboratory.

 ii 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary i 

Table of Contents iii 

Glossary of Terms iv 

Introduction 1

Documentation of Status and Trends 3 

Description of causes and consequences of trends 5 

Lionfish ecology and life history 5 

Method of introduction 5 

 Ecosystem effects 7 

Prediction of future outcomes with no action 8 

Provision of guidance for potential actions 10 

Specific guidance for lionfish invasion of the southeast United States 10 

General guidance for marine fish invasive species 12 

Determination of success of past management actions 14 

Lessons from Hawaii 14 

Lessons from Bermuda 14 

Lessons from ballast water 15 

Lessons from the snakehead (Pisces, Channidae) 15 

 Conclusions 16 

References 17

Acknowledgements 21

Informational flyer back piece 

iii 
Glossary of Terms 

Adult – a stage in the life history of an organism during 

which reproduction occurs

Biological Classification – 

the hierarchical grouping of organisms 

into categories on the basis of 

evolutionary relationships. Seven

hierarchical levels are commonly used, 

and the classification of lionfish is 

shown as an example. 

Kingdom – Animalia 

Phylum - Chordata

Class – Actinopterygii 

Order - Scorpaeniformes 

Family - Scorpaenidae 

Genus - Pterois

Species – volitans/miles

Anadromous – a species which migrates from the ocean 

to freshwater to spawn

Aquaculture - the cultivation of freshwater or marine

plants and animals for food or other purposes

Aquarium Trade – the trade of aquatic life for public or 

private display

Ballast water – water used as weight to improve stability 

in vessels

Benthic – pertaining to the sea floor; organisms that live 

on the sea floor 

Biogeographic boundaries – defined separations between

biogeographic provinces 

Biogeographic provinces – spatial areas that contain 

species with similar distributions 

Community - an association of living organisms that have

mutual relationships among themselves and to their environment and thus function, to some

degree, as an ecological unit

Conspecifics – individuals of the same species

Dispersal – the spread of a species, population, or individual’s progeny over time

Ecology – the study of the relationship among organisms and between organisms and their environment

Economic Exclusion Zone – zone extending from the shoreline out to 200 nautical miles in which a nation

has the exclusive right to conduct certain activities such as fishing

Ecosystem – ecological communities together with their physical environment 

Environment – the physical and biological conditions that surround an organism or a group of organisms 

Eutrophication – a type of water pollution caused by excess nutrients that plants needs to grow

Evenomation – the process by which venom is injected from a venom gland into the recipient 

Exotic species – a species that has been transported by human activities, either intentional or accidental, 

into a region where it does not naturally occur 

Introduction – an exotic species entering an ecosystem owing to human actions 

Invasive species – a species that has been transported by natural processes or human activities, either 

intentional or accidental, into a region where it did not occur previously 

Juvenile - a sexually immature organism that resembles an adult

Larva – an early life stage in many marine organisms that is discrete in appearance and form from the 

juvenile and adult stage 

Larval duration – the time duration of the larval stage

Larval transport – the movement of pelagic larvae by oceanographic and behavioral processes 

Overfishing – fishing a population below its reproductive capacity to replenish itself 

Pelagic – pertaining to the water column; organisms that live in the water column

Stressor – five stressors are identified as affecting coastal and marine ecosystems: pollution, invasive

species, climate change, extreme events, and land and resource use 

 iv
Introduction 

A number of stressors are adversely affecting marine ecosystems, as well as the 

services that these ecosystems provide. Overfishing is threatening the sustainability of the 

nation’s fisheries (Shimada et al., 1998); of the 259 major fishery stocks of the United 

States, 16.6% are overfished, 45.2% are not overfished, and the status of the remaining 

38.2% is unknown (NMFS, 2003). Population growth and development in coastal areas 

continues to damage many habitats (Culliton et al., 1990) and contributes to coastal 

pollution and eutrophication; the Gulf of Mexico ‘Dead Zone’, which has been linked to 

nutrient pollution, was the largest recorded during the summer of 20021

. Climate change 

also affects marine ecosystems and services; long-term changes in ocean temperatures 

have influenced the distribution of fish species in their native range (Murawski, 1993; 

Mountain, 2002). Finally, extreme events may be increasing in frequency; the North 

Atlantic may be entering a regime of more frequent major hurricanes (Elsner et al., 

2000), which have broad affects on coastal ecosystem (Simpson, 2002). 

Invasive species are also important stressors on marine ecosystems. In a review of 

non-indigenous species in Chesapeake Bay, Ruiz et al. (1999) concluded that invasive 

species are a significant stressor on ecosystem functions. Invasive species also can 

interact with other stressors (e.g., climate change), and the ecosystem consequences of 

these interactions are even more poorly understood than the consequences of invasive 

species alone (Ruiz et al., 1999; Harris and Tyrell, 2001; Stachowicz, 2002). Although 

the effect of marine invasive species on ecosystem function and services are difficult to 

quantify, the magnitude of these effects will continue to increase as more marine 

invasions occur (Cohen and Carlton, 1998; Ruiz et al., 2000). 

Although invasive species are recognized as having negative impacts on marine 

ecosystems, invasions of marine fish are not generally considered as important stressors. 

First, marine fish invasions are relatively rare. Of the more than 550 fish introductions 

reported in the United States, less than 30 were marine fishes introduced to marine 

environments (Table 1). Similarly, of the more than 200 established exotic species in the 

San Francisco Bay watershed (both freshwater and marine components), only six are 

marine and estuarine fish species (Cohen and Carlton, 1998). Second, most marine fish 

introductions resulted from intentional releases for fishery purposes, and were viewed as 

‘improvements’ to the ecosystem, not stressors upon the ecosystem (Table 2). Third, few 

adverse effects of marine fish introduction on marine ecosystems are documented, 

leading to the conclusion that marine fish introductions have no effect. Randall (1987) 

reviewed marine fish introductions around Hawaii and noted few negative impacts, but 

few if any studies have evaluated the impacts of marine invasive fish on Hawaiian marine 

ecosystems (but see Friedlander et al., 2002). Further, little or no research has been 

conducted in others marine systems, and the effects of invasive marine fish species on 

marine ecosystems remain largely unstudied and unknown. 

 1

 Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium Press Release. July 26, 2002. Summer 2002 hypoxia. 

(http://www.lumcon.edu/news/pressrelease/02hypoxia.html; last accessed May 15, 2003) 

1 
Table 1. Summary of fish introductions in the United 

States. Data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 

2001). Many of the marine introductions to land locked 

brackish waters occurred into the Salton Sea in southern

California. 

Native Habitat of Exotic Species 

Introduced Habitat of

Exotic Species

Freshwater Brackish Marine

Freshwater 485 10 3 

Brackish 1 4 0

Land-locked brackish 2 0 28 

Marine 0 0 22

Total 488 14 53

Two recent introductions 

are changing the view that 

marine fish invasions are a minor 

threat to coastal resources and 

ecosystems. First, Atlantic 

salmon (Salmo salmo) escaped 

from fish farms on the west coast

of North America and are likely 

spawning in western rivers 

(Volpe et al., 2000). Atlantic 

salmon are anadromous and their 

introduction may impact both 

freshwater and marine 

ecosystems on the west coast of 

North America. Atlantic salmon 

may compete with native salmon 

for limited spawning sites, 

thereby adversely affecting 

native stocks (Volpe, 2001). 

Several native salmon stocks 

have been listed as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act2

 and even minor adverse effects could 

have large consequences. Although Atlantic 

salmon spend only part of their life cycle in 

marine waters, the potential threat to native 

salmon raises serious concerns about the 

consequences of the introduction to coastal 

ecosystems. 

A second recent introduction 

involves lionfish (Pterios volitans/miles 

complex) in the western Atlantic Ocean 

(Whitfield et al., 2002). Lionfish are native 

to the Indian and western Pacific oceans, 

and the introduction could negatively 

impact coastal ecosystems and the services 

these ecosystems provide. The purpose of 

this integrated assessment is to summarize 

what is known about the introduction of lionfish, to identify the potential effects on 

marine ecosystems, to discuss management and policies related to the introduction of 

lionfish, and more generally, to address the threat of marine fish invasive species. 

Table 2. Reported method of introduction of 

native marine fish into marine habitats in the 

United States. Data based on USGS (2001) and 

review of Randall (1987).

Method of Introduction 

Number of

Species 

Ballast water 1 

Aquarium release 5 

Aquarium release / or 

 accidentally stocked 

1 

Accidentally stocked 2 

Intentionally stocked 13 

Total 22 

 2

 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Species Information: Threatened and endangered animals and 

plants (http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html; last accessed May 15, 2003) 

 2 
Documentation of status and trends 

Schultz (1986) considered lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to comprise 

two allopatric sibling species. P. miles occurs in the Indian Ocean from South Africa, 

northward to the Red Sea and Persian Gulf and eastward to Sumatra. P. volitans occurs

from Indonesia, northward along the Japanese coast, southward along the east coast of

Australia and eastward into the South Pacific. Recent genetic work (Kochzius et al., 

2003) confirmed genetic differences between P. miles and P. volitans, but was 

inconclusive regarding the existence of two species or two populations of one species. 

Owing to the uncertainty of species status, lionfish will be used as a common name for 

the Pterios volitans/miles complex. 

Lionfish have been observed sporadically off the east coast of Florida by divers 

since 19943

. Several lionfish were released into Biscayne Bay, Florida when a private 

aquarium was destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (Courtenay, 1995). Substantiated 

observations of adult lionfish were documented by Whitfield et al., (2002), ranging from

the east coast of Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Following a NOAA press 

release and publication of a peer-reviewed article describing the substantiated 

observations 

(Whitfield et al., 

2002), a number of 

additional sightings 

were reported (Figure 

1). These observations 

demonstrate that 

lionfish adults are 

distributed along the 

southeast United 

States continental shelf 

from south Florida to 

Cape Hatteras. 

Figure 1. Locations where lionfish have been reported as of May 15,

2003. Reports include specimen collection (8 locations), video and 

photo documentation (17 locations), and visual observation (15

locations). Data collated from reports made to Paula Whitfield, NOAA 

Beaufort Laboratory.

Evidence 

indicates that the 

number of lionfish is 

increasing, but it is 

impossible to account 

for varying 

observational effort 

between years. 

Lionfish were reported 

from three locations in 

2000, 12 locations in 

2001, and 41 locations 

 3

 James Abernethy, SCUBA Adventures, Palm Beach, Florida, personal communication 

3 
in 2002. Although these numbers suggest an increase in lionfish abundance, they may 

also reflect greater public awareness and reporting, as well as a greater effort to observe 

lionfish. A statistically valid monitoring program is needed to determine if the number of 

lionfish is indeed increasing. 

Juvenile lionfish have been found off of Long Island, New York and Bermuda. 

The juvenile fish caught in Long Island were smaller than is typically available in the 

aquarium trade, indicating that these fish originated from spawning on the southeast 

United States continental shelf, where adults have been observed. Juveniles of many 

native tropical fish are found in inshore waters of the northeast United States continental 

shelf during the summer (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae are transported from the 

southeast United States continental shelf to inshore waters of the northeast United States 

continental shelf via the Gulf Stream, warm-core rings, and cross-shelf movement (Hare 

and Cowen, 1991, 1996; Hare et al., 2002). Larvae are transported from the southeast 

United States continental shelf to Bermuda similarly, but cold-core rings are involved 

rather than warm-core rings (Schultz and Cowen, 1994). The occurrence and distribution 

of juvenile lionfish provide strong evidence that lionfish are reproducing on the southeast 

United States continental shelf and larvae are transported to Long Island and Bermuda. 

The northern limit of the invasion coincides with the northern limit of the native 

western Atlantic warm-temperate and sub-tropical fish fauna (Briggs, 1974). Adult 

lionfish are distributed as far north as Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Bermuda, with 

juveniles extending further north in the summer. As water temperatures cool in the fall, 

juveniles of warmer water species either return south of Cape Hatteras (e.g., bluefish, 

Kendall and Walford, 1979) or remain and perish (e.g., butterflyfish, McBride and Able, 

1998). Because lionfish are thought to be relatively stationary (Fishelson, 1975), an 

analogy with butterflyfish is appropriate (see McBride and Able, 1998). Larval 

butterflyfish settle in structured nearshore areas during the summer. As water 

temperatures cool in the fall, juvenile butterflyfish remain near their settlement location, 

and when temperatures reach the thermal minimum, they die. Based on this analogy, the 

current hypothesis is that the northern and inshore range of lionfish are restricted by 

winter bottom water temperatures. 

The southern limit of the invasion is more difficult to determine. Four sightings 

have been reported from south of Miami, Florida: one off Cancun, Mexico, two off St. 

Kitts, and one off Puerto Rico. Given the amount of recreational diving that occurs in the 

Caribbean and along the Florida Keys, two inferences can be made from lack of 

observations: lionfish are observed and not reported or lionfish are very rare or do not 

occur south of Miami. Outreach is imperative to educate the diving public to report 

sightings in these areas. Such outreach efforts would either discount the possibility of 

lionfish observations not being reported or lead to reporting of lionfish sightings south of 

Miami. Either outcome would strengthen conclusions regarding the southern limit of the 

invasion. 

 4 
Description of causes and consequences of trends 

Lionfish Ecology and Life History 

Lionfish are solitary and defend their home range against conspecifics (Fishelson, 

1975). Groups of adult lionfish are typically observed only during mating (Fishelson, 

1975). Lionfish have a complex mating behavior during which the female releases a 

mucous balloon of eggs that is fertilized externally. The egg mass floats and deteriorates 

over time, releasing the eggs into the water column. No information exists on the larval 

stage except for the description of five individuals collected in the water column off of 

northwestern Australia (Imamara and Yabe, 1996). Based on the spawning information 

and the collection of larvae from the water column, lionfish likely have a pelagic larval 

stage similar to many other marine fish species. 

The early life history stages of lionfish are poorly known. Lionfish settle from the 

water column to benthic habitats at about 12 mm. Laidig and Sakuma (1998) reported a 

larval growth rate of 0.3 mm per day for Scorpaena, a genus in the same family as 

lionfish, Scorpeanidae. Using this growth rate, the estimated larval duration of lionfish is 

25 to 40 days, which means that larvae are in the water column and susceptible to 

transport by ocean currents for approximately one month. 

Ecology of the adult stage is only partially known. Adults eat a wide variety of 

smaller fishes, shrimps and crabs (Fishelson, 1975), and in their native range, lionfish 

occupy the upper levels of the food chain (Fishelson, 1997). Bernadsky and Goulet 

(1991) reported that the Pacific cornetfish eat lionfish, but few other predators are known. 

Age at sexual maturity and lifespan are also unknown. 

Lionfish are best known for their venomous dorsal, anal, and pelvic spines. A pair 

of venom glands is associated with each spine, and each spine is covered by a loose 

sheath (Gallagher, 2001; Plantz, 2001; Vetrano et al. 2002). When the spine punctures 

tissue, the sheath moves down the spine compressing the venom glands (Gallagher, 

2001). Venom then travels up a groove in the spine into the wound (Gallagher, 2001). 

Most lionfish envenomations are reported by home aquarists who keep lionfish in their 

tanks (Gallagher, 2001). Of 101 described cases of lionfish envenomations, none were 

fatal. In summary, Gallagher (2001) states “... the vast majority of lionfish stings 

[envenomations] appear to result in uncomplicated wounds with severe local pain that is 

responsive to immersion therapy.” However, in some cases patients do not respond to 

immersion therapy (Vetrano et al., 2002). 

Method of introduction 

Invasions of marine fish occur via several mechanisms including natural range 

extensions, deliberate introductions to improve fisheries, movement of fishes through 

canals, transport in ballast water, and unintentional or intentional aquarium or 

aquaculture releases (Baltz, 1991; Courtenay, 1993). The U.S. Geological Service 

5 
inventory of fish introductions in the United States indicates that intentional stocking and 

aquarium releases are the most common methods for marine fish introduction (Table 2). 

Natural range extensions, movement through canals, deliberate release to improve 

fisheries and aquaculture releases are easily rejected as the method of lionfish 

introduction. Because there are several biogeographic provinces between the native range 

of lionfish and observations in the western Atlantic Ocean (Briggs, 1974), a natural range 

extension is not possible. Lionfish were not introduced through the Panama Canal 

because they are not known from the eastern Pacific nor from the western Caribbean.

Lionfish have moved from the Red Sea through the Suez Canal into the eastern 

Mediterranean (Golani and Sonin, 1992), but the eastern Mediterranean is 

biogeographically separated from the western North Atlantic. There is no evidence of a 

deliberate act to establish lionfish for fishery purposes in the western Atlantic Ocean. 

Finally, there are no known aquaculture operations producing lionfish in the United 

States. Thus, ballast water and aquarium releases are the remaining potential methods of 

introduction.

Evidence for the aquarium trade as the 

vector for the introduction of lionfish

● Lionfish are popular in the North American 

aquarium trade

● Lionfish were released from an aquarium in 

Florida waters

● Other marine aquarium fish have been

introduced in Florida waters 

● Color patterns of lionfish off the southeast 

United States are similar to those from the 

Philippines where many are collected for the

aquarium trade

● Globally, no successful introductions of

scorpaenids are known to have occurred via

ballast water 

● In more than a century, no Pacific marine fish 

are known to have been introduced into the 

western Atlantic Ocean via ballast water 

Ballast water has led to the introduction of approximately 35 fish species 

worldwide (Wonham et al., 2000). Most successful introductions are of species in two 

families: Gobiidae and Blenniidae 

(Wonham et al., 2000). Two 

individual scorpaenids have been 

found in ballast water (Wonham et 

al., 2000), and lionfish are reported 

from several harbor areas (Schultz, 

1986) making an introduction of 

lionfish via ballast water possible. 

Further, one adult scorpionfish 

(genus Sebastiscus), an Asian 

species, was collected in Sydney 

Harbor and ballast water is a likely 

mechanism of introduction4

. 

However, two lines of evidence 

indicate that ballast water is not the 

method of lionfish introduction in 

the western Atlantic Ocean. First, 

after more than 100 years of global 

ballast water movement, no 

scorpaenids are known to have been 

introduced and become established 

by this means. Second, in the entire 

marine region from Bermuda to 

Florida, no introductions of IndoPacific fish species via ballast water 

 4 William Eschmeyer, Department of Ichthyology at the California Academy of Sciences, personal 

communication 

 6 
are known. 

All evidence to date supports the conclusion that the introduction of lionfish 

resulted from a release from the aquarium trade. First, lionfish is a popular aquarium fish 

(Thresher, 1984). Second, lionfish were accidentally released from an aquarium into 

Biscayne Bay, Florida in 1992 (Courtenay, 1995). Third, a number of other aquarium fish 

also have been observed off the coast of Florida (Semmens et al., in review ). Fourth, the 

pigmentation pattern of lionfish specimens collected off the coast of North Carolina and 

Georgia are typical of individuals from the central portion of the native range, which 

includes the Philippines and Indonesia 5

; 85% of marine aquarium fishes imported into 

the United States come from the Philippines and Indonesia (Baquero, 1999). 

Although lionfish were apparently introduced from the aquarium trade, the 

specific manner in which lionfish were released remains unknown. An unintentional 

release did occur in 1992 (Courtenay, 1995), but it is impossible to determine if these fish 

were the cause of the lionfish invasion. Home aquarists could have released lionfish that 

became too large for their aquariums or for other reasons. In the end, the specific 

sequence of events that led to the invasion of lionfish will never be known with absolute 

certainty, but all evidence points to the aquarium trade as the initial cause.

Ecosystem effects 

Lionfish could impact native ecosystems through predatory interactions. Lionfish 

feed on a wide variety of smaller fishes, shrimps and crabs (Fishelson, 1975; Sano et al., 

1984). These prey items are abundant on southeast United States shelf reefs and wrecks 

(Wenner et al., 1983). The style of lionfish predation, (i.e., ambush predator) is not 

unique on southeast United States reefs and wrecks (e.g., red grouper, frog fish, scorpion 

fish), but the lack of experience of prey species with lionfish specifically, may increase 

the predation efficiency of lionfish. Without knowledge of diet, dietary preferences, and 

foraging requirements, the impact of lionfish on prey populations and potential 

competitors for food cannot be evaluated. Similarly, interactions between lionfish and 

their potential predators are unknown. Few predators of lionfish have been reported 

within the native range (Bernadsky and Goulet, 1991). Moreover, predators along the 

southeast United States have no experience with the venomous spines of the lionfish (Ray 

and Coates, 1958; Halstead, 1967). Thus, the potential role of predation in decreasing the 

number of lionfish is unknown, as is the potential adverse effect of lionfish on predators. 

The southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem is already undergoing 

change. Many important reef fish predators are overfished (Huntsman et al., 1999). In 

the Snapper-Grouper Management Unit of the South Atlantic Fisheries Management 

Council, approximately half of the stocks for which the status is known are classified as 

overfished (Figure 2). The reef fish fauna of the southeast United States continental shelf 

is also becoming more tropical (Parker and Dixon, 1998). From the 1970’s to the 1990’s, 

the number of tropical species and the abundance of individual tropical species increased 

 5 William Eschmeyer, Department of Ichthyology at the California Academy of Sciences, personal 

communication 

7 
Figure 2. Population status of the 73 species in

the snapper-grouper management unit in 1999

as determined by the Snapper Grouper 

Assessment Group (SGAG, 2001). 

off the coast of North Carolina. Both 

of these large-scale changes favor the 

continued growth and dispersal of the 

lionfish population along the southeast 

United States. Thus, at this time, 

negative effects on the ecosystem are 

unlikely because lionfish are relatively 

rare, but tropical and subtropical reef 

communities in the western Atlantic 

Ocean may be affected in the future if 

lionfish reproduction and dispersal 

results in population growth. 

Prediction of future outcomes 

with no action 

There is very little information from which to base predictions for future effects of

lionfish in the western Atlantic Ocean. The ecology of lionfish is only partially known

from the native range, and has not been investigated in its introduced range. The 

southern limit of the invasion is unclear. The factors controlling the extent of the 

invasion are proposed, but untested. Lionfish are likely reproducing along the east coast 

of the United States, but spawning has not been observed and reproductive studies have 

not been conducted. Only qualitative estimates of lionfish abundance have been made. 

This lack of information precludes well-supported predictions. However, even with very 

little information, three general predictions can be made. 

● With no action, the lionfish population will continue to grow along the southeast 

United States shelf. 

● Effects on the marine ecosystem of the southeast United States will become more 

noticeable as the lionfish population grows. 

● There will be incidents of lionfish envenomations of divers and/or fishers along 

the east coast of the United States. 

The lionfish population will continue to grow along the southeast United States - 

Lionfish were observed at three locations in 2000, 12 locations in 2001, and 41 locations 

in 2002. Although these data are confounded by a probable increase in reporting, there is 

evidence of an increase in abundance. At one wreck off of North Carolina, one lionfish 

was observed in 2001, and seven lionfish were observed in 2002, and diving frequency 

likely did not vary between years 6

. Similarly, scientists on submersible dives during the 

NOAA Ocean Exploration cruises observed no lionfish in 2001, and observed 18 lionfish 

 6 Paula Whitfield, NOAA Beaufort Laboratory, personal observation 

 8 
-50 0 50 100

Percent Change in Frequency of 

Observation ( significant change) 

Southern

Species

Fishery

Species

BLACK SEA BASS

CAROLINA HAKE

CONGER EEL

SHEEPSHEAD

GOOSEFISH

TAUTOG

Northern

Species

-50 0 Fishery Species

RED SNAPPER

SPOTTAIL PINFISH

LONGSPINE PORGY

RED PORGY

SEAWEED BLENNY

VERMILLION SNAPPER

SPOTTED GOBY

BELTED SOAPFISH

RETICULATE MORAY

SPOTTED DRUM

CHUB

CRESTED BLENNY

GAG

BLACKEDGE MORAY

HUNCHBACK SCORPIONFISH

YELLOWTAIL DAMSELFISH

TWOSPOT CARDINAL FISH

PURPLE REEFFISH

BROWN CHROMIS

NEON GOBY

WHITE GRUNT

TOADFISH

GRAY TRIGGERFISH

GREATER AMBERJACK

BANK SEA BASS

YELLOWTAIL REEFFISH

SPOTTED MORAY

CUBBYU

SLIPPERY DICK

WHITEBONE PORGY

RED CORNETFISH

RED HIND

SCHOOLMASTER

ROCK BEAUTY

STOPLIGHT PARROTFISH

GOBY

WHITE SPOTTED SOAPFISH

Figure 3. Percent change in

frequency of observation of 93

reef fish species off the coast of 

North Carolina between the 

1970’s and 1990’s. Northern and 

southern species are defined 

based on published ranges, and 

considering Cape Hatteras as a 

zoogeographic boundary. Fishery 

species are indicated by 

horizontal lines. Red squares to

the left indicate significant 

differences in frequencies of

occurrence between 1970’s and 

1990’s. Data are from Parker and

Dixon (1998). 









TATTLER

GLASSEYE SNAPPER

CREOLE WRASSE

GREAT BARRACUDA

SHARPTAIL EEL

FRENCH ANGELFISH

GRAYSBY

BLUE CHROMIS

ATLANTIC SPADEFISH

BLUE GOBY

SAND PERCH

TOMTATE

INSHORE LIZARDFISH

BANDED BUTTERFLYFISH

OCEAN SURGEON

ALMACO JACK

YELLOWHEAD WRASSE

TRUMPETFISH

JACKNIFE FISH

YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER

RED GROUPER

YELLOW GOATFISH

NIGHT SERGENT

DUSKY DAMSELFISH

LONGJAW SQUIRRELFSIH

PLANEHEAD FILEFISH

PARROTFISH

PARROTFISH

REEF BUTTERFLYFISH

BICOLOR DAMSELFISH

ROCK HIND

SUNSHINEFISH

COCOA DAMSELFISH

WRASSE BASS

HARLE























QUIN BASS

BLUEHEAD WRASSE

BLUE TANG

SPOTFIN BUTTERFLYFISH

SPANISH HOGFISH

SPOTTED GOATFISH

SCAMP

BIGEYE

BLUE ANGELFISH

QUEEN ANGELFISH

BUTTER HAMLET

BANDTAIL PUFFER

DOCTORFISH

KNOBBED PORGY

SPOTFIN HOGFISH

HOGFISH



























in 20027. These data support the hypothesis that the lionfish population is growing and 

will likely continue to increase.

 7

 George Sedberry, Marine Resources Research Institute, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 

personal communication 

9 
Effects on the ecosystem of the southeast United States will become more noticeable as 

the population grows - Potential effects on the southeast United States ecosystem can be 

proposed, but no definitive information exists. Lionfish could decrease prey population 

abundance and/or compete with other mid-level predators. Additionally, higher level 

predators that attempt to prey on lionfish (e.g., grouper, shark) could be adversely 

affected (e.g., envenomation). In freshwater environments, introduced fishes have been 

implicated in the decline and displacement of native fish populations (Marchetti 1999; 

Godinho and Ferreira 2000; Stapp and Hayword 2002; Taniguchi et al., 2002). Moreover, 

community-level effects beyond the replacement of native fishes have also been 

described (Miller et al., 1989; Flecker and Townsend 1994; Jude et al., 1995; Englund 

1999; Godinho and Ferreira 2000; Stapp and Hayword 2002). 

Along the southeast United States coast several other stressors are already 

impacting the ecosystem, and attributing ecosystem changes to lionfish will be difficult 

without experimental exclusion studies or comparisons among multiple sites with and 

without lionfish. However, as the lionfish population grows, the ecosystem effects will 

become more apparent, whether these effects are mild or extreme. 

Lionfish envenomations will occur as the number of interactions in the wild increase - 

As the lionfish population grows, the number of interactions between people and lionfish 

in the wild will increase, and eventually, someone will experience an envenomation. 

Because the majority of lionfish on the east coast of the United States are observed in 

waters deeper than 100 ft, SCUBA divers are the most likely to encounter lionfish. For 

SCUBA divers, the effect of a lionfish envenomation will potentially be exacerbated by 

depth and distance from medical facilities. Lionfish also will be caught by recreational 

and commercial fishers. 

Provision of guidance for potential actions

Specific guidance for lionfish invasion of the southeast United States 

Three actions should be considered to minimize the effects of lionfish on the 

southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem and the public: reduce its population 

abundance, increase outreach and education efforts, and conduct more research to better 

understand lionfish and their potential effects on the ecosystem. 

Reducing population abundance –An obvious approach to limit ecosystem and public 

health effects is to attempt to eliminate lionfish from the ecosystem. Although 

straightforward in principle, eradicating lionfish from the western Atlantic Ocean is not 

practical. Lionfish are now distributed along the entire southeast coast (Figure 1) at 

depths between 80 - 250 ft. The wide geographic range and broad depth range make 

complete eradication of lionfish nearly impossible. A bounty could be established to 

encourage divers or fishers to catch lionfish. The amount of a bounty would be limited 

by the price of lionfish in the aquarium trade (~ $25-$50 per fish), because a difference 

may encourage some to turn in aquarium lionfish for the bounty. A bounty also would 

lead to more interaction between lionfish and the public, thus increasing the risk of 

 10 
envenomations. Rather than attempting eradication, funds should be used to minimize the 

direct effects of lionfish on the American public, to promote outreach and education 

concerning marine invasions, and to support research that promotes the understanding, 

management, and mitigation of marine invasions. 

Outreach and Education - The public in the United States and throughout the Caribbean 

needs to be informed that lionfish have been introduced in the western Atlantic and that 

any sightings should be reported to the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory8

. These reports 

would contribute to range and abundance information. Further, the public should be 

made aware of the health risks and be told not to handle the fish. Medical professionals, 

boat captains and life guards should be instructed on how to treat a lionfish 

envenomation. These efforts at outreach and education would greatly raise public 

awareness and improve the response of health care providers. In addition, lionfish could 

be used as an example to educate the aquarium industry and public about the dangers of 

intentional or unintentional aquarium releases.

Research - Our ability to predict future lionfish population abundance and the effects of 

lionfish on the ecosystem is greatly hindered by a lack of knowledge. Research needs to 

be conducted to define the lionfish population’s ability to survive, reproduce and increase 

along the southeast United States. In addition, the potential for further spread and the 

potential effects of the species on the ecosystem need to be investigated. Specifically, 

documenting the spatial extent of the introduction and estimating the number of living 

individuals are important goals for future research. Efforts should concentrate on reefs 

and wrecks on the southeast United States continental shelf in depths less than 100 m. 

Further, reproductive studies should be undertaken. The identification of spent gonads, 

which is indicative of spawning, would provide further evidence of reproduction, and 

fecundity estimates would help determine the potential reproductive output of lionfish. 

Efforts to find lionfish juveniles along the east coast of the United States and Bermuda 

should also continue. Combining temperature data with information on reef and wreck 

locations will refine our understanding of the potential habitat distribution of lionfish. 

Experiments underway at the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory to determine temperature 

tolerance of lionfish will further define potential range distribution along the southeast 

United States shelf. Bioenergetic studies would provide more detail of the physiological 

tolerances of lionfish and provide estimates of consumption, which could be used to 

estimate the effects of lionfish on prey populations along the southeast United States 

shelf. Genetic studies similar to Planes and Lecaillon (1998) can provide information 

regarding the effective population size and genetic variability of the introduced 

population. Additionally, genetic studies may be able to identify the source region of the 

native range (Hauser et al., 1998). Finally, circulation modeling and/or drifter studies 

could be undertaken to estimate the transport of lionfish from observed locations and to 

better predict areas that may receive recruits (Hare et al., 1999, 2002). 

 8 Paula Whitfield – NOAA Beaufort Laboratory – paula.whitfield@noaa.gov - (252) 728-8714

11 
General guidance for marine fish invasive species 

The lionfish invasion of the southeast United States continental shelf raises

general concerns about the risk of marine fish invaders to marine systems in the United 

States. Five general issues need to be considered. First, additional regulations on the 

aquarium trade may be needed. Second, the role of aquaculture in producing marine fish 

for the aquarium trade needs to be evaluated. Third, regional management institutions 

need to address marine fish introductions and subsequent natural dispersal. Fourth, 

education and outreach about marine fish invaders must be increased. Fifth, in addition to 

specific research on lionfish, research is needed to determine the general causes and 

consequences of marine fish introductions.

The Aquarium Trade - The aquarium trade poses the largest potential risk of marine fish 

invasions to marine waters of the continental United States. The presence of several nonnative marine fish off the east coast of Florida has been linked to the aquarium trade 

(Semmens et al., in review). The marine fish trade into the United States was valued at 

US$ 8.9 million in 1994 (Basleer, 1994), with a global import value of fish in 2001 

estimated at about US$ 28-44 million (Wood, 2001). The collection of fish for marine 

aquariums can be very destructive to habitat (Wood, 2001), and can reduce the 

population abundance of targeted species (Tissot and Hallacher, in review). Importation 

restrictions or bans, such as those in place in Bermuda and Hawaii (see below), limit the 

risk of invasion, but can also increase the demand on local fish populations for the 

aquarium trade. Bermuda has also restricted collection methods to decrease the effect on 

local habitats and populations. Thus, to limit the effect of marine fish invaders on marine 

systems of the United States, two issues need to be dealt with in unison: regulating the 

importation of marine aquarium fish into the United States and regulating the collection 

of aquarium fish in the United States. 

Aquaculture of Native Marine Ornamental Fish - The aquaculture of native species to 

be sold for aquaria may help alleviate some of the problems caused by the aquarium trade 

(see Wood, 2001). Culture of individuals reduces the pressure on wild populations and 

decreases the collateral damage to habitats. Using native fish also eliminates the risk of

invasion by non-native species. However, should cultured fish escape, wild populations 

may be effected. Such issues have developed in salmon culture on both the east and west 

coasts of North America (Waples, 1991; Volpe, 2001). Further, the culture of marine fish 

with pelagic eggs and larvae is more difficult than the culture of freshwater fish with 

demersal eggs and well-developed larvae. Culture facilities also can create environmental 

problems themselves and locating aquaculture facilities becomes an issue. Finally, if the 

aquarium trade comes to rely on cultured specimens, they will be less likely to promote 

the protection of natural habitats (Wood, 2001). 

Regional Management – Beyond the general conclusion that lionfish were released from

the aquarium trade, the specific sequence of events leading to the introduction will likely 

never be known. Yet, since the introduction, lionfish have become established along the 

entire southeast coast of the United States, a range that exceeds the initial introduction 

location. Further, lionfish juveniles have been collected off of Long Island, New York 

 12 
and Bermuda, likely the result of spawning on the southeast United States shelf and 

subsequent larval transport (Hare and Cowen, 1991; Schultz and Cowen, 1994; Hare et 

al., 2002). Thus, the current distribution of lionfish results from the introduction followed 

by natural dispersal processes. 

Bermuda strictly regulates the import of live fish (see below) to protect against 

introductions. However, Bermuda cannot protect against the natural dispersal of a species 

introduced elsewhere. The natural dispersal of lionfish after their introduction leads to the 

concept that to be effective, management strategies limiting marine fish introductions 

need to be applied over the scale of natural ecological dispersal. A first step is to roughly 

define the scales of natural ecological dispersal. Second, representatives from the 

political entities included in the scale of natural ecological dispersal need to be brought 

together. This representative group would develop background information on marine 

fish invasions and outline a regional strategy to limit the effects of marine fish 

introductions. Third, additional research should be aimed at a better understanding of 

dispersal mechanisms and quantifying the connectivity between various locales. The 

overall goal of the research should be to provide a strong scientific framework for the 

implementation of the regional management strategies. 

Education and Outreach – The problems associated with marine fish introductions need 

to be conveyed to the public and various sectors of business. Home aquarists need to 

know that the accidental or intentional release of fish from aquaria threatens native 

species and ecosystems. The aquarium industry should be urged or required to distribute 

information warning against releasing live fish from aquariums. Such notices could also 

raise awareness about the ecological problems associated with invasive species. Portions 

of the aquarium industry have a voluntary code of ethics (Wood, 2001), so there is 

already a forum through which the industry can educate their customers not to release 

aquarium fish. Similarly, aquaculture facilities need to protect against releases. Atlantic 

salmon now inhabit the Pacific coast, which is a direct result of releases from aquaculture 

operations (Volpe, 2001). 

Research - Research in general is needed to determine the causes and consequences of

marine fish invaders in waters of the United States. Lionfish are visible and recognizable. 

How many other invasive marine fish species are established along the southeast coast of 

the United States but presently unrecognized? How many invasive marine fish species are 

established in other marine waters of the United States Economic Exclusive Zone?

Fifteen non-native marine fish species have been observed off the east coast of Florida 

(Semmens et al. in review). Do these sightings represent released individuals, or 

established and reproducing populations? Marine invasive species monitoring sites could 

be established where invasive species are searched for, identified, and quantified. This 

work would provide baseline data as to the magnitude of the problem created by invasive 

marine fishes in United States waters and serve as a starting point to examine the 

consequences to the natural, social, and economic components of the United States. 

Research should also investigate the risk of marine fish invaders to ecosystems

throughout the United States. Randall (1987) summarized marine fish invaders in Hawaii 

13 
and commented on the effects of these introductions on the natural ecosystem, but no 

detailed studies have been conducted to quantify the impacts. Further, Randall (1987) 

mentioned that some illnesses have been linked to consumption of introduced fish (e.g. 

ciguatera and clupeoid poisoning) but again these effects on human health have not been 

quantified. With documented marine fish invaders in Hawaii and along the southeast 

United States shelf, targeted studies could be conducted to determine the effects of 

marine fish invaders on marine ecosystems. In short, there is little or no scientific 

evidence to address the effect, either detrimental or beneficial, of marine invasive fish 

species on marine ecosystems nor the services these ecosystems provide. Thus, the 

magnitude of marine fish introductions as a stressor on marine ecosystems cannot be 

quantified, but must be determined and can no longer be dismissed as negligible. 

Determination of success of past management actions 

Lessons from Hawaii 

The State of Hawaii regulates the importation of non-domestic animals including 

marine fish9

. Hawaii’s reef and shore fish fauna is 29% endemic (Randall, 1987), and the 

state has an interest in protecting these unique resources. Some fish species, including 

species of the genus Pterois, are banned from importation. Importation of non-banned 

species requires a permit. A number of invasive marine fish species have been noted in 

Hawaii (Randall, 1987), and the majority resulted from purposeful or accidental releases 

for fishery purposes from the 1900s to the 1970s. However, Hawaii’s combination of 

import restrictions and permitting has helped prevent further invasion of marine fish into 

the Hawaiian Islands marine ecosystems. 

 

Lessons from Bermuda 

Bermuda also has a number of endemic fish species (Smith-Vaniz et al., 1999), 

and strict regulations are in place to protect Bermuda’s natural fish fauna from invasive 

species10. Live marine fish cannot be imported into Bermuda. Although lionfish have 

been collected in Bermuda waters, the most likely method of introduction was natural 

dispersal from the introduced population along the southeast United States coast (Schultz 

and Cowen, 1994; Whitfield et al., 2002). Bermuda’s laws have kept out marine fish 

invaders via direct human introductions. However, the potential for natural extensions

following an introduction in an oceanographically connected ecosystem raises questions 

about regional management for marine invasive fish species. 

 9

 Hawaii Administrative Rules. Title 4 Department of Agriculture. Subtitle 6 Division of Plant Industry. 

Chapter 71 Plant and non-domestic animal quarantine non-domestic animal import rules. 10 Title 25 of the Fisheries Regulation of 1972. Bermuda Statutory Instrument SR & O 25/1972, 

Regulation 20A, a prohibition against introducing live or unfrozen and uncooked fish into waters of

Bermuda. 

 14 
Lessons from Ballast Water 

Transport in ballast water is the dominant mechanism of introduction of marine 

invertebrates (Ruiz et al., 2000). In response, the shipping industry is using voluntary 

ballast-water exchange to reduce the number of non-native species that are transported 

(IMO, 1991; Wonham et al., 2000). While the vessel is underway, coastal ballast water is 

replaced with ocean water, which is believed to flush out coastal organisms and kill some

remaining organisms by the change in condition (Wonham et al., 2001). In a study 

examining the effectiveness of open-ocean exchange, Wonham et al. (2001) concluded 

“open-ocean exchange represents an additional selective filter in the ballast invasion 

pathway, that reduces but does not eliminate coastal taxa”. Ballast water exchange as a 

management action is partially effective in reducing the rate of marine introductions. 

Lessons from the Snakehead (Pisces, Channidae) 

All species in the family Channidae (snakehead fishes), which are native to 

Africa, Asia, Malaysia and Indonesia, were added to the list of injurious wildlife species 

under the Injurious Wildlife Provisions of the Lacey Act11. This act prohibits the 

importation and transportation of snakehead fishes in the United States, the District of 

Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of 

the United States. Under the terms of the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is 

authorized to prohibit by regulation certain activities involving wild mammals, wild 

birds, fish (including mollusks and crustaceans), amphibians, and reptiles that are 

injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, or forestry, or to 

wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States. As of October 2002, four groups of 

fish (including mollusks and crustaceans) were listed: walking catfish of the family 

Clariidae, mitten crabs of genus Eriocheir, zebra mussels of the genus Dreissena, and 

snakehead fishes of the family Channidae. The rationale for listing snakehead fishes was 

“ to protect wildlife and wildlife resources from the purposeful or accidental introduction 

and subsequent establishment of snakehead populations in ecosystems of the United 

States” 12. 

Declaring a species injurious involves a five-step process: petition, notice for 

information, record of compliance, proposed rule, and final rule. As was the case with 

snakeheads, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may initiate a proposed rule 

without a petition or notice for information if the scientific data support a listing. A 

proposed rule was published by the Fish and Wildlife Service on July 26, 200212, 

indicating the intention to list snakehead as a injurious species under the Lacey Act. 

Comments were taken until August 26, 2002, and the final rule was issued on October 4, 

200213. Whether listing snakehead fishes as an injurious species will prevent additional 

 11 Lacey Act footnote (18 UNITED STATES C. 42 ) 50 CFR Ch. 1 § 16.13 Importation of live or dead fish, 

mollusks, and crustaceans, or their eggs. 12 67 FR 48855-48864 (July 26, 2002) available at http://policy.fws.gov/library/02fr48855.pdf (last 

accessed May 15, 2003) 

13 67 FR 62193-62204 (October 4, 2002) available at http://policy.fws.gov/library/02fr62193.pdf (last 

accessed May 15, 2003) 

15 
introductions and subsequent establishment is unknown at this point, but the case serves 

as an example of a rapid regulatory response to a threat posed by an invasive species to 

the wildlife resources of the United States. 

Conclusions 

Management actions can decrease the risk of marine fish invasions. Bermuda’s 

approach, a strict ban on import of live fish, is the most effective way to reduce the risk

of aquarium releases. Hawaii’s review and permitting process at least allows tracking of

the imported fish, and likely has prevented the introduction of marine fish since the law 

was enacted. The changing of ballast water reduces but does not eliminate the risk of 

invasion. The Lacey Act provides a mechanism to prohibit the import of species that are 

injurious to wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States. 

The introduction of lionfish is irreversible, but hopefully it will prompt the 

development and implementation of effective management strategies to reduce adverse 

ecological and ecosystem effects of marine fish invaders. 

 16 
References 

Able, K.W., and M.P. Fahay. 1998. The first year in the life of estuarine fishes in the Middle Atlantic 

Bight. Rutgers University Press, New York. 

Baltz, D.M. 1991. Introduced fishes in marine systems and inland seas. Biol. Conserv. 56:151-177. 

Baquero, J. 1999. Marine ornamentals trade: quality and sustainability for the Pacific Region. South Pacific 

Forum Secretariat Trade and Investment Division, Suva, Fiji. 

Basleer, G. 1994. The international trade in aquarium/ornamental fish. Infofish International. 5/94 pp 15-

17. 

Bernadsky, G., and D. Goulet. 1991. A natural predator of the lionfish, Pterois miles. Copeia 1991:230-

231. 

Briggs, J.C. 1974. Marine zoogeography. McGraw Hill, New York. 

Cohen, A.N., and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 

279:555-557. 

Courtenay, W.R. 1993. Biological pollution through fish introductions. In: B.N. McKnight (ed). Biological

pollution: the control and impact of invasive exotic species. p 35-61. Indiana Acad. Sci., Indianapolis. 

Courtenay, W.R. 1995. Marine fish introductions in southeastern Florida. American Fisheries Society 

Introduced Fish Section Newsletter 1995(14):2-3. 

Culliton T.J., M.A. Warren, T.R. Goodspeed, D.G. Rerner, C.M. Blackwell, J.J. McDonough. 1990. 50 

years of population change along the Nation’s coasts: 1960-2010. Office of Oceanography and Marine

Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring. 

Englund, R.A. 1999. The impacts of introduced poeciliid fish and Odonata on the endemic Megalagrion 

(Odonata) damselflies of Oahu Island Hawaii. Jour Insect Conserv 3: 225-243. 

Elsner J.B., T. Jagger, and X. Niu. 2000. Changes in rates of North Atlantic major hurricane activity during

the 20th century. Geophysical Research Letters 27:1743-1746. 

Fishelson, L. 1975. Ethology and reproduction of pteroid fishes found in the Gulf of Aqaba (Red Sea), 

especially Dendrochirus brachypterus (Cuvier), (Pteroidae, Teleostei) Publ. Stn. Zool. Napoli 39 

(Suppl. 1):635-656.

Fishelson, L. 1997. Experiments and observations on food consumption, growth and starvation in

Dendrochirus brachypterus and Pterois volitans (Pteroinae, Scorpaenidae) Environ. Biol. Fish. 

50:391-403. 

Flecker, A.S. and C.R. Townsend. 1994. Community-wide consequences of trout introduction in New

Zealand streams. Ecological Applications 4(4) 798-807.

Friedlander, A. M., J. D. Parrish, and R. C. Defelice. 2002. Ecology of the introduced snapper Lutjanus 

kasmira (Forsskal) in the reef fish assemblage of a Hawaiian bay. J. Fish Biol. 60: 28-48.

Gallagher, S.A. 2001. Lionfish and stonefish. Emedicine Topic 3000. available from

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic300.htm; Internet, Last accessed August 7, 2003. 

Godinho, F.N. and M.T. Ferreira. 2000. Composition of endemic fish assemblages in relation to exotic 

species and river regulation in a temperate stream. Biological Invasions 2:231-244. 

17 
Golani, D., and O. Sonin. 1992. New records of the red sea fishes, Pterois miles (Scorpaenidae) and

Pteragogus pelycus (Labridae) from the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology

39: 167-169. 

Halstead, B.W. 1967. Poisonous and Venomous Marine Animals of the World, volume 2. United States 

Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.

Hare, J.A., J.H. Churchill, R.K. Cowen, T. Berger, P. Cornillon, P. Dragos, S. Glenn, J.J. Govoni, and T.N. 

Lee. 2002. Routes and rates of larval fish transport from the southeastern to the mid-Atlantic North 

American continental shelf. Limnol. Oceanogr. 47:1774-1789. 

Hare, J.A., and R.K. Cowen. 1991. Expatriation of Xyrichtys novacula (Pisces: Labridae) larvae: evidence 

of rapid cross-slope exchange. J. Mar. Res. 49:801-823. 

Hare, J.A., and R.K. Cowen. 1996. Transport mechanisms of larval and pelagic juvenile bluefish 

(Pomatomus saltatrix) from South Atlantic Bight spawning grounds to Middle Atlantic Bight nursery

habitats. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41:1264-1286.

Hare, J.A., J.A. Quinlan, F.E. Werner, B.O. Blanton, J.J. Govoni, R.B. Forward, L.R. Settle, and D.E. Hoss.

1999. Larval transport during winter in the SABRE study area: results of a coupled vertical larval 

behaviour-three-dimensional circulation model. Fish. Oceanogr. 8 (Suppl. 2):57-76. 

Harris, L. G., and M. C. Tyrell. 2001. Changing community states in the Gulf of Maine: synergism between

invaders, overfishing, and climate change. Biol. Inv. 3: 9-17. 

Hauser, L., G.R. Carvalho, T.J. Pitcher, and R. Ogutu-Ohwayo. 1998. Genetic affinities of an introduced

predator: Nile perch in Lake Victoria, East Africa. Mol. Ecol. 7:849-857.

Huntsman, G.R., J. Potts, R.W. Mays, and D. Vaughan. 1999. Groupers (Serranidae, Epinephelinae):

endangered apex predators of reef communities. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 23:217-231. 

Imamara, H., and M. Yabe. 1996. Larval record of a red firefish, Pterois volitans, from northwestern 

Australia (Pisces: Scorpaeniformes). Bull. Fac. Fish. Hokkaido Univ. 47(2/3):41-46. 

International Maritime Organization (IMO). 1991. International guidelines for preventing the introduction

of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens from ships’ ballast water and sediment discharges.

Marine Environmental Protection Committee, Resolution (50)31 (July 4, 1991); adopted by

International Maritime Organization, Resolution A774(18) (November 4, 1993). Cited by Wonham et 

al. 2001. 

Jude, D.J., J. Janssen, and G. Crawford. 1995. Ecology, distribution, and impact of the newly introduced

round and tubenose gobies on the biota of the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers. In: Munawar M., T. Edsall, 

and J. Leach (eds.) The Lake Huron ecosystem: ecology, fisheries and management, p 447-460. SPB

Academic Publishing, Amsterdam.

Kendall, A.W., and L.A. Walford. 1979. Sources and distributions of bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, larvae

and juveniles off the east coast of the United States. Fish. Bull. 77:213-227. 

Kochzius, M., R. Söller, M.A. Khalaf, and D. Blohm. 2003. Molecular phylogeny of lionfish genera 

Dendrochirus and Pterois (Scorpaenidae, Pteroinae) based on mitochondrial DNA sequence. 

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 28: 396-403. 

Laidig, T.E., and K.M. Sakuma. 1998. Description of pelagic larval and juvenile grass rockfish, Sebastes 

rastrelliger (family Scorpaenidae), with an examination of age and growth. Fish. Bull. 96:788-796. 

 18 
Marchetti, M.P. 1999. An experimental study of competition between the native Sacramento perch 

(Archoplites interuptus) and introduced bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Biological Invasions 1: 55-65.

McBride, R.S., and K.W. Able. 1998. Ecology and fate of butterflyfishes, Chaetodon spp., in the temperate, 

western North Atlantic. Bull. Mar. Sci. 63:401-416. 

Miller, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past 

century. Fisheries 14:22–38. 

Mountain, D.G. 2002. Potential consequences of climate change for the fish resources in the Mid-Atlantic

region. American Fisheries Society Symposium 32:185-194.

Murawski, S.A. 1993. Climate change and marine fish distributions: forecasting from historical analogy. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:647-658. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003. Annual report to congress on the status of U.S. fisheries 

– 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring,

MD, 156 pp. available from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/cover_sos.pdf, Internet,

Last accessed on 15 May 2003. 

Parker, R.O., and R.L. Dixon. 1998. Changes in a North Carolina reef fish community after 15 years of

intense fishing-global warming implications. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127:908-920. 

Planes, S., and G. Lecaillon. 1998. Consequences of the founder effect in the genetic structure of

introduced island coral reef fish populations. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 63:537-552. 

Plantz, S.H. 2001. Scorpionfish, lionfish, and stonefish poisoning. Emedicine Topic 41. available from

http://www.emedicine.com/wild/topic41.htm; Internet, Last accessed on May 15, 2003. 

Randall, J.E. 1987. Introductions of marine fishes to the Hawaiian Islands. Bull. Mar. Sci. 41:490-502. 

Ray, C., and C.W. Coates. 1958. A case of poisoning by the lion fish, Pterois volitans. Copeia 1958:235. 

Ruiz, G.M., P. Fofonoff, A.H. Hines, and E.D. Grosholz. 1999. Non-indigenous species as stressors in

estuarine and marine communities: assessing invasion impacts and interactions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 

44:950-972. 

Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofnoff, J.T. Carlton, M.J. Wonham, and A.H. Hines. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine 

communities in North America: apparent patterns, processes, and biases. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31:481-

531. 

Sano, M., M. Shimizu, and Y. Nose. 1984. Food habits of Teleostean reef fishes in Okinawa Island, 

Southern Japan. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. 

Schultz, E.T. 1986. Pterois volitans and Pterois miles: two valid species. Copeia 1986:686-690. 

Schultz, E.T., and R.K. Cowen. 1994. The recruitment of coral-reef fishes to Bermuda: Local retention or

long-distance transport. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 109:15-28. 

Semmens, B.X., E.R. Buhle, A.K. Salomon, C. Pattengill-Semmens. In review. Tankers or fish tanks: what 

brought non-native marine fishes to Florida waters? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

Shimada A.M., V.G. Wespestad, L.L. Low, and D.M. Nelson. 1998. Populations of harvested fishes and

invertebrates. NOAA’s State of the Coast Report, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Silver Spring. 

Simpson R. 2002. Hurricane! Coping with disaster. American Geophysical Union. 

19 
Smith-Vaniz, W.F., B.B. Collette, and B.E. Luckhurst. 1999. Fishes of Bermuda: history, zoogeography, 

annotated checklist, and identification keys. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists

Special Publication Number 4. Lawrence, Kansas. 

Snapper-Grouper Assessment Group (SGAG) 2001. Briefing document for snapper grouper assessment 

group meeting February 20-21, in Jacksonville Florida. Charleston, South Carolina. South Atlantic

Fishery Management Council. 

Stapp, P, and G.D. Hayword. 2002. Effects of an introduced piscivore on native trout: insights from a 

demographic model. Biological Invasions 4: 299-316. 

Stachowicz, J.J., J.R. Terwin, R.B. Whitlatch, and R.W. Osman. 2002. Linking climate change and

biological invasions: Ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions. Proc. Natl. Acad. 

Sci. USA 99: 15497-15500. 

Taniguchi, Y., K.D. Fausch, and S. Nakano. 2002. Size-structured interactions between native and 

introduced species: can intraguild predation facilitate invasion by stream salmonids? Biological 

Invasions 4:223-233.

Thresher, R.E. 1984. Reproduction in Reef Fishes. T.F.H. Publishing, Neptune City, NJ. 

Tissot, B.N., and L.E. Hallacher. in review. Impacts of aquarium collectors on coral reef fishes in Kona,

Hawai’i. Conserv. Biol. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Nonindigenous fish. Available from

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/fishes/index.html Internet; maintained by Pam Fuller; Last accessed on May 15, 

2003. 

Vetrano, S. J., J. B. Lebowitz, and S. Marcus. 2002. Lionfish envenomation. The Journal of Emergency

Medicine 23: 379-382. 

Volpe, J.P. 2001. Super un-natural, Atlantic salmon in BC waters. David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver, 

B.C. 

Volpe, J.P., E.B. Taylor, D.W. Rimmer, and B.W. Glickman, B.W. 2000. Evidence of natural reproduction

of aquaculture-escaped Atlantic salmon in a coastal British Columbia river. Conserv. Biol. 14: 899-

903. 

Waples, R.S. 1991. Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmoniods: lessons from the Pacific 

Northwest. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48(suppl. 1):124-133.

Wenner, E.L., D.M. Knott, R.F. Van Dolah, and V.G. Burrell. 1983. Invertebrate communities associated

with hard bottom habitats in the South Atlantic Bight. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 17:143-158. 

Whitfield, P.E., T. Gardner, S.P. Vives, M.R. Gilligan, W.R. Courtenay, G.C. Ray, and J.A. Hare. 2002. 

Biological invasion of the Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans) along the Atlantic coast of North

America. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 235:289-297.

Wonham, M.J., J.T. Carlton, G.M. Ruiz, and L.D. Smith. 2000. Fish and ships: relating dispersal frequency 

to success in biological invasions. Mar. Biol. 136:1111-1121. 

Wonham, M.J., W.C. Walton, G.M. Ruiz, A.M. Frese, and B.S. Galil. 2001. Going to the source: role of the 

invasion pathway in determining potential invaders. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 215:1-12. 

 20 
Wood, E. 2001. Collection of coral reef fish for aquaria: global trade, conservation issues, and management

strategies. Marine Conservation Society, United Kingdom, 80 pp.

Acknowledgements 

We appreciate the cooperation and contribution of the recreational dive community along the southeast

United States; lionfish were first reported by recreational divers and many of the subsequent observations

were made by recreational divers. William Eschmeyer and Jeff Leis provided early guidance. John Randall 

and Brian Tissot provided information regarding marine fish invaders and marine fish collecting in Hawaii.

Annie Glasspool, Jennifer Gray, and Maryellen Goodwin provided information about rules protecting

against marine fish invasions in Bermuda. Kim Hare contributed to the research of the laws of Hawaii and 

Bermuda. Brian Degan collated the information in USGS (2001). Earlier drafts of this report were reviewed

by Pete Parker, Mike Burton, Jud Kenworthy, Patti Marraro, Gretchen Bath Martin, and Matt Kimball. 

Later drafts of this report were greatly improved by the critical reviews of James Carlton, Walter 

Courtenay, and William Eschmeyer; their time and energy is greatly appreciated. Colleen Labee provided

much appreciated editorial assistance. Kevin McMahon helped with the publication of this report. 

Preparation of this report was funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Ocean 

Service. 

21 
 22 

Photo Courtesy of Paula E.Whitfield

Photo of adult lionfish (6 inches long)

Photo Courtesy of John F. Morrissey

Divers, Your help is needed!

'Lionfish' are native to the sub-tropical

and tropical regions of the Indian and 

Pacific Ocean including the Red Sea. 

Since August 2000, lionfish have been 

reported in increasing numbers along the 

Atlantic Coast of the United States from 

Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

Juvenile lionfish have also been found off

Long Island, New York and Bermuda 

(photo below). NOAA is interested in any

information concerning the location of

lionfish in Atlantic and Caribbean Waters. 

Please report any lionfish sighting to Paula Whitfield at the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory, 

(252) 728-8714 or email paula.whitfield@noaa.gov. Video and photographs are encouraged. Any

other information regarding the number of lionfish, depth, latitude and longitude, or behavioral 

observations such as feeding and courtship behavior are also welcome.

Habitat: Lionfish have been found in water depths from 85 to 260 ft on hard bottom, coral reefs

and artificial substrate, sometimes found under ledges and hiding in crevices. 

Identification: Lionfish have distinctive 

red, maroon, and white stripes; fleshy

tentacles above eyes and below mouth; fanlike pectoral fins; long separated dorsal

spines; dorsal spines 13; dorsal soft rays 10-

11; anal spines 3; anal soft rays 6-7. An

adult lionfish can grow as large as 18 inches

while juveniles (see right) may be as small 

as 1 inch or less.

Special Precautions: All of the spines on a lionfish are venomous! This fish can give a painful, 

venomous sting with its dorsal, anal and pelvic spines. Please exercise extreme caution. 

Have you seen me? Have you seen me?

For more information and to print out additional flyers go to: 

http://shrimp.ccfhrb.noaa.gov/lionfish/lionfish.html

Last updated 4/3/03
 
United States Department of Commerce 

Donald L. Evans 

Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret.) 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmospheres 

National Ocean Service 

Richard W. Spinrad 

Assistant Adminstrator for Ocean Service and Coastal Zone Management