CONTROL AND RESEARCH OF THE INVASIVE LIONFISH (Pterois volitans) IN A

COASTAL CORAL REEF (Cartagena de Indias – Colombia)

CLiC INVASIVE team members

Luz Helena Rodríguez, IAC Administrative, and Technical Assistant –
luzhelenarodriguez@gmail.com
Mabel Nava, Manager Sea Turtle Conservation Bonaire
navamabel@hotmail.com
January 2016

Table of Content

Introduction
2. Open Standards
3. Scope _
4. Vision
5. Conservation Targets
6. Viability Assessment
7. Threats (Threat Ranking)
8. Situation Analysis
9. Goals
10. Strategies
11. Result Chain for the Lionfish control
12. Objectives and activities
13. Monitoring Plan
14. Budget
References

Introduction
The earliest sightings of lionfish in the Atlantic were in 1985 off the south-eastern coast of
Florida (Morris and Akins 2009). By 2000 lionfish densities have continued to increase
rapidly (Morris and Whitfield 2009, Green et al. 2012a). Today the Lionfish have established
itself in the Gulf of Mexico and the southern Caribbean (Figure 1) becoming an invasive
problem in the region.
 Figure 1. Lionfish Distribution in the Caribbean (courtesy science image)

In 2008, the invasive lionfish was first reported in the Colombian islands of San Andrés and
Providencia (Schofield, 2009) and ever since it has invaded all mainland shores (Bayraktov
et al., 2014) threatening the variety of marine ecosystem found in the country, including the
coral reefs which are highly diverse (Díaz & Acero, 2003). To date, there are no definitive
predators of the lionfish, and the current natural predators are species critically endangered
due to overfishing (Bayraktov et al., 2014). Hunting and promoting the harvest for
consumption have been used as efforts to control the population density. However, the
efficiency of the hunt, and the impact of the lionfish on its competitors, and on the
assemblage of the reef fish community have not been measured, and control strategies have
not yet been implemented in several coastal areas of Colombia.

Using the open standards for the practice of conservation, the management plan below
proposes the development of a five years project with the overarching goal to reduce the
density of lionfish populations in a non-protected coral reef near Cartagena de Indias. The
project will encompass three strategies namely, the control of lionfish, a web-based
communication strategy, and the start up of an NGO that guarantees the continuation of the
project overtime.

2. Open Standards
The open standards (OP) for the practice of conservation are guidelines to systematically
plan, implement, and monitor conservation projects. This tool in adaptive management was
created with the aim to standardized best practices for conservation focusing in the process
on which projects are conceived and planned. The OP are linked to the adaptive
management software for conservation projects MIRADI. As an adaptive management
program MIRADI will display characteristics such as problem solving, implementing the
plans and making changes to the plan to achieve success.

3. Scope
The Scope defines either the geographical parameter of a project or the reduction of a threat.
It is a preliminary view and plan of what the project will be and it is expected to change over
time (adaptive management). Scope can be geographical or thematic in nature. As we are
addressing the threat of the invasive lionfish our scope is thematic, being the invasive lionfish
in the Caribbean, although it also falls into the geographical category because we have a
defined location where the project will be executed during the first 12 months. The scope
then, is to address the reduction of the invasive lionfish in a coastal coral reef near the
Cartagena coast.

The study area is located between Punta Gigante (N 10° 14’ 58,12’’ – W 75° 37’ 17.68’’ ) to
Tierra Bomba Island (N 10° 14’ 10.23’’ – W 75° 36’ 19’’), at the north buffer zone of the
marine protected area “Parque Nacional Natural Corales del Rosario”, where shallow reef
structures depict one of the most important coral reef systems in the continental Colombian
Caribbean.

Among the most common species are the boulder star coral (Montastraea annularis), the
boulder brain coral (Colpophyllia natans), and the mustard hill coral (Porites astreoides)
(Cendales et al., 2002). Groupers, damselfish, grunts, wrasses, parrotfish, and gobies are
found in the MPA. Five of the most abundant species of reef fishes are the creole wrasse
(Clepticus parrae), the bicolour damselfish (Stegastes partitus), the blue-headed wrasse
(Thalassoma bifasciatum), the threespot damselfish (Stegastes planifrons) and the Striped
parrotfish (Scarus iseri) (Delgadillo-Garzón and Zapata-Ramírez, 2009). By spilling effect of
the MPA it is presumed that this species are also found in the study area (Gell and Roberts,
2003)

4. Vision
Coastal coral reefs in Cartagena and Taganga have healthy native fish communities and
reduced lionfish populations, controlled by well-established partnerships with researchers
and fishermen.
5. Conservation Targets
The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation define conservation as: “the specific
species or ecological systems/habitats that are chosen to represent and encompass the
complete site of biodiversity in the project” therefore defining conservation targets is one of
the most important steps in building a project. Based on the OS criteria, our targets represent
the biodiversity at the site, reflect eco-regional or other existing conservation goals are viable
or at least feasibly restorable and are highly threatened.
The team identified four conservation targets: the native reef prey species, the fish that are
competitors/predators of the lionfish (e.g. groupers and snappers), the coral reef ecosystem
and the native fish communities. The highly increased lionfish populations have the potential
to devastate native reef fish species including the herbivorous that prevent seaweed
overgrowth over reef-building corals (Albins, 2015). And the aggressive behaviour of this
invader is a threat for its competitors, that also have shown to be its natural predators, and
which populations are overexploited (Mumby, 2011).

The native reef pray fish and the competitors/predators of lionfish were established to
be the targets directly affected by the presence of the lionfish, therefore their indicators will
be used to measure the impact of the conservation project (See Viability assessment).

6. Viability Assessment
The key ecological attributes (KEA) will allow assessing the status of the targets throughout
the five years of the project (Table 1). The indicators to measure the targets are: the
biomass of size classes of competitors/predators of lionfish, the presence of native
reef prey fish and the abundance of lionfish. The increment or decline of the KEA will
determine the health of the biodiversity target.

Table 1. . Results of the viability assessment of conservation targets regarding the presence
of the invasive lionfish
Target Key Attribute KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very
Type Good

Coral Reef Biodiversity Size Richness < 60% of 60% of 100% of 100% of
Ecosystem of Coral of Species Coral Coral Coral Coral
Species Species Species Species Species
present present present present

Competitors/P Size classes Size Biomass of < 60% of 60% sizes 100% of >100% of
redators size sizes bigger than sizes sizes
classes bigger than 20 cm bigger than bigger
present than 20
 20 cm 20 cm cm
present present present

Native Reef Assemblage Condition Presence < 60% of 60% of key 100% of 100% of
prey fish of fish of native native fish native fish native fish native
communities fish smaller smaller is smaller smaller fish
than 15 cm than 15 cm than 15 cm than 15 cm smaller
than 15
cm

Abundance >100% of 100% of 30% of the <30 of

Size of Lionfish the the current current
population population population populaito
Lionfish of Lionfish of n of the
present present Lionfish Lionfish
present present

Native Reef Composition Condition Presence < 60% of 60% of key 100% of >100%
Fish of Key Reef of Key key species key key
Populations Fish Species species present species species
Communities present present present

7. Threats (Threat Ranking)

Due to the characteristics and the location of the area, the invasive lionfish, overfishing and
plastic pollution, climate change, and coastal development were considered as the direct
threats for the native reef fish and the competitors/predators of the lionfish. As mentioned
before in addition to the presence of an alien species in the coral reef, overfishing is
decimating the natural predators that could control it. Additionally, it has been proven that
plastic pollution is already entering the marine trophic chain when it is ingested by fish
(Possatto et al., 2011), threatening the survival of these species. Severe weather, increasing
temperatures, and other phenomena caused by climate change, and the coastal
development are threats that reduce the resilience of coral reefs (Hughes et al., 2013). To
evaluate the impact of these threats on our biodiversity targets a ranking was conducted. As
expected, the invasive lionfish was ranked as a very high threat compared to overfishing,
climate change, coastal development, and plastic.
 Table 2. Threat ranking and the relationships of threats to targets

8. Situation Analysis
The situation analysis helped the team to create a common understanding of the project’s
context considering the time and resources available. Following the threats ranking, 21
factors were identified to drive positively/negatively the presence of the invasive lionfish.
These factors were included in MIRADI as a conceptual model (Figure 2).

Four main factors were identified to be affecting the occurrence of the invasive lionfish in the
area, namely no demand for lionfish, lack of implementation of lionfish management, lack of
invasive species policy, elements ecologically conducive to the invasion. Other indirect
factors were included and linked considering its relevance to the former four.

As it will be depicted in section nine, different strategies were considered to tackle the
different factors. After discussing and considering the time and resources available, the team
selected the control of the invasive lionfish as the key intervention point, using systematic
hunts that also provide new information. Therefore, the strategy will also include
components regarding the assemblage of fish communities, and the presence of the
competitors/predators of the invader for the first year of the project (Figure 2).

9. Goals
To have a clear idea of what the team would like to accomplish within five years, a goal
was defined for each one of the conservation targets as follows:

Native Reef Fish

By 2020 the abundance of lionfish has been reduced by 60%, and 100% of the
composition of native fish communities identified remain in the area.

Competitors/Predators
By 2020, the biomass of competitor species of lionfish in the area is at least the same than
when the project started or has increased by 350%.
10. Strategies
Using MIRADI brainstorm mode, three strategies were considered to be useful in the
reduction of the threat: Control of Lionfish while supporting research, Outreach and
Awareness to increase the knowledge of this species as a food source, and Lionfish
Partnerships focused on divers, to maximize hunting efforts (Figure 2). Based on their
potential impact and feasibility, the Control of Lionfish in support of research showed to be
most effective strategy, whereas the other two were ranked as less effective and thus less
feasible in the short term

The Regional Strategy for the control of Invasive Lionfish in the Wider Caribbean, as well as
the Plan for the Management and Control of the Lionfish Pterois volitans in the Colombian
Caribbean, include as a main objective to control the populations of the species. The same
interest has been stated by our partners as an immediate action. Based on this information
and considering the resources and time available to develop the project, Control of Lionfish
was chosen as the most effective strategy to show impacts in one year as per grantors
criteria.

Figure 2. Conceptual model of the factors that will be tackled using each one of the
strategies.
11. Result Chains
To corroborate that each of the strategies leads to the conservation of the numbers of native
reef species, and the competitors/predators biomass in the area, we built a logical sequence
of results, which were extracted from the conceptual model (the contributing factors). In the
case of the Lionfish Control and Research strategy, we expect that the partnership
between the UTADEO research team and CliC invasive make it feasible to increase the
number of surveys/hunts during the research project in the study area reducing the local
population of lionfish (Figure 3) . This is an innovative way of working where research
becomes the pillar for conservation and vice versa. We expect that the results of the study
will bring more information about lionfish ecology and creates incentives for other
partnerships to occur in support of lionfish extraction methods, allowing more hunt dives to
occur in the area overtime by partnering with dive operations from the coastal areas of
Cartagena. Each result has its own objectives and activities; which are the steps that need
to take place for each result to occur.

Figure 3. Results chain expected from the implementation of the Lionfish control and
research strategy.

The strategy of Outreach and Awareness is directed to increase the demand of lionfish.
By using an on-line platform we expect to spread the information available on the lionfish,
including the process of research and control that will be conducted in Cartagena (Figure
4).
Figure 4. Results chain expected from the implementation of the Outreach and Awareness
strategy.

The strategy of Lionfish Partnership, expects to produce strategic alliances between the
divers and the governmental stakeholders in charge of managing the lionfish invasion
(Figure 5). During the first year, the level of engagement of the diving shops will be evaluated
and observed.

Figure 5. Results chain expected from the implementation of the Lionfish Partnerships
strategy.

12. Objectives and activities

Lionfish control and research strategy (CR)

● Objective CR1. By October 2015, a partnership between CLiC fellows and a

lionfish research UTadeo group has been forged to conduct control and research of
a lionfish population in a coastal coral reef in Cartagena, Colombia.
 ● Objective CR2. By October 2015 at least US 2000 will be allocated to support
research and control of lionfish in the area.
● Objective CR3. By July 2020, 40 % of Cartagena community has been organized
and mobilized with governmental support, to conduct local lionfish removals.
● Objective CR4. By July 2020, the number of lionfish present in the a coral reef
near Cartagena has been reduced at least 30%

The strategy will be implemented by following the activities bellow.

● Activity CR1. Forge a partnership with a lionfish research group, to ensure that
constant removal activities are conducted. CLiC Team Invasive will adjust to the
partner methods and will present a proposal, and a letter of agreement will be
signed.
● Activity CR2. Raise funds to increase the number of lionfish hunts in the area of
interest. Using CLiC funding as seed money, four partners will be found to match
the $2000. The money will be given to the research team to hire two extra divers
and double the number of surveys/hunts throughout the project.
● Activity CR3. Produce and share information that increases the knowledge on the
lionfish invasion. The process of the research will be shared in social media, and
the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
● Activity CR4. Advice local governments to organize and mobilize the community to
remove lionfish. The results of the partnership will be shared with the local
government, to create a sense of need to tackle the lionfish invasion by organizing
the community.
● Activity CR5. Measure the impact of the intensive removal of lionfish. After five
years monitoring will be conducted using the same methods of 2016 to evaluate
the impact of the activities.

Outreach and Awareness strategy (OA)

● Objective OA1. By January 2016, CLiC Team invasive will join a lionfish regional
website to share content regarding the invasion.
● Objective OA2. By March 2016, visitor to the regional lionfish website have
increased by 30%.
● Objective OA3. By 2020, the level of familiarization with the lionfish invasion has
increased by 50%.
● Objective OA4. By 2020, lionfish demand has increased by 50%.

The strategy will be implemented by following the activities bellow.

● Activity OA1. CLiC Team lionfish will search invasive lionfish regional websites to
choose one that is suitable to share information about the control and consumption
of this invader.
● Activity OA2. CLiC Team will provide content for the regional website, and will
share the information that is being produced in Colombia. This information will be
shared in English and Spanish and traffic to the website will be measured.
● Activity OA3. The lionfish invasion level of knowledge will be measured among
people using social media.
● Activity OA4. The level of consumption of lionfish will be monitored among
costumers, and owners of restaurants that sell fish.
Lionfish partnership strategy (LP)

● Objective LP1. By January 2016, a group of diving shops already removing

lionfish has been identified.
● Objective LP2. By May 2016, at least one MOU has been signed with a diving
shop committed with controlling lionfish and increasing the awareness about the
invasion.
● Objective LP3. By 2020, lionfish partnerships between diving shops and the
government are controlling and have decreased lionfish populations by 50%.

The strategy will be implemented by following the activities bellow.

● Activity 1. CLiC Team Invasive will create a list of diving shops
implementing lionfish hunts. These shops will be contacted to start creating
a relationship and learn about their activities and level of engagement with
the control of the lionfish.
● Activity 2. According to the level of engagement CLiC Team Invasive will formalize
the commitment to control and increase the awareness on the lionfish invasion with
at least one of the diving shops by signing an MOU.
● Activity 3. After several diving shops have committed, a partnership with the
ministry of environment will be forged, to recognize the efforts of the divers and
increase the number of hunts.

13. Monitoring Plan

To track progress on our goals and objectives we prepared the monitoring plan (Table 5),
by selecting one or more indicator for each objective. Indicators had to be measurable, clear,
and related to the change that is being measured. The monitoring plan includes the method
in which these indicators are going to be measured and the partner from the team
responsible for measuring it. A Monitoring Plan is also helpful in identifying the resources
needed for implementation and for doing a proper risk assessment.

Table 5. Indicators to monitor each strategy objectives. CTI = CLiC Team Invasive; UTADEO
= University Jorge Tadeo Lozano; G = Government; DS = Diving shops.
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR METHOD PARTY
CR1 Number of letters of agreement Meetings CTI – UTADEO
CR2 Amount of money raised Fundraising CTI
CR3 Number of participants in Direct count LG = Local
organized hunts government
CR4 Abundance of lionfish Belt transect surveys UTADEO
OA1 Number of letters of agreement On-line CTI
communication
OA2 Website traffic measurement Google stats CTI
OA3 Number of people that know Interview surveys G
about lionfish invasion
OA4 Values of lionfish demand Interview surveys G
LP1 Number of diving shops On-line search CTI
LP2 Number of MOU Meetings CTI – DS
LP3 Abundance of lionfish Census with belt UTADEO
transect
14. Budget

Category/Budget Item Cost Calculation Total CLiC Utadeo Other In Kind

Team Partners

Per Diem

A. Consultants
Luz H Rodriguez
$216/month *15 $3252 $3252 $3252
months
Mabel Nava
$300/month*15 $4500 $4500 $4500
months
Algernon Grant $160/month*15
$2400 $2400 $2400
months
Machel Sulton $60/month*15 months
$900 $900 $900

B. Advisors $1500/month*15
Heather Eves months
$22500 $22500 $22500
$1500/month*15
Nicola Smith months
$22500 $22500 $22500

C. Project $1500/month*15
partners months
Adolfo Sanjuan
$22500 $22500
$300/month*12
months*2 people $22500
D. Additional
manpower $7200 $2000*
*Granted by CLiC

$5200

Land Transportation $70*12 trips $840 $840

Boat rental (including $150/month*12 $1800 $800 $1000

fuel) months

Diving equipment x 6 $600*3 days/12 $21600 $21600

months

Air for tanks $7*36 tanks/12 $3024 $3024 $3024

months

Sampling materials $2000 $2000 $2000

 Food for 6 people $120*3 days/12 $4320 $4320
months

Accommodation for 6 $50 * 3 nights/12 $1800 $1800

people months

$121136 $58052 $52060 $11024 $81576

Totals

The process of building a project requires going through the entire project. This is the last
step within project planning and is based on the monitoring and work plan. Some common
strategies have to be considered when planning a budget such as creating a contingency
budget for those areas where things can go differently as planned.

After having the monitoring plan ready we started to build up the budget based on activities
that we have identified and based on the criteria of the funding agency we are allocating the
revenues in different categories.

This process is helping us to be clearer about what is feasible for undertaking this
project in terms of variety of activities and time length needed by pointing out where
we need more funding and the time is needed to achieve this which will lead to a
better operational plan.

References
Albins, M. A. (2013). Effects of Invasive Pacific Red Lionfish Pterois Volitans versus a Native
Predator on Bahamian Coral-Reef Fish Communities. Biological Invasions, 15(1), 29-43.
doi:10.1007/s10530-012-0266-

Albins, M.A., & Hixon, M. A. (2013). Worst Case Scenario: Potential Long-Term Effects of
Invasive Predatory Lionfish (Pterois Volitans) on Atlantic and Caribbean Coral-Reef
Communities. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 96(10-11), 1151-1157.

Albins, Mark A, 2011 Effects of the invasive Pacific red lionfish Pterois volitans on native
Atlantic coral-reef fish communities,
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/24859

Arias-González, J. E., González-Gándara, C., Cabrera, J. L., & Christensen, V. (2011).

Predicted impact of the invasive lionfish Pterois volitans on the food web of a Caribbean
coral reef. Environmental research, 111(7), 917-925.

Bayraktarov, E., Pizarro, V., & Wild, C. (2014). Spatial and temporal variability of water
quality in the coral reefs of Tayrona National Natural Park, Colombian Caribbean.
Environmental monitoring and assessment, 186(6), 3641-3659.
Bohnsack, J.A., McClellan, D. B., Harper, D. E., Davenport, G. S., Konoval, G. J., Eklund,
A. M., Contillo, J. P., ... & Luo, J. (1999). Baseline data for evaluating reef fish populations
in the Florida Keys, 1979-1998. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
Science Center.

Cendales, M.H., Zea, S., Díaz, J.M.(2002). Geomorfología y unidades ecológicas del
complejo de arrecifes de las Islas del Rosario e Isla Barú (Mar Caribe, Colombia). Rev.
Acad. Colomb. Cienc 26, 497-510.

Delgadillo-Garzón, O., Zapata-Ramírez, P. (2009). Evaluación rápida de peces arrecifales

y su relación con la estructura del sustrato en las Islas del Rosario, área marina protegida
del Caribe colombiano. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de ciencias exactas, físicas y
naturales 33, 273-284.

Díaz, J. M., & Acero, A. (2003). Marine biodiversity in colombia: achievements, status of
knowledge, and challenges. Gayana, 67(2), 261-274.

Gell, F.R., Roberts, C.M. (2003). Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine
reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 448-455.

Green, S., Akins, J., Maljković, A., & Côté, I. (2012). Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic coral reef
fish declines. PLoS ONE. 7:DOI:10.1371/ journal.pone.0032596
https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/marine/marine_our_work/marine_invasives/
seychelles/about_marine_invasive_species/

Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Bellwood, D. R., Card, M., Connolly, S. R., Folke, C., &
Roughgarden, J. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs.
science, 301(5635), 929-933.

IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2009, February 16). Retrieved
June 14, 2015, from

Morris, J., & Akins, J. (2009). Feeding ecology of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans) in the
Bahamian archipelago. Environ Biol Fish Environmental Biology of Fishes, 389-39

Morris, J.A. Jr. & Whitfield, P.E. (2009). Biology, ecology, control and management of the
invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish: An updated integrated assessment. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS NCCOS 99: 57 pp.

Mumby PJ, Harborne AR, Brumbaugh DR (2011) Grouper as a Natural Biocontrol of

Invasive Lionfish. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021510
Mumby, P. J. (2006). The impact of exploiting grazers (Scaridae) on the dynamics of
Caribbean coral reefs. Ecological Applications, 16(2), 747-769.

Possatto, F. E., Barletta, M., Costa, M. F., do Sul, J. A. I., & Dantas, D. V. (2011). Plastic
debris ingestion by marine catfish: an unexpected fisheries impact. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
62(5), 1098-1102.

Schofield, P. J. (2010). Update on geographic spread of invasive lionfishes (Pterois volitans

[Linnaeus, 1758] and P. miles [Bennett, 1828]) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Invasions, 5(Supplement 1), S117-S122.

Schofield, P.J., (2009). Geographic extent and chronology of the invasion of non-native
lionfish (Pterois volitans [Linnaeus 1758] and P. miles [Bennett 1828]) in the Western
North Atlantic and Caribbean Sea. Aquatic Invasions 4, 473-479.