Next Article in Journal
Hatchery-Imposed Selection Does Not Impact the Genetic Diversity of Australian Farmed Blue Mussels (Mytilus spp.)
Previous Article in Journal
Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms: Going beyond the “Green” to Monitor and Predict HCBs
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Devil Firefish Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828): Life History Traits of a Potential Fishing Resource in Rhodes (Eastern Mediterranean)

by
Gerasimos Kondylatos
1,2,*,
Alexandros Theocharis
2,
Manolis Mandalakis
3,
Maria Avgoustinaki
1,
Teodora Karagyaurova
2,
Zoi Koulocheri
2,
Sofia Vardali
2 and
Dimitris Klaoudatos
2
1
Hydrobiological Station of Rhodes, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Cos Street, 85131 Rhodes, Greece
2
Department of Ichthyology and Aquatic Environment (DIAE), School of Agricultural Sciences, University of Thessaly (UTh), Fytokou Street, 38446 Volos, Greece
3
Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR), 71500 Heraklion, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Hydrobiology 2024, 3(1), 31-50; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3010003
Submission received: 30 January 2024 / Revised: 23 February 2024 / Accepted: 26 February 2024 / Published: 28 February 2024

Abstract

:
The devil firefish Pterois miles (Bennett 1828) is recognized as one of the 100 worst invasive alien species (IAS) in the Mediterranean Sea with significant socioeconomic and ecological implications. A total of 363 individuals were collected between April 2021 and March 2022 from the Levantine Sea (the Eastern Mediterranean), aiming to assess the current progression of the population. The male to female ratio (1:1.03) did not significantly depart from 1:1, with length–weight relationships exhibiting positive allometric growth. Five age groups were identified, with the third and fourth age groups being the predominant (74% of the population). The highest reproductive intensity was observed during summer followed by autumn. The onset of sexual maturity (L50) for the total population was estimated at 22.44 cm in total length (2.1 years). The asymptotic length was estimated at 45.35 cm for the total population, with males growing larger than females. Longevity was estimated at 14.4 years for the total population. The inflection point was estimated at 4.31 years for the total population. Length with a 50% probability of capture (LC50) was estimated at 23.03 cm, with the respective age (t50) of 2.2 years. The exploitation rate (E = 0.48) indicated that the population is underexploited. The optimum (Fopt) and target (Flim) fishing mortality were higher in comparison with the present fishing mortality (F = 0.41), indicating a potential for commercial exploitation of the species.

1. Introduction

Eastern Mediterranean coastal ecosystems are subjected to ongoing shifts in species abundance and community composition [1,2,3,4,5]. To date, in the Mediterranean Sea, almost 1000 non-indigenous taxa have been identified as established and casual [6,7], with fishes occupying the second highest diversity among them. Their numbers continue to rise, presenting increased establishment success [7,8,9]. The Suez Canal is the most significant entry and ever since the opening in 1869, this human-made passageway has allowed hundreds of species from the Red Sea to cross into the Mediterranean [6,10,11]. A considerable number of these species are migrating westward and establish sizable, reproduceable populations in the eastern Mediterranean.
According to several studies, it is rather clear that the introduction of marine invasive alien species (IAS) to an ecosystem poses a serious threat to the biodiversity, structure and function [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. Caulerpa taxifolia (M.Vahl) C.Agardh, 1817, first discovered in the basin in 1984 [19,20], and Caulerpa cylindracea Sonder, 1845, first documented in the Mediterranean in 1990 [21], are two of the first invasive species that raised significant concerns about becoming major threats to the Mediterranean ecosystem. In the late 2010s, the two introduced invasive marine Indo-Pacific lionfishes, the devil firefish Pterois miles (Bennett 1828) and the red lionfish Pterois volitans (Linnaeus, 1758), were recognized as the first truly invasive marine fishes and a major ecosystemic threat [22,23].
Pterois miles is one of the most recent Lessepsian fish invaders in the Mediterranean Sea. Kletou et al. (2016) and Dimitriou et al. (2019) [24,25] verified the genetic similarity of the P. miles populations in the Mediterranean Sea and a pattern of repeated introductions of the species in the basin into the Mediterranean originating from the northern Red Sea. It is an Indian Ocean species with a natural geographic range that includes the marine area spreading the from Red Sea to eastern South Africa, the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Laccadive Sea, the Bay of Bengal, the Andaman Sea and Indonesia [26,27]. Although it was firstly recorded in the Mediterranean Sea in 1991, off the coast of Israel [28], several years passed after the second record, when two individuals were discovered in 2012 off the coast of Lebanon, breaking a 20-year silence [29]. Shortly after, in 2014 and 2015, two individuals were discovered in Turkish and Cyprian coastal waters, respectively, whereas in Rhodian waters, Greece, it was first recorded on 15th July 2015 [24,30,31,32,33]. Many more records followed and 31 years after its first record, P. miles is known to be present in Israel, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia and Turkey [22,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. The species demonstrates one of the most rapid invasions and expansions in the basin [5,39]. It has developed large populations in the eastern basin but it is not enough clear which invasion stage the species attains in each Mediterranean subregion [40,41], or whether the numbers of the species are peaking or levelling off or decrease, as in the case of the lionfish invasion in the western Atlantic [42].
The devil firefish can be encountered in a wide range of depths [43,44,45] and is found mainly associated with hard substrates, hiding in cavities of, crevices or caves but also on Neptune grass Posidonia oceanica (Linnaeus) Delile, 1813 beds [46]. Given the fact that other invasive species such as the porcupine sea urchin Diadema setosum Leske, 1778) and indigenous species such as the common spiny lobster Palinurus elephas (Fabricius, 1787) share the same refuges, non-consumptive effects of these species with P. miles may occur [47]. Of the most commonly applied fishing gear of the coastal small-scale fisheries of Greece, the most promising for the collection of P. miles are the static nets [48]. Nevertheless, in the western Atlantic, Morris (2012) [49] and Farquhar (2017) [50] reviewed that the most popular removal method was spearing followed by handnets, reflecting the differentiation between geographic regions in the use of the most appropriate fishing gear targeting lionfishes.
A number of characteristics, including early maturation and reproduction, anti-predatory venomous defenses, and ecological adaptability of the devil firefish, combined with the absence of adaptive responses on behalf of the prey that encounters a new predator and the overfishing of regional predators, contribute to the spectacular success of its establishment in the invaded areas [51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Undoubtedly, the species is a unique opportunistic predator and a generalist carnivore that may consume a wide range of fish and crustaceans, in consumption rates that can substantially surpass the rates of prey production [17,49,53,58,59,60,61,62]. On the other hand, rather few predators of the devil firefish have been recorded within the Mediterranean Sea. These include the dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus, the white grouper Epinephelus aeneus, the common octopus Octopus vulgaris and the silver-checked toad fish Lagocephalus sceleratus [37,63,64] with the first three under fishing or preying pressure [65,66,67]. For the time being, the water temperature seems to be the only effective constraint in the ongoing dispersal of P. miles within the basin [38,68,69]. In fact, the minimum temperature the species can survive in is 10 °C [56,68,70], whereas Dimitriadis et al. (2020) [38] plotted on a map the possible expansion region of the species within the Mediterranean, based on the isotherm of 15.3 °C, which is also the distribution limit for P. volitans in North Carolina, USA [69].
Throughout the literature, it is clear enough that the eradication of the species from the invaded areas is unlikely [22,41,58,71,72]. Additionally, there are many suggestions for the population control of the devil firefish in the invaded areas of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean [4,41,49,56,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. However, managerial tactics, if any applied, aiming at minimizing the negative effect and the population control of P. miles, can be viable but they do not always bring out the desired results [58,73,74,76,78]; and in several other cases, they proved discouraging for various reasons [12]. Irreversibly, P. miles has conquered many regions of the basin and unless retreated or overlapped by starvation, some pathogen or an efficient competitor [42,49,58,81], local communities depended on coastal fisheries will have to admit the species as a potential food source and income resource and practice targeted removals [17,48,49,73,78,79,82,83,84]. The idea of turning an invasive species to food source is not a modernism [83,84,85].
In the western Atlantic, culling is the most successful measure to control the lionfish culling [80,86,87]. For the Mediterranean, we believe that management actions towards minimizing negative effects to the ecosystem of P. miles, should focus in the development of a targeted lionfish fisheries [58], along with establishing it as a new product in the commerce of fresh and processed fish [56]. Tailored management removal efforts of P. miles will be improved by knowing and understanding life history information of the species within each of the invaded areas [55,57,88,89,90,91]. While several of the prominent traits of the species were documented in Cyprus [46], no research on the growth and mortality has been published in Greek waters. The objectives of this study were to investigate the population structure, sex ratio, growth, age composition, mortality, reproduction, and level of exploitation of this species, hence providing vital information that is currently lacking in a region affected by this Lessepsian invader. These data are essential for the development of strategic plans to control the invasive lionfish population and specifically in the estimation of the sustainability of this new fisheries resource.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Sampling Methodology

Three areas of the eastern Rhodian coastal marine waters were selected (Figure 1). From April 2021 to March 2022, monthly experimental fishing trials were applied in each area, within the depth zone of 8–35 m. Two fishing vessels of the Rhodian small-scale coastal fleet were employed (total length of 13.3 m and engine power of 106.5 KW, and total length of 9.0 m and engine power of 7.35 KW, respectively). The fishing gear employed was gill nets (GNSs) and trammel nets (GTRs) as illustrated in Frid and Belmaker (2019) [92] and described analytically in a recent work [93], were applied as typically performed by local fishers of the island. The deployment of GNSs and GTRs was conducted in the early night hours. The former were retrieved two hours after deployment and the latter during sunrise. In total, 36 hauls were performed with each type of fishing gear.
Total length (TL) and total weight (TW) of the collected individuals were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm and 0.01 g, respectively. Rhodes has some qualities that make the surrounding marine waters highly suitable for the study of non-indigenous species (NIS), as reported previously [48]. The region is on the natural pathway of the dispersion of NIS entering the Mediterranean Sea via the Suez Canal and constitutes the main secondary pathway of their further westward or northward expansion. Furthermore, Rhodian coastal waters present a high abundance of P. miles.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Data for statistical analysis were evaluated for normal distribution with the Shapiro–Wilk test for normality and homogeneity of variance by employing variance ratio and Levene’s tests. Welch’s test was employed for sex comparisons when data were normally distributed but violated the assumption of homogeneity of variance [94]. Mood’s median test was used for comparisons where data failed both assumptions of normality and homogeneity [95].
The chi-square goodness-of-fit test [96] was employed to assess the null hypothesis of equal proportions between male and female ratio and compare our findings with published literature. Statistical analysis was performed with Jamovi (Ver. 2.4.6) [97], at an alpha level of 0.05. According to Munro and Pauly (1983) [98], the length–weight relationship was calculated separately for females, males, and combined sex by fitting the exponential curve to the data, where TL is the total length (cm), TW is the total weight (g), “a” (growth factor) is the intercept of the curve, and “b” is the slope (allometry coefficient) (Equation (1)). The standard Student t-test was employed to assess allometric relationships, isometry (b = 3) or allometry (b ≠ 3). The two-samples t-test was used to compare the equations between the sexes.
TW = a × TL b
Length frequency distributions calculated per 1 mm size class were divided into age groups using Bhattacharya’s approach [99] to identify the mean of length for each cohort [100,101], with the use of the FiSAT II program (FAO, Rome, Italy) (version 1.2.2), as in a previous work [46].
A catch curve based on net selectivity was constructed by applying linear regression fitted to ascending line of input points generated from a plot of the capture probability against length group to calculate the length at first capture (Lc) (50% capture probability) and values of the lengths at 25% (L25) and 75% (L75) capture probabilities.

2.3. Growth

Growth parameters were calculated using the Von Bertalanffy (1938) [102] growth equation (Equation (2))
Lt   =   L × 1   e   k × t t 0
where k (growth coefficient) is the rate at which the asymptotic length, L, is approached, t is the age in years and t0 is the hypothetical age at which the fish has zero length.
The index of growth (in length) performance [98] was derived using the von Bertalanffy parameters (Equation (3))
φ   =   logK   + 2 ×   logL
The maximum lifespan was estimated according to Froese and Binohlan (2000) [103] (Equation (4)).
t max   = 2.9957 k + t 0
The inflection point (time when growth rate starts to decrease) was estimated according to Ricker (1979) [104] (Equation (5)).
Inflection   point = t 0 + ln 3 K

2.4. Mortality and the Exploitation Rate

Natural mortality was calculated using the updated Hoenignls estimator according to Then et al. (2015) [105] (Equation (6)).
M = 4.899 × t max 0.916
Total mortality (Z) was calculated using Beverton and Holt’s (2012) [106] empirical equation (Equation (7)).
Z   =   K   × L   L mean   /   L mean   L
where Lmean is the mean length of all fish in a sample representing a steady-state population and L′ is the cut-off length or the lower limit of the smallest length class included in the computation.
The length-converted catch curve [107] was further employed to estimate the total mortality rate (Z).
The annual fishing mortality rate (F) was obtained by subtracting natural from total mortality according to Sparre and Venema (1998) [101] (Equation (8)).
F   =   Z     M
The exploitation rate (a measure of the number of fish that are caught from a population each year) was calculated as the ratio of fishing mortality to the total mortality [107] (Equation (9)).
E   =   F / Z  
The length class with the highest biomass (Lopt) (optimum length) was calculated according to (Beverton, 1995) [108] (Equation (10)).
L opt = 3 × L inf 3 + M K

2.5. Reproduction

The length at which 50% of individuals in a population have reached sexual maturity is known as the onset of sexual maturity (L50). Sex and maturity stage were determined macroscopically for each specimen. Fish were deemed mature if they had developing, ripe, or spent ovaries. Immature/resting fish, considered non-reproductive, were assigned a 0 while mature fish were assigned a value of 1. To model the link between fish length and the likelihood of sexual maturity, a binary logistic regression was fitted to the data [109]. The latter is a method used to model the relationship between one or more independent variables and a binary dependent variable, which is transformed using the logit transformation into a probability ranging from 0 to 1.
Each gonad was removed and was weighed after removal of excess water. The reproductive cycle was assessed seasonally with the use of the gonad-somatic index (GSI) calculated according to Ulman et al. (2021) [110] (Equation (11)).
By examining the seasonality of the gonadosomatic (GSI) (Equation (11)) for each sex, the spawning cycle of the species was analyzed in the study area.
GSI   % = GW TW × 100  
where GW is the gonad weight, LW is the liver weight and TW is the total weight.
The annual recruitment pulses and their relative strength were determined from a routine implemented in FiSAT II software using the time series length–frequency data and growth parameters (Linf, K and t0), which involves the backward projection of length frequencies onto time axis based on growth parameters [111].
Fulton’s condition factor (K) was further employed as an estimate of body condition in fish (Equation (12)) according to Fulton (1904) [112].
K = 100 × Weight   in   g Length   in   cm 3

2.6. Relative Y/R and B/R Analysis: Knife-Edge Selection

The relative yield per recruit (Y′/R) was estimated using the knife-edge method of Beverton and Holt’s model (1957) [113], by which the optimum exploitation rate (Eopt) and the maximum exploitation rate (Emax) were obtained. Further biological reference points including optimum length (Lopt), optimum fishing mortality (Fopt), fishing mortality limit (Flim) and the optimum exploitation rate (Eopt) were estimated according to previous research [108,114,115].

3. Results

3.1. The Sex Ratio

A total of 363 individuals (184 females and 179 males) were caught with a M:F sex ratio of 1:1.03 in favor of females. The sex ratio did not significantly depart from 1:1 (x2 = 0.10, p > 0.05), but a significant departure from reported male to female ratio of 0.649:1 [46] in the island Cyprus (x2 = 13.95, p < 0.001) was identified.

3.2. Population Structure

Significantly greater total length (Welch’s test p < 0.001) and weight (Mood’s Median test, p < 0.05) were indicated for males.
The range of total length among sexes (Figure 2) was higher for males (37.8 mm) compared to females (34.3 mm), with a similar trend indicated for total weight (787.8 gr and 636.0 gr) for males and females, respectively (Figure 3).

3.3. Length–Weight Relationship

A highly significant positive allometry was indicated for the total and male population (p < 0.001) and a significant positive allometry was indicated for the female population (p < 0.05) (Figure 3). No significant difference was observed between the male and female length–weight relationship.

3.4. Age Composition

The dominant cohort was the three-year class, comprising 41.5% of the population, out of the five age classes identified (Table 1).

3.5. Reproduction

The highest reproductive intensity was exhibited during summer followed by autumn (Figure 4A) with significant differences observed between spring–summer and spring–autumn and similarly between winter–summer and winter–autumn.
The annual recruitment pattern of P. miles (Figure 5) indicated that recruitment occurred throughout the year with two prominent peaks of different magnitudes. The minor one occurred from January to June with a peak in January (12.12%), while the major one happened from August to November with a peak in October (24.29%)
The onset of sexual maturity (L50) for the total population was estimated at 22.44 cm in total length (2.1 years) and 21.92 (1.9 years) and 22.90 (2.2 years) for males and females, respectively (Figure 6). The inflection point was estimated at 4.31 years for the total population.

3.6. Condition Factor

The Fulton condition factor did not exhibit large fluctuation throughout the study period (1.33 ± 0.17) with the highest values exhibited during summer and autumn (Figure 7) and the lowest in spring and winter.

3.7. Growth and Mortality

The Von Bertalanffy growth equation for the total population, was estimated as:
Total   length   cm = 45.35 × 1   e   0.1875 age + 1.5506
The growth index (Φ′) was estimated as 2.59, longevity at 14.4 years and inflection point at 4.31 for the total population.
Natural mortality (M) was estimated as 0.43, total mortality (Z) as 0.83 and fishing mortality (F) as 0.41. The exploitation ratio (E) was estimated at 0.48, indicating an underexploited population.

3.8. The Probability of Capture

The probability of capture was estimated at 25% (LC25), 50% (LC50), and 75% (LC75) levels as 22.05, 23.03, and 23.98 cm, respectively (Figure 8), with age at a 50% probability of capture (t50) being estimated at 2.2 years.

3.9. Relative Y/R and B/R Analysis: Knife-Edge Selection

The yield per recruit (Y/R) against the fishing mortality and the exploitation rate are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. Results of the yield-per-recruit analysis and biological reference points are shown in Table 2.

4. Discussion

Biological invasions constitute one of the major negative impacts of human interventions in ecosystems [116] and that of the Mediterranean Sea is one of the most invaded areas with alien species [117], which influenced biodiversity, ecosystem services and human health [15,17,118]. In regard to economy, it was estimated that within the last 30 years the aquatic invasive species induced a total cost of USD 27.3 billion [119]. A wide range of variables, such as temperature, salinity, habitat variation, food availability, maturity stage, fishing season, high fishing mortality, and genetic factors, affect a teleost’s sex ratio, GSI and spawning period [120].
In the present study, the sex ratio was estimated at 1:1.03 (M:F). In a study from Cyprus [4] on 268 lionfish individuals (sexed: 82 males, 127 females), caught in the period September 2017–August 2018, the sex ratio was 1:1.55. A ratio of 1:1.54 was reported in another study [46] from the same area, where 206 individuals of P. miles were sexed as 81 males and 125 females. Both are significantly different than the sex ratio in the present study. Similar studies from the Atlantic reported a M:F ratio of 1:1 [88,121]. The significance of the sex ratio to the population size of the species was pointed out by Edwards et al. (2014) [88], who emphasized the need to remove a sufficient number of females in order to make lionfish removal efforts effective in terms of suppressing the populations of the species.
The devil firefish individual weight can be differentiated because of (a) the increased predation and the gonad development, combined with the reduced energy consumption for the search for prey, (b) the selectivity of the fishing gear, (c) the topography (substrate) of the fishing area and (d) the collection depth. In Cyprus, out of the 268 P. miles individuals studied, the largest in length was a male with TL 37.1 cm and TW 755.0 g [4]. The heaviest individual was a male with TW 850.0 g and TL 36.8 cm. In another study from Cyprus, the TL range of the P. miles individuals was 8 to 37 cm with a frequency peak in the 20–25 cm length class [46].
The establishment of management measures for a species presupposes knowledge on the structure of its populations. Through the determination of the distribution of sizes and ages it comes handy the determination of the rate at which a species grows, so that size is studied as a function of age. Based on otolith examination, Kleitou et al. (2019) [4] reported that P. miles grows rapidly and can reach 20 cm within the first year of life, a finding that is almost in agreement with the results of the present study, where the species reaches 18 cm in total length. Savva et al. (2020) [46] distinguished four age classes, with onset of sexual maturity reached at 16.3 cm at the first age class, whereas, in the present work, five age classes were identified with the onset of sexual maturity (L50) for the total population estimated at 22.44 cm in total length at the second age class. The maximum age identified in the present study was five years old. In the Atlantic, Gardner (2012) [122], in reference to a study from the Cayman Islands, reported that individuals of TL 19 cm aged between zero to two years. In the present study, the two-year-old individuals attain a TL of 21–22 cm. Further research is necessary for the Rhodian and Mediterranean waters with the use of otoliths compared with the present data to establish potential difference between the two methods. In the Mediterranean, otoliths were used for age estimation only from one study [4]. In the Atlantic, there are considerable literature data involving lionfish otoliths [57,91,123].
A significant life history trait is knowledge of the reproductive period. Analyzing changes in body weight, and gonadal development can help to understand energy trade-offs in the development of reproductive strategies, particularly in the inverse relationship between the hepato-somatic index (HSI) and the gonadosomatic index (GSI), while condition factor (CF) indicates the fish’s relative condition [110]. In the present study, the highest overall reproductive intensity of P. miles was exhibited during summer. The highest value of GSI was obtained in July followed by August and September, a straight-forward proof that P. miles in Rhodes is sexually mature during the summer months. The prominent drop in the GSI during May (Figure 4B) can attributed either to a large variability within the population (sampling bias) or a primary spawning occurrence in the end of spring, The second hypothesis is further supported by the slight drop in FCF, which was observed during May (Figure 7). The large confidence intervals that were observed on Figure 4 (and Figure 7) could be attributed to the presence of large variability within the population and/or temporal or spatial variation.
According to a recent study [46], reproduction in Cyprus occurs in the summer. Mouchlianitis et al. (2021) [124] are the only researchers that examined all aspects of P. miles reproductive biology in the eastern Mediterranean. These authors reported that the species exhibited active spawning only in June and July, but females capable of spawning were present throughout autumn.
In the western Atlantic, a few years earlier, Gardner (2012) [122], in 1872 lionfish individuals, found that GSI presented a significant monthly variation with two peaks during the year, that coincided with maximum and minimum values of sea temperature. The highest GSI value they recorded for females was 6.19. Furthermore, the same authors report that after reproductive maturity, lionfish appeared to spawn year-round, a conclusion supported by the high GSI values found in Morris (2009) [125], with a spawning frequency of 2.42 days. From the same area, there are reports of lionfish breeding throughout the year, based on the presence of females in the fifth stage of maturity [54,55,125]. In Bermuda, actively spawning fish were identified only between certain summer and autumn months, even though females of the P. miles and P. volitans were capable of spawning year-round [91]. However, the findings from our study are not in accordance with those from the tropical Caribbean, where lionfish reproduction is characterized by two major spawning peaks that occur during intervals of stable cool seawater temperatures (27 °C, December–February) and stable warm seawater temperatures (30 °C, July–August). Temperature has been shown to be a moderating factor in the peak spawning period of the species in the Mediterranean as well as in the Atlantic [91,122]. It is estimated that climate change and the resulting further temperature increase in the Mediterranean will lead to prolongation of the spawning period of lionfish. Food availability also seems to play an important role, with photoperiod and the moon phases expressed through tidal cycle needing further investigation [122].
According to Stergiou and Moutopoulos (2001) [126], the length–weight relationship is crucial to fisheries biology and is very helpful in research that evaluate fisheries. It is important to record the length–weight relationships for established invasive species because they reveal how the population has changed through time and space in the invaded habitat [127]. In contrast to a previous study [60] on Rhodian devil firefish individuals that reported a “b” value of 2.896, positive allometry was identified in our study. The “b” values reported in Iskenderun Bay [128] and in Cyprus [46] did not significantly differ from our findings. The L–W allometric relationship demonstrated a very rapid rise in weight with length, suggesting that the lionfish gains weight as it ages and may perhaps become substantially stouter or have a deeper body. The findings of the current study were consistent with those of studies conducted in the western Atlantic invasive range [127], and the minor differences between studies are typically attributed to sample size, season, feeding habits, stage of maturity, environmental factors, and the rapid growth in early life stages [129,130].
The estimation of growth parameters (L∞, K, t0), age, mortality, and exploitation rates, are considered fundamental and constitute the first step in fishery stock assessment. Asymptotic length (L) was similar in comparison to Daghan and Demirhan (2020) [128], but higher than the one reported from Cyprus [46]. K was similar to that described in the former study [128] and lower that in the latter [46]. The t0 value in the present study is higher than in the aforementioned studies. As widely recognized, a number of factors, including environmental conditions (such as temperature and salinity), habitat variability, the latitude effect, food availability, maturity stages, fishing season, sampling methodology, the selectivity of fishing gear, and genetic variations, may be contributing to observed differences in L–W relation, age, growth, and mortality values [131,132,133,134,135,136].
Mortality estimates associated to growth parameters are important to understand population dynamics [137]. The current results suggest that fishing mortality and natural mortality of P. miles in the study area was equal to 0.41 and 0.43, respectively, suggesting an exploitation rate lower than 0.5 (E = 0.48), which is an indication of an underexploited population. The estimated optimum fishing mortality and fishing mortality limit as 0.42 and 0.5, respectively, indicated that there is potential for further fishing mortality increase if the aim was to commercially exploit the population. This indication is further supported by the difference between the optimum exploitation rate and the current exploitation rate, which were estimated as 0.5 and 0.48, respectively. Given the edible flesh of P. miles, it is thus clear that the species has the potential of becoming a marketable fish.
Currently, in Rhodes, the number of fish markets the species is already sold in is limited (EUR 10 per kilo), [48]. Nevertheless, the fact that the devil firefish is already marketed is an encouraging practice and it should be adopted in more areas and in a more intense pace. The slow rates of its incorporation in the live fish commerce can be majorly attributed to the bad reputation P. miles received [80,138,139], which resulted in inhibiting its demand among potential consumers throughout Greece and possibly other Mediterranean countries. The bad reputation is attributed to the venomous spines (12–13 dorsal, 3 anal and 2 pelvic spines), which contain apocrine-type venomous glands [125].
To restore the negative image of the species and place it among other commercially important fishery products, a lot of work must be carried out. Lionfish gastronomy and tasting events held in multiple cities and places, such as cities with high tourist traffic, hotels, restaurants, the street and more, will majorly assist in that direction. Simultaneously, we see as an important element in the promotion of the devil firefish as a food source, the consumer’s, and retailer’s information that the goal is a population size decrease in the species and not the discovery of a new addition to the menus. According to the second management measure of the Article 19 of the EU Regulation No 1143/2014 [140] “The commercial use of already established invasive alien species may be temporarily allowed as part of the management measures aimed at their eradication, population control or containment, under strict justification and provided that all appropriate controls are in place to avoid any further spread”.
This new fishing resource could have the potential of substantially contribute to the economy of the coastal small-scale fisheries of the eastern Mediterranean, where the populations of the lionfish are thriving [48,79,84]. However, caution is needed because a new fisheries resource involves risks. According to Nuñez (2012) [84] a new fisheries resource needs adequate orthological management in order to be sustainable. Creating a market for a certain species can produce uncontrollable pressure to maintain it and if this species turns out to be an economic resource there is a possibility of intentional introduction of the species to other, uninvaded areas [84]. Additionally, a continuous monitoring plan of the catches is crucial for the sustainability of the P. miles fisheries exploitation [79]. Morris (2012) [49] summarized all strategies and issues referring to motivation of lionfish capture. Among them is to clarify the negative perceptions about the dangers of lionfish, educate the public on seeing it as a food source and as a “green alternative” in relevance to other fish species, develop marketing strategies and many more. At the same time, measures and regulations aiming to benefit the ecosystem have to be adopted [5,41,49,79] so that the combination of the lionfish fisheries and the holistic protection of certain coastal areas (e.g., fishing restrictions, creation of marine protected areas, invasive species targeted fisheries within protected sites, licensing to fish for lionfish with specially designed spearguns and bottom traps even within marine protected areas), may contribute efficiently towards the recovery of the marine ecosystem [41,79]. We believe that these solutions are the most realistic and direct for Rhodian and by extension the Greek waters.

5. Conclusions

In the coastal waters of Rhodes, the creation of large populations of the devil firefish seems to be facilitated. Five age classes were identified and the onset of sexual maturity (L50) of the population was estimated at 22.44 cm in total length (second age class), and the maximum age was estimated at five years old. The reproductive intensity of Pterois miles was highest during summer followed by autumn. According to the L–W allometric relationship, the species gains weight as it ages and may perhaps become substantially stouter or have a deeper body. The estimated optimum fishing mortality and fishing mortality limit indicate that P. miles is hardly exploited in Rhodian waters and if the aim was to commercially exploit this local population there is substantial potential for further increase in the catches. The current study provides new information on the population structure and life history characteristics of the invasive P. miles in Rhodian coastal waters, which is essential for developing and implementing management strategies. In order to avoid any adverse impacts on the ecosystem, the exploitation of the species as a new fishery resource in the Mediterranean has to take under consideration all the important parameters, including growth, the sex ratio, length–weight relationship, age, reproductive strategies, mortality and the exploitation rate. This is the first study presenting the mortality rates of the species, hence assisting in the awareness of the status of natural stocks in eastern basin. Nevertheless, more research is required to cover dynamic parameters concerning the devil firefish.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: G.K.; methodology: G.K.; software: G.K. and D.K.; validation: G.K. and D.K.; formal analysis: G.K., A.T. and D.K.; investigation: G.K., A.T., M.M., M.A., T.K., Z.K. and S.V.; resources: G.K. and A.T.; data curation: G.K., A.T., M.M., T.K., Z.K. and D.K.; writing—original draft preparation: G.K., A.T., T.K., Z.K., S.V. and D.K.; writing—review and editing: G.K., A.T., M.M., M.A., T.K., Z.K., S.V. and D.K.; visualization: G.K., A.T. and D.K.; supervision, D.K.; project administration: G.K.; funding acquisition: G.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Fishing trials for present work were undertaken within the framework of the project EXPLIAS (“Design and piloting methods of commercial exploitation of invasive alien species with a view to contributing to their population control”; https://explias.gr/, accessed on 10 December 2023), which was coordinated by the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) with the collaboration of the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR) and the University of the Aegean (UoA) and funded by the Fisheries and Maritime Operational Program 2014–2020 of the Greek Ministry of Agricultural Development and Food, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (MIS No: 5049912).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed from the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Savvas Vagianos (fishing vessel Saratoga) and Osman Karaosman (fishing vessel Nikolaos).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Raitsos, D.E.; Beaugrand, G.; Georgopoulos, D.; Zenetos, A.; Pancucci-Papadopoulou, A.M.; Theocharis, A.; Papathanassiou, E. Global climate change amplifies the entry of tropical species into the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2010, 55, 1478–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arndt, E.; Givan, O.; Edelist, D.; Sonin, O.; Belmaker, J. Shifts in eastern Mediterranean fish communities: Abundance changes, trait overlap, and possible competition between native and non-native species. Fishes 2018, 3, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Givan, O.; Edelist, D.; Sonin, O.; Belmaker, J. Thermal affinity as the dominant factor changing Mediterranean fish abundances. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, e80–e89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kleitou, P.; Hall-Spencer, J.; Rees, S.; Sfenthourakis, S.; Demetriou, A.; Chartosia, N.; Jimenez, C.; Hadjioannou, L.; Petrou, A.; Christodoulides, Y. Tackling the Lionfish Invasion in the Mediterranean. The EU-LIFE RELIONMED Project: Progress and Results. In 1st Mediterranean Symp Non-Indigenous Species; Langar, H., Ouerghi, A., Eds.; SPA/RAC: Antalya, Turkey, 2019; pp. 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kleitou, P.; Crocetta, F.; Giakoumi, S.; Giovos, I.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Kalogirou, S.; Kletou, D.; Moutopoulos, D.K.; Rees, S. Fishery reforms for the management of non-indigenous species. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zenetos, A.; Galanidi, M. Mediterranean non indigenous species at the start of the 2020s: Recent changes. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2020, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zenetos, A.; Albano, P.G.; Garcia, E.L.; Stern, N.; Tsiamis, K.; Galanidi, M. Established non-indigenous species increased by 40% in 11 years in the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2022, 23, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Golani, D.; Azzurro, E.; Dulčić, J.; Massutí, E.; Orsi-Relini, L. Atlas of Exotic Fishes in the Mediterranean Sea; CIESM Publishers: Monte Carlo, Monaco, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  9. Azzurro, E.; Smeraldo, S.; Minelli, A.; D’Amen, M. ORMEF: A Mediterranean database of exotic fish records. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Galil, B.; Marchini, A.; Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A.; Ojaveer, H. The enlargement of the Suez Canal—Erythraean introductions and management challenges. Manag. Biol. Invasions 2017, 8, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zenetos, A.; Çinar, M.E.; Crocetta, F.; Golani, D.; Rosso, A.; Servello, G.; Shenkar, N.; Turon, X.; Verlaque, M. Uncertainties and validation of alien species catalogues: The Mediterranean as an example. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2017, 191, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mack, R.N.; Simberloff, D.; Mark Lonsdale, W.; Evans, H.; Clout, M.; Bazzaz, F.A. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 689–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Courchamp, F.; Woodroffe, R.; Roemer, G. Removing protected populations to save endangered species. Science 2003, 302, 1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Olden, J.D.; Poff, N.L.; Douglas, M.R.; Douglas, M.E.; Fausch, K.D. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Molnar, J.L.; Gamboa, R.L.; Revenga, C.; Spalding, M.D. Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Katsanevakis, S.; Rilov, G.; Edelist, D. Impacts of marine invasive alien species on European fisheries and aquaculture–plague or boon? CIESM Monogr. 2018, 50, 125–132. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kleitou, P.; Savva, I.; Kletou, D.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Antoniou, C.; Christodoulides, Y.; Chartosia, N.; Hadjioannou, L.; Dimitriou, A.C.; Jimenez, C. Invasive lionfish in the Mediterranean: Low public awareness yet high stakeholder concerns. Mar. Policy 2019, 104, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Albano, P.G.; Steger, J.; Bošnjak, M.; Dunne, B.; Guifarro, Z.; Turapova, E.; Hua, Q.; Kaufman, D.S.; Rilov, G.; Zuschin, M. Native biodiversity collapse in the eastern Mediterranean. Proc. R. Soc. B 2021, 288, 20202469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Meinesz, A.; Belsher, T.; Thibaut, T.; Antolic, B.; Ben Mustapha, K.; Boudouresque, C.-F.; Chiaverini, D.; Cinelli, F.; Cottalorda, J.-M.; Djellouli, A. The introduced green alga Caulerpa taxifolia continues to spread in the Mediterranean. Biol. Invasions 2001, 3, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Panayotidis, P. On the enigmatic origin of the Mediterranean invasive Caulerpa racemosa (Caulerpales, Chlorophyta). Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2006, 7, 119–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ruiz, J.M.; Marín-Guirao, L.; Bernardeau-Esteller, J.; Ramos-Segura, A.; García-Muñoz, R.; Sandoval-Gil, J.M. Spread of the invasive alga Caulerpa racemosa var. cylindracea (Caulerpales, Chlorophyta) along the Mediterranean Coast of the Murcia region (SE Spain). Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011, 34, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Morris, J.A., Jr.; Whitfield, P.E. Biology, Ecology, Control and Management of the Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish: An Updated Integrated Assessment; NOAA/National Ocean Service/Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research: Seldovia, Alaska, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sutherland, W.J.; Clout, M.; Côté, I.M.; Daszak, P.; Depledge, M.H.; Fellman, L.; Fleishman, E.; Garthwaite, R.; Gibbons, D.W.; De Lurio, J.; et al. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kletou, D.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Kleitou, P. A lionfish (Pterois miles) invasion has begun in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2016, 9, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dimitriou, A.C.; Chartosia, N.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Kleitou, P.; Jimenez, C.; Antoniou, C.; Hadjioannou, L.; Kletou, D.; Sfenthourakis, S. Genetic data suggest multiple introductions of the lionfish (Pterois miles) into the Mediterranean Sea. Diversity 2019, 11, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kulbicki, M.; Beets, J.; Chabanet, P.; Cure, K.; Darling, E.; Floeter, S.R.; Galzin, R.; Green, A.; Harmelin-Vivien, M.; Hixon, M. Distributions of Indo-Pacific lionfishes Pterois spp. in their native ranges: Implications for the Atlantic invasion. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2012, 446, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eschmeyer, W.N. Scorpaenidae: Smiths’ Sea Fishes; Smith, M.M., Heemstra, P.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  28. Golani, D.; Sonin, O. New records of the Red Sea fishes, Pterois miles (Scorpaenidae) and Pteragogus pelycus (Labridae) from the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Jpn. J. Ichthyol. 1992, 39, 167–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bariche, M.; Kajajian, A.; Azzurro, E. Reproduction of the invasive bluespotted cornetfish Fistularia commersonii (Teleostei, Fistulariidae) in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Biol. Res. 2013, 9, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Turan, C.; Ergüden, D.; Gürlek, M.; Yağlioğlu, D.; Ali, U.; Uygur, N. First record of the Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828) (Osteichthyes: Scorpaenidae) for the Turkish marine waters. J. Black Sea/Mediterr. Environ. 2014, 20, 158–163. [Google Scholar]
  31. Crocetta, F.; Agius, D.; Balistreri, P.; Bariche, M.; Bayhan, Y.; Çakir, M.; Ciriaco, S.; Corsini-Foka, M.; Deidun, A.; El Zrelli, R. New mediterranean biodiversity records (October 2015). Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2015, 16, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Iglésias, S.; Frotté, L. Alien marine fishes in Cyprus: Update and new records. Aquat. Invasions 2015, 10, 425–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jimenez, C.; Petrou, A.; Andreou, V.; Hadjioannou, L.; Wolf, W.; Koutsoloukas, N.; Alhaija, R.A. Veni, vidi, vici: The successful establishment of the lionfish Pterois miles in Cyprus (Levantine Sea). Rapp. Comm. Int. Mer Mediterr. 2016, 41, 417. [Google Scholar]
  34. Crocetta, F.; Al Mabruk, S.A.A.; Azzurro, E.; Bakiu, R.; Bariche, M.; Batjakas, I.E.; Bejaoui, T.; Ben Souissi, S.J.; Cauchi, J.; Corsini-Foka, M. New Alien Mediterranean Biodiversity Records (November 2021); Hellenic Centre for Marine Research: Héraklion, Greece, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dailianis, T.; Akyol, O.; Babali, N.; Bariche, M.; Crocetta, F.; Gerovasileiou, V.; Ghanem, R.; Gökoğlu, M.; Hasiotis, T.; Izquierdo-Munoz, A. New mediterranean biodiversity records (July 2016). Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2016, 17, 608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Azzurro, E.; Stancanelli, B.; Di Martino, V.; Bariche, M. Range expansion of the common lionfish Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828) in the Mediterranean Sea: An unwanted new guest for Italian waters. BioInvasions Rec. 2017, 6, 95–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stern, N.; Rothman, S.B.S.; Hüseyinoglu, M.F.; Öztürk, B. Iron Lion Zion: The successful, albeit lingered, invasion of the lionfish in the Israeli Mediterranean Sea. In Lionfish Invasion and Its Management in the Mediterranean Sea; Turkish Marine Research Foundation Publication: Istanbul, Turkey, 2018; Volume 49, pp. 51–56. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dimitriadis, C.; Galanidi, M.; Zenetos, A.; Corsini-Foka, M.; Giovos, I.; Karachle, P.K.; Fournari–Konstantinidou, I.; Kytinou, E.; Issaris, Y.; Azzurro, E. Updating the occurrences of Pterois miles in the Mediterranean Sea, with considerations on thermal boundaries and future range expansion. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2020, 21, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Poursanidis, D.; Kalogirou, S.; Azzurro, E.; Parravicini, V.; Bariche, M.; Zu Dohna, H. Habitat suitability, niche unfilling and the potential spread of Pterois miles in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 154, 111054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kolar, C.S.; Lodge, D.M. Progress in invasion biology: Predicting invaders. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2001, 16, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kleitou, P.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Savva, I.; Kletou, D.; Hadjistylli, M.; Azzurro, E.; Katsanevakis, S.; Antoniou, C.; Hadjioannou, L.; Chartosia, N. The case of lionfish (Pterois miles) in the Mediterranean Sea demonstrates limitations in EU legislation to address marine biological invasions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Harris, H.E.; Fogg, A.Q.; Allen, M.S.; Ahrens, R.N.M.; Patterson III, W.F. Precipitous declines in northern Gulf of Mexico invasive lionfish populations following the emergence of an ulcerative skin disease. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schultz, E.T. Pterois volitans and Pterois miles: Two valid species. Copeia 1986, 1986, 686–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gress, E.; Andradi-Brown, D.A.; Woodall, L.; Schofield, P.J.; Stanley, K.; Rogers, A.D. Lionfish (Pterois spp.) invade the upper-bathyal zone in the western Atlantic. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Orejas, C.; Jiménez, C.; Gori, A.; Rivera, J.; Lo Iacono, C.; Aurelle, D.; Hadjioannou, L.; Petrou, A.; Achilleos, K. 23 Corals of Aphrodite: Dendrophyllia ramea Populations of Cyprus. In Mediterranean Cold-Water Corals: Past, Present and Future Understanding the Deep-Sea Realms of Coral; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 257–260. [Google Scholar]
  46. Savva, I.; Chartosia, N.; Antoniou, C.; Kleitou, P.; Georgiou, A.; Stern, N.; Hadjioannou, L.; Jimenez, C.; Andreou, V.; Hall-Spencer, J.M. They are here to stay: The biology and ecology of lionfish (Pterois miles) in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Fish Biol. 2020, 97, 148–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hunt, C.L.; Andradi-Brown, D.A.; Hudson, C.J.; Bennett-Williams, J.; Noades, F.; Curtis-Quick, J.; Lewis, O.T.; Exton, D.A. Shelter use interactions of invasive lionfish with commercially and ecologically important native invertebrates on Caribbean coral reefs. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0236200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kondylatos, G.; Vagenas, G.; Kalaentzis, K.; Mavrouleas, D.; Conides, A.; Karachle, P.K.; Corsini-Foka, M.; Klaoudatos, D. Exploring the Structure of Static Net Fisheries in a Highly Invaded Region: The Case of Rhodes Island (Eastern Mediterranean). Sustainability 2023, 15, 14976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Morris, J.A. Invasive lionfish: A Guide to Control and Management; Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute: Marathon, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. Farquhar, S.D. A brief review of fishing gears associated with invasive lionfish removals. SDRP J. Aquac. Fish. Fish Sci. 2017, 1, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  51. García-Berthou, E. The characteristics of invasive fishes: What has been learned so far? J. Fish Biol. 2007, 71, 33–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sih, A.; Bolnick, D.I.; Luttbeg, B.; Orrock, J.L.; Peacor, S.D.; Pintor, L.M.; Preisser, E.; Rehage, J.S.; Vonesh, J.R. Predator–prey naïveté, antipredator behavior, and the ecology of predator invasions. Oikos 2010, 119, 610–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Côté, I.M.; Green, S.J.; Hixon, M.A. Predatory fish invaders: Insights from Indo-Pacific lionfish in the western Atlantic and Caribbean. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 164, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gardner, P.G.; Frazer, T.K.; Jacoby, C.A.; Yanong, R.P.E. Reproductive biology of invasive lionfish (Pterois spp.). Front. Mar. Sci. 2015, 2, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fogg, A.Q.; Brown-Peterson, N.J.; Peterson, M.S. Reproductive life history characteristics of invasive red lionfish (Pterois volitans) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2017, 93, 791–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Côté, I.M.; Smith, N.S. The lionfish Pterois sp. invasion: Has the worst-case scenario come to pass? J. Fish Biol. 2018, 92, 660–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fogg, A.Q.; Evans, J.T.; Peterson, M.S.; Brown-Peterson, N.; Hoffmayer, E.R.; Ingram, G.W., Jr. Comparison of age and growth parameters of invasive red lionfish (Pterois volitans) across the northern Gulf of Mexico. Fish. Bull. 2019, 117, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Albins, M.A.; Hixon, M.A. Worst case scenario: Potential long-term effects of invasive predatory lionfish (Pterois volitans) on Atlantic and Caribbean coral-reef communities. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2013, 96, 1151–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Green, S.J.; Dulvy, N.K.; Brooks, A.M.L.; Akins, J.L.; Cooper, A.B.; Miller, S.; Côté, I.M. Linking removal targets to the ecological effects of invaders: A predictive model and field test. Ecol. Appl. 2014, 24, 1311–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zannaki, K.; Corsini-Foka, M.; Kampouris, T.E.; Batjakas, I.E. First results on the diet of the invasive Pterois miles (Actinopterygii: Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) in the Hellenic waters. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 2019, 49, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Agostino, D.D.; Jimenez, C.; Reader, T.; Hadjioannou, L.; Heyworth, S.; Aplikioti, M.; Argyrou, M.; Feary, D.A. Behavioural traits and feeding ecology of Mediterranean lionfish and naiveté of native species to lionfish predation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2020, 638, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Batjakas, I.E.; Evangelopoulos, A.; Giannou, M.; Pappou, S.; Papanikola, E.; Atsikvasi, M.; Poursanidis, D.; Gubili, C. Lionfish Diet Composition at Three Study Sites in the Aegean Sea: An Invasive Generalist? Fishes 2023, 8, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Crocetta, F.; Shokouros-Oskarsson, M.; Doumpas, N.; Giovos, I.; Kalogirou, S.; Langeneck, J.; Tanduo, V.; Tiralongo, F.; Virgili, R.; Kleitou, P. Protect the natives to combat the aliens: Could Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 be a natural agent for the control of the lionfish invasion in the Mediterranean Sea? J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ulman, A.; Harris, H.E.; Doumpas, N.; Deniz Akbora, H.; Mabruk, A.; Azzurro, E.; Bariche, M.; Çiçek, B.A.; Deidun, A.; Demirel, N. Low pufferfish and lionfish predation in their native and invaded ranges suggests human control mechanisms may be necessary to control their Mediterranean abundances. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Roy, H.E.; Rabitsch, W.; Scalera, R. Study on Invasive Alien Species–Development of Risk Assessments to Tackle Priority Species and Enhance Prevention; Final report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pollard, D.A.; Francour, P.; Fennessy, S. Epinephelus aeneus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018, e.T132722A100459597; IUCN Red List: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  67. Pollard, D.A.; Afonso, P.; Bertoncini, A.A.; Fennessy, S.; Francour, P.; Barreiros, J. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018, e.T7859A100467602; IUCN Red List: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kimball, M.E.; Miller, J.M.; Whitfield, P.E.; Hare, J.A. Thermal tolerance and potential distribution of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) on the east coast of the United States. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2004, 283, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Whitfield, P.E.; Muñoz, R.C.; Buckel, C.A.; Degan, B.P.; Freshwater, D.W.; Hare, J.A. Native fish community structure and Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans densities along a depth-temperature gradient in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2014, 509, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Barker, B.D.; Horodysky, A.Z.; Kerstetter, D.W. Hot or not? Comparative behavioral thermoregulation, critical temperature regimes, and thermal tolerances of the invasive lionfish Pterois sp. versus native western North Atlantic reef fishes. Biol. Invasions 2018, 20, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Schofield, P.J. 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. Aquat. Invasions 2010, 5, S117–S122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Côté, I.M.; Akins, L.; Underwood, E.; Curtis-Quick, J.; Green, S.J. Setting the record straight on invasive lionfish control: Culling works. PeerJ Prepr. 2014, 2, e398v1. [Google Scholar]
  73. Frazer, T.K.; Jacoby, C.A.; Edwards, M.A.; Barry, S.C.; Manfrino, C.M. Coping with the lionfish invasion: Can targeted removals yield beneficial effects? Rev. Fish. Sci. 2012, 20, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Graham, R. A Comparison of Eight Country Plans for the Invasive Indo-Pacific Lionfish in the Wider Caribbean. MSc Thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  75. FAO. Mid-Term Strategy (2017–2020) towards the Sustainability of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  76. Graham, R.E.; Fanning, L.M. A comparison of eight country plans for the invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish in the wider Caribbean. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 12, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Peiffer, F.; Bejarano, S.; de Witte, G.P.; Wild, C. Ongoing removals of invasive lionfish in Honduras and their effect on native Caribbean prey fishes. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Hüseyinoğlu, M.F.; Öztürk, B. Lionfish Invasion and Its Management in the Mediterranean Sea; Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV): Istanbul, Turkey, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kleitou, P.; Rees, S.; Cecconi, F.; Kletou, D.; Savva, I.; Cai, L.L.; Hall-Spencer, J.M. Regular monitoring and targeted removals can control lionfish in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 2870–2882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kleitou, P.; Hall-Spencer, J.; Rees, S.; Kletou, D. Guide to Lionfish Management in the Mediterranean; University of Plymouth: Plymouth, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  81. Harris, H.E.; Fogg, A.Q.; Yanong, R.P.; Frasca, S., Jr.; Cody, T.; Waltzek, T.B.; Patterson, W.F. First Report of an Emerging Ulcerative Skin Disease in Invasive Lionfish: FA209/FA209, 9/2018. EDIS 2018, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  82. Rosenthal, E. Answer for invasive species: Put it on a plate and eat it. New York Times, 9 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
  83. Giakoumi, S.; Katsanevakis, S.; Albano, P.G.; Azzurro, E.; Cardoso, A.C.; Cebrian, E.; Deidun, A.; Edelist, D.; Francour, P.; Jimenez, C. Management priorities for marine invasive species. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 688, 976–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Nuñez, M.A.; Kuebbing, S.; Dimarco, R.D.; Simberloff, D. Invasive species: To eat or not to eat, that is the question. Conserv. Lett. 2012, 5, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rapoport, E.H.; Raffaele, E.; Ghermandi, L.; Margutti, L. Edible weeds: A scarcely used resource. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 1995, 76, 163–166. [Google Scholar]
  86. de León, R.; Vane, K.; Bertuol, P.; Chamberland, V.C.; Simal, F.; Imms, E.; Vermeij, M.J.A. Effectiveness of lionfish removal efforts in the southern Caribbean. Endanger. Species Res. 2013, 22, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Alemu, I.J.B. The status and management of the lionfish, Pterois sp. in Trinidad and Tobago. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 109, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Edwards, M.A.; Frazer, T.K.; Jacoby, C.A. Age and growth of invasive lionfish (Pterois spp.) in the Caribbean Sea, with implications for management. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2014, 90, 953–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Pasko, S.; Goldberg, J. Review of harvest incentives to control invasive species. Manag. Biol. Invasions 2014, 5, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chagaris, D.; Binion-Rock, S.; Bogdanoff, A.; Dahl, K.; Granneman, J.; Harris, H.; Mohan, J.; Rudd, M.B.; Swenarton, M.K.; Ahrens, R. An ecosystem-based approach to evaluating impacts and management of invasive lionfish. Fisheries 2017, 42, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Eddy, C.; Pitt, J.; Oliveira, K.; Morris, J.A.; Potts, J.; Bernal, D. The life history characteristics of invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) in Bermuda. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2019, 102, 887–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Frid, O.; Belmaker, J. Catch dynamics of set net fisheries in Israel. Fish. Res. 2019, 213, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kondylatos, G.; Mavrouleas, D.; Gratsia, E.; Kasapidis, P.; Corsini-Foka, M.; Klaoudatos, D. First record of Arcania brevifrons Chen, 1989 (Decapoda; Leucosiidae) and further record of Macrophthalmus (Macrophthalmus) indicus Davie, 2012 (Decapoda; Macrophthalmidae) in Hellenic waters. BioInvasions Rec. 2023, 12, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Krishnamoorthy, K.; Lu, F.; Mathew, T. A parametric bootstrap approach for ANOVA with unequal variances: Fixed and random models. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2007, 51, 5731–5742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hampton, R.E.; Havel, J.E. Introductory Biological Statistics; Waveland Press: Long Grove, IL, USA, 2006; ISBN 1577663802. [Google Scholar]
  96. Rolke, W.; Gongora, C.G. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test for continuous distributions against a known alternative. Comput. Stat. 2021, 36, 1885–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Şahin, M.D.; Aybek, E.C. Jamovi: An easy-to-use statistical software for the social scientists. Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ. 2019, 6, 670–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Munro, J.L.; Pauly, D. A simple method for comparing the growth of fishes and invertebrates. Fishbyte 1983, 1, 5–6. [Google Scholar]
  99. Bhattacharya, C.G. A simple method of resolution of a distribution into Gaussian components. Biometrics 1967, 23, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Pauly, D.; Caddy, J.F. A modification of Bhattacharya’s Method for the Analysis of Mixtures of Normal Distributions; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1985; Volume 781. [Google Scholar]
  101. Sparre, P.; Venema, S.C. Introduction to fish stock assessment. Part 1: Manual; FAO Fisheries Technical Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; p. 306. [Google Scholar]
  102. Von Bertalanffy, L. A quantitative theory of organic growth (inquiries on growth laws. II). Hum. Biol. 1938, 10, 181–213. [Google Scholar]
  103. Froese, R.; Binohlan, C. Empirical relationships to estimate asymptotic length, length at first maturity and length at maximum yield per recruit in fishes, with a simple method to evaluate length frequency data. J. Fish Biol. 2000, 56, 758–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ricker, W.E. Growth rates and models. Fish Physiol. 1979, 8, 677–743. [Google Scholar]
  105. Then, A.Y.; Hoenig, J.M.; Hall, N.G.; Hewitt, D.A.; Jardim, E. Evaluating the predictive performance of empirical estimators of natural mortality rate using information on over 200 fish species. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2015, 72, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Beverton, R.J.H.; Holt, S.J. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 11. [Google Scholar]
  107. Pauly, D. Some Simple Methods for the Assessment of Tropical Fish Stocks; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  108. Beverton, R.J.H. Spatial limitation of population size; the concentration hypothesis. Neth. J. Sea Res. 1995, 34, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chen, Y.; Paloheimo, J.E. Estimating fish length and age at 50% maturity using a logistic type model. Aquat. Sci. 1994, 56, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ulman, A.; Yildiz, T.; Demirel, N.; Canak, O.; Yemişken, E.; Pauly, D. The biology and ecology of the invasive silver-cheeked toadfish (Lagocephalus sceleratus), with emphasis on the Eastern Mediterranean. NeoBiota 2021, 68, 145–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Moreau, J.; Cuende, F.X. On improving the resolution of the recruitment patterns of fishes. Fishbyte 1991, 9, 45–46. [Google Scholar]
  112. Fulton, T.W. The rate of growth of fishes. Twenty-Second Annu. Rep. 1904, 3, 141–241. [Google Scholar]
  113. Beverton, R.J.H.; Holt, S.J. On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fishery Investigations 1957, 19, 1–533. [Google Scholar]
  114. Gulland, J.A. Manual of methods for fish stock assessment. Part 1: Fish population analysis. FAO Man Fish. Sci. 1969, 4, 154. [Google Scholar]
  115. Gulland, J.A. The Fish Resources of the Ocean; Fishing News Books: West Byfleet, UK, 1971; pp. 307–319. [Google Scholar]
  116. Pyšek, P.; Hulme, P.E.; Simberloff, D.; Bacher, S.; Blackburn, T.M.; Carlton, J.T.; Dawson, W.; Essl, F.; Foxcroft, L.C.; Genovesi, P. Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 1511–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Edelist, D.; Rilov, G.; Golani, D.; Carlton, J.T.; Spanier, E. Restructuring the Sea: Profound shifts in the world’s most invaded marine ecosystem. Divers. Distrib. 2013, 19, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Katsanevakis, S.; Wallentinus, I.; Zenetos, A.; Leppäkoski, E.; Çinar, M.E.; Oztürk, B.; Grabowski, M.; Golani, D.; Cardoso, A.C. Impacts of invasive alien marine species on ecosystem services and biodiversity: A pan-European review. Aquat. Invasions 2014, 9, 391–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kourantidou, M.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Haubrock, P.J.; Novoa, A.; Taylor, N.G.; Leroy, B.; Capinha, C.; Renault, D.; Angulo, E.; Diagne, C. Economic costs of invasive alien species in the Mediterranean basin. NeoBiota 2021, 67, 427–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Rajendiran, P.; Jaafar, F.; Kar, S.; Sudhakumari, C.; Senthilkumaran, B.; Parhar, I.S. Sex determination and differentiation in teleost: Roles of genetics, environment, and Brain. Biology 2021, 10, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Fogg, A.Q.; Hoffmayer, E.R.; Driggers III, W.B.; Campbell, M.D.; Pellegrin, G.J.; Stein, W. Distribution and length frequency of invasive lionfish (Pterois sp.) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Caribb. Res. 2013, 25, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Gardner, P.G. Reproductive Biology of Invasive Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) from Little Cayman Island. MSc Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  123. Farquhar, S. Age and Growth of Invasive Lionfish: North Carolina, USA vs. Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean. Explorations 2016, 11, 12–20. [Google Scholar]
  124. Mouchlianitis, F.A.; Kalaitzi, G.; Kleitou, P.; Savva, I.; Kletou, D.; Ganias, K. Reproductive dynamics of the invasive lionfish (Pterois miles) in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. J. Fish Biol. 2022, 100, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Morris, J.A., Jr. The Biology and Ecology of the Invasive Indo-Pacific Lionfish; North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  126. Stergiou, K.I.; Moutopoulos, D.K. A review of length-weight relationships of fishes from Greek marine waters. Naga ICLARM Q. 2001, 24, 23–39. [Google Scholar]
  127. Sabido-Itzá, M.M.; Aguilar-Perera, A.; Medina-Quej, A. Length–weight and length–length relations, and relative condition factor of red lionfish, Pterois volitans (Actinopterygii: Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae), from two natural protected areas in the Mexican Caribbean. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 2016, 46, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Dağhan, H.; Demirhan, S.A. Some bio-ecological characteristics of the lionfish Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828) distributed in the Gulf of Iskenderun. Mar. Life Sci. 2020, 2, 28–40. [Google Scholar]
  129. Sandel, V.; Martínez-Fernández, D.; Wangpraseurt, D.; Sierra, L. Ecology and management of the invasive lionfish Pterois volitans/miles complex (Perciformes: Scorpaenidae) in Southern Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2015, 63, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Toledo-Hernández, C.; Vélez-Zuazo, X.; Ruiz-Diaz, C.P.; Patricio, A.R.; Mege, P.; Navarro, M.; Sabat, A.M.; Betancur-R, R.; Papa, R. Population ecology and genetics of the invasive lionfish in Puerto Rico. Aquat. Invasions 2014, 9, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Ricker, W.E. Effects of size-selective mortality and sampling bias on estimates of growth, mortality, production, and yield. J. Fish. Board Can. 1969, 26, 479–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Bagenal, T.B.; Tesch, F.W. Age and growth. In Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters; Bagenal, T., Ed.; Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UK, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  133. Recasens, L.; Lombarte, A.; Morales-Nin, B.; Tores, G.J. Spatiotemporal variation in the population structure of the European hake in the NW Mediterranean. J. Fish Biol. 1998, 53, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Basilone, G.; Guisande, C.; Patti, B.; Mazzola, S.; Cuttitta, A.; Bonanno, A.; Vergara, A.R.; Maneiro, I. Effect of habitat conditions on reproduction of the European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in the Strait of Sicily. Fish. Oceanogr. 2006, 15, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Froese, R. Cube law, condition factor and weight–length relationships: History, meta-analysis and recommendations. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2006, 22, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Domínguez-Petit, R.; Saborido-Rey, F. New bioenergetic perspective of European hake (Merluccius merluccius L.) reproductive ecology. Fish. Res. 2010, 104, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ralston, S.V.; Williams, H.A. Depth Distributions, Growth, and Mortality of Deep Slope Fishes from the Mariana Archipelago; NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS 113; NMFS Scientific Publications Office: Seattle, WA, USA, 1988; 47p. [Google Scholar]
  138. Jimenez, C.; Andreou, V.; Hadjioannou, L.; Petrou, A.; Alhaija, R.A.; Patsalou, P. Not everyone’s cup of tea: Public perception of culling invasive lionfish in Cyprus. J. Black Sea/Mediterr. Environ. 2017, 23, 38–47. [Google Scholar]
  139. Azzurro, E.; Bariche, M. Local knowledge and awareness on the incipient lionfish invasion in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2017, 68, 1950–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Cardoso, A.C.; Tsiamis, K.; Deriu, I.; D’Amico, F.; Gervasini, E. EU Regulation 1143/2014: Assessment of Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern Distribution; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021; p. 173. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Map of the study area (red outline) and location of sampling areas (color-shaded areas).
Figure 1. Map of the study area (red outline) and location of sampling areas (color-shaded areas).
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g001
Figure 2. Total length–frequency (A) and weight–frequency (B) distribution of P. miles population with overlaid fitted normal distribution for both sexes.
Figure 2. Total length–frequency (A) and weight–frequency (B) distribution of P. miles population with overlaid fitted normal distribution for both sexes.
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g002
Figure 3. Length–weight relationship of the 363 Pterois miles individuals of the present study.
Figure 3. Length–weight relationship of the 363 Pterois miles individuals of the present study.
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g003
Figure 4. Mean seasonal (A) and monthly (B) GSI (bars indicate 95% confidence interval) of the total P. miles population.
Figure 4. Mean seasonal (A) and monthly (B) GSI (bars indicate 95% confidence interval) of the total P. miles population.
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g004
Figure 5. Recruitment pattern of P. miles.
Figure 5. Recruitment pattern of P. miles.
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g005
Figure 6. Binary logistic regression for the proportion of mature P. miles in relation to its total length (red line indicates model fit, green dashed line indicates 95% C.I., blue dashed line indicates L50).
Figure 6. Binary logistic regression for the proportion of mature P. miles in relation to its total length (red line indicates model fit, green dashed line indicates 95% C.I., blue dashed line indicates L50).
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g006
Figure 7. Mean seasonal (A) and monthly (B) FCF (bars indicate 95% confidence interval) of the total P. miles population.
Figure 7. Mean seasonal (A) and monthly (B) FCF (bars indicate 95% confidence interval) of the total P. miles population.
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g007
Figure 8. Probability of capture for different length classes (LC25, LC50, LC75).
Figure 8. Probability of capture for different length classes (LC25, LC50, LC75).
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g008
Figure 9. Yield per recruit (Y/R) and biomass per recruit (B/R) of P. miles for different fishing mortalities.
Figure 9. Yield per recruit (Y/R) and biomass per recruit (B/R) of P. miles for different fishing mortalities.
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g009
Figure 10. Yield per recruit (Y/R) and biomass per recruit (B/R) of P. miles for different fishing exploitation rates.
Figure 10. Yield per recruit (Y/R) and biomass per recruit (B/R) of P. miles for different fishing exploitation rates.
Hydrobiology 03 00003 g010
Table 1. Population characteristics of the identified age groups for the total P. miles population.
Table 1. Population characteristics of the identified age groups for the total P. miles population.
Age GroupMean Total Length (cm)Standard DeviationPopulation %
118.120.592.79
221.320.8414.90
325.011.3941.49
428.351.2032.40
533.521.168.42
Table 2. Relative yield/recruit analysis (knife edge) and biological reference points of the population.
Table 2. Relative yield/recruit analysis (knife edge) and biological reference points of the population.
EY/RB/R
0.010.0060.852
0.200.0110.714
0.300.0150.585
0.400.0190.467
0.500.0220.360
0.600.0240.264
0.700.0250.180
0.800.0260.108
0.900.0260.048
0.990.0260.004
Biological reference pointsY/RB/R
Emax0.8620.0230.009
E0.10.7070.0250.024
E0.50.3710.0170.017
Fopt0.4240.0210.051
Flim0.5530.0230.042
Eopt0.5000.0220.045
E, the exploitation rate; Y/R, yield per recruit; B/R, biomass per recruit; Emax, the exploitation rate which produces the maximum yield; E0.1, the exploitation rate at which the marginal increase in relative yield per recruit is 1/10th of its value at E = 0; E0.5, value of E under which the stock has been reduced to 50% of its unexploited biomass; Fopt, the optimum fishing mortality; Flim, the fishing mortality limit; Eopt, the optimum exploitation rate.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kondylatos, G.; Theocharis, A.; Mandalakis, M.; Avgoustinaki, M.; Karagyaurova, T.; Koulocheri, Z.; Vardali, S.; Klaoudatos, D. The Devil Firefish Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828): Life History Traits of a Potential Fishing Resource in Rhodes (Eastern Mediterranean). Hydrobiology 2024, 3, 31-50. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3010003

AMA Style

Kondylatos G, Theocharis A, Mandalakis M, Avgoustinaki M, Karagyaurova T, Koulocheri Z, Vardali S, Klaoudatos D. The Devil Firefish Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828): Life History Traits of a Potential Fishing Resource in Rhodes (Eastern Mediterranean). Hydrobiology. 2024; 3(1):31-50. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3010003

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kondylatos, Gerasimos, Alexandros Theocharis, Manolis Mandalakis, Maria Avgoustinaki, Teodora Karagyaurova, Zoi Koulocheri, Sofia Vardali, and Dimitris Klaoudatos. 2024. "The Devil Firefish Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828): Life History Traits of a Potential Fishing Resource in Rhodes (Eastern Mediterranean)" Hydrobiology 3, no. 1: 31-50. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3010003

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop