Both active and passive human interactions with reef fish communities are increasingly recognized to cause fish behavioural changes. However, few studies have considered how these behavioural adaptations impact standard reef survey techniques, particularly across natural gradients of interest to ecologists and reef managers. Here we measure fish abundance, biomass and minimum approach distance using stereo-video surveys to compare the effects of bubble-producing open-circuit scuba vs near-silent closed-circuit rebreathers. Surveys extended across a shallow to upper-mesophotic gradient on the fringing reefs of Utila, Honduras, to explore how the effects of diver gear choice vary with depth. For most fish families we recorded similar abundances and biomass with the two diving techniques, suggesting that open-circuit transects are generally appropriate for surveying western Atlantic reefs similar to Utila with regular tourist diving but no spearfishing. Despite no overall significant difference in fish abundance or biomass, we identified several fish families (Labridae, Pomacentridae, Scaridae) that allowed closed-circuit rebreather divers to approach more closely than open-circuit divers. In addition, smaller fish generally allowed divers to approach more closely than larger fish, and in most cases divers could approach fish more closely on mesophotic than shallow reefs. Despite these significant differences in approach distances, their magnitude suggest they are unlikely to affect reef fish detectability during normal fish surveys for most families. Our findings highlight the importance of considering variation in fish behavioural adaptations along natural gradients such as depth, which otherwise has the potential to cause biases when surveying by traditional monitoring programmes.

Crypsis and aposematism are common antipredator strategies that can each be coupled with behaviours that maximize predator deterrence or avoidance. Cryptic animals employ camouflage to conceal themselves within their environment and generally rely on immobility to avoid detection by predators. Alternatively, aposematic animals tend to rely on an association between conspicuous colouration and secondary defence to deter potential predators, and tend to exhibit slow movements in response to predators. The goal of the present study was to determine how cryptic Craugastor sp. and aposematic Oophaga pumilio respond to simulated human and bird model predators. Oophaga pumilio responded more often with movement to both the human (17/22) and bird (9/25) predators than Craugastor sp. (human: 2/21; bird: 0/21). The increased movement resulted in a greater average flight initiation distance, latency to move, and distance fled in O. pumilio. These findings suggest that cryptic Craugastor sp. rely on immobility to avoid detection, whereas aposematic O. pumilio utilize movement, possibly as a mechanism to increase the visibility of their warning signals to potential predators. Furthermore, O. pumilio exhibited greater movement in response to humans, suggesting that they actively avoid trampling by large threats, rather than considering them predators.

Natural areas are increasingly visited by people, and urban human visitors expect to watch wildlife as close as possible, but this may have associated disturbance costs. Here, effects of number of visitors and bird density on flight initiation distance (FID) as a proxy of disturbance vulnerability were evaluated in the large ground-nesting yellow-legged gull, Larus michahellis. Mean FID decreased with increasing number of visitors and with increasing gull densities, suggesting that (1) ground-nesting gulls habituate to massive human presence, while retaining their antipredatory mechanisms, and (2) dense groups of gulls were more reluctant to fly away. This density effect may be due to the increased risk of clutch predation by conspecifics at high densities and, if so, FID is a reliable metric of disturbance vulnerability in ground-nesting gulls. In conclusion, set-back distances are specific to local populations and it is unnecessary to ban or restrict human visits to ground-nesting gull colonies; redistributing visits, taking into account both the number of visitors and gull density, is preferable.