Abstract
The effects of hunting on predator-avoidance behaviour are increasingly being recognised on land but have received less attention in marine systems. We examined whether predator-avoidance behaviour of temperate reef fishes differed between areas protected and not protected from recreational fishing by examining the flight-initiation distance (FID; the distance a predator can approach before the prey animal flees) of six common species in southeastern Australia. By testing species that ranged in desirability to recreational fishers, we could determine if behavioural differences were specific to target species or extended more broadly throughout the assemblage. After accounting for potential variability among sites within protection levels, we found that the FID of all species was higher in fished areas than protected areas, with FID up to 2.4 times higher in fished areas. The two commonly targeted species had the greatest FID response to fishing. FID also increased with body size for all but one species. Our findings indicate the potential for assemblage-wide effects of fishing on predator-avoidance behaviour and are consistent with an indirect mechanism of behavioural modification.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Animal behaviour is strongly influenced by predation risk (Sih et al. 1985; Lima and Dill 1990), with animals responding rapidly to a perceived threat by increasing predator-avoidance behaviours such as fleeing and sheltering (Lima 1987; Brown and Laland 2003; Ferrari et al. 2010). In addition to natural predation, predator-avoidance behaviours are substantially affected by human hunting practices in the terrestrial environment (both lethal and non-lethal) (Kilgo et al. 1998; Frid and Dill 2002; Matson et al. 2005; Stankowich 2008). Research has demonstrated that hunting primarily affects individual vigilance levels (Frid and Dill 2002; Ordiz et al. 2012). In this respect, flight initiation distance (FID; the distance predators can approach prey before the prey flees) of numerous terrestrial taxa has been shown to increase with hunting pressure (Thiel et al. 2007; Jayakody et al. 2008; Stankowich 2008; Reimers et al. 2009) and is higher outside areas protected from hunting than inside them (Frid and Dill 2002; Stankowich 2008).
Similar behavioural effects of human harvesting have been reported from marine systems, prompting suggestion that fishing may be inducing a widespread ‘exploitation-induced timidity syndrome’ (Arlinghaus et al. 2017). Research in coral reef ecosystems has found that spearfishing increases the FID of numerous coral-reef fish taxa (Feary et al. 2011; Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2013, 2015), for example, the FID of surgeonfish (Acanthuridae) and parrotfish (Scaridae) increasing along a gradient of spearfishing pressure in Papua New Guinea (Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2011). The effect of fishing on FID is typically investigated indirectly by comparing behaviour both inside and outside of areas protected from fishing (e.g., Marine-Protected Areas [MPAs]). This is done because directly measuring fishing effort and its effects is rarely achievable over suitable spatial and temporal scales. FID investigations to date have focused on a limited range of coral reef taxa (although see Cole 1994), despite apparent species-specific responses and the potential for ecological interactions and environmental factors to mediate behavioural responses (Nunes et al. 2018, 2019; Quadros et al. 2019; Stamoulis et al. 2019; Pereira et al. 2020). Expansion of FID investigations to additional species and other ecosystems that experience fishing pressure is, therefore, warranted, to inform management of potentially impactful activities (Samia et al. 2019). FID of fish is also influenced by body size, with larger individuals typically displaying greater FID (Gotanda et al. 2009; Feary et al. 2011; Samia et al. 2019), as well as shoal size and the presence or absence of a spear, the reported effects of which have been mixed depending on the study (Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2011, 2012; Tran et al. 2016). For example, Tran et al. (2016) found that FID of lined bristletooth (Ctenochaetus striatus) was significantly greater in the presence of a spear gun and varied depending on whether the encounter was inside or outside of an MPA. In contrast, Januchowski-Hartley et al. (2012) found that FID of parrotfishes differed between protection status but was not influenced by the presence or absence of a spear. The ecological context and species examined must be considered when attempting to understand the impacts of fishing on FID, along with the multitude of potential confounding influences.
There is still little understanding of the mechanisms responsible for FID responses to fishing pressure, with fishing practices expected to have both direct and indirect effects on FID. The act of spearfishing, which is an active form of fishing, could directly increase FID by inducing fear in individuals subject to ‘near misses’ (Sbragaglia et al. 2023). Fishing could also indirectly increase FID by exposing non-target individuals to visual and chemical fear cues from captured individuals (Chivers et al. 2002; Brown and Laland 2003). Such a mechanism is also more likely for line fishing, which is a more passive form of fishing that does not require underwater approach of fish. Although the majority of studies have focused on conspecific social learning, such learning also occurs between heterospecifics (Griffin 2004), with evidence that predator-avoidance behaviour can be rapidly passed between both closely related and phylogenetically distant coral reef fishes (Manassa et al. 2013). In this way, effects of fishing on predator-avoidance behaviour may extend beyond just the target species.
The southeast coastline of Australia provides a model system to examine the effects of fishing practices on the behaviour of temperate reef fishes. This region has one of the highest levels of recreational fishing pressure within Australia (both spear- and line fishing), with the most recent estimate of fishing effort totalling approximately 1.7 million fisher days (Murphy et al. 2020). The region also supports several areas that are protected from both spear- and line fishing practices. These areas are both well-established (old) and enforced (Turnbull et al. 2018).
We aimed to determine if the predator-avoidance behaviour (FID) of temperate reef fishes is higher in areas where recreational fishing (both spear- and line fishing) is permitted than in areas protected from fishing, and whether this response is species-specific. We hypothesised that a greater effect of protection on FID would be observed for species that are more heavily targeted by recreational fishing, as has been observed for some species in other systems (Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2011; Sbragaglia et al. 2018). We used a mixed modelling approach to test the effect of fishing on FID while simultaneously controlling for the effect of body size and accounting for spatial variability in the response.
Materials and methods
Between April and July, 2012, the FID of temperate fishes was assessed in three areas along Australia’s New South Wales coastline: Port Stephens (32°42′19.79″S, 152°10′15.98″E), Sydney (33°49′58.82″S, 151°17′47.32″E) and Wollongong (34°35′28.55″S, 150°54′7.72″E). Protected sites within these areas were Fly Point Sanctuary Zone (termed Fly Point) in Port Stephens, Cabbage Tree Bay Aquatic Reserve (termed Cabbage Tree) in Sydney and Bushrangers Bay Aquatic Reserve (termed Bushrangers Bay) in Wollongong. Fished sites were Harasti’s Hole (Port Stephens), Long Bay (Sydney), and Shell Cove (Wollongong), each located near, but not directly adjacent to, the protected sites in each area. Protected sites were established in 1983, 2002, and 1982 for Port Stephens, Sydney, and Wollongong, respectively, and fishing within them by any method is prohibited. All locations were 10’s to hundreds of kilometres apart. Benthic habitat within both protected and non-protected sites was primarily composed of 0.5–1.5 m diameter boulders (urchin barren habitat; Underwood et al. 1991), at 1–3 m in depth, with areas ranging from 1050 to 9825 m2.
We focused on six fish species: two that are common targets for both spear and line fishers in NSW (yellowfin bream, Acanthopagrus australis [F. Sparidae] and luderick, Girella tricuspidata [F. Kyphosidae]), one species that is considered a secondary target for both spear and line fishers (red morwong, Morwong fuscus [F. Cheilodactylidae]), one species that is occasionally targeted by line fishers but protected from spearfishing (blue groper, Achoerodus viridis [F. Labridae]) and two species that are not targeted by either spear or line fishers (crimson-banded wrasse, Notolabrus gymnogenis [F. Labridae] and rock cale, Aplodactylus lophodon [F. Aplodactylidae]). Due to low availability in some regions, red morwong and rock cale could only be measured at Sydney and Wollongong, while blue groper could only be measured at Sydney and Port Stephens.
Flight initiation distance
Two observers (DAF and AMF) swam directionally on snorkel throughout reef habitat at each site to reduce the likelihood of inadvertently re-measuring the same individuals. Focal species that were foraging or moving slowly near the benthos, and that could be approached directly, were chosen for FID assessment separately by observers. Observers approached the chosen focal species in a horizontal swimming position at the fish’s depth, without a spear or other fishing apparatus. Benthic features where the fish was positioned were noted to precisely mark the individual’s position. When the individual started to flee, as indicated by an increase in speed, often accompanied by a change in direction, the observer dropped a weighted marker at their own position (following Feary et al. 2011). A second marker was placed at the benthic feature where the fish was located prior to flight initiation. The distance between the two markers was measured to the nearest cm using a tape measure and the size of the individual (total length, LT) was visually estimated to the nearest 5 cm. The latter value was considered the limit of reliable distinction between size classes at a range of distances. If the fish exhibited a change in behaviour that was not obviously a result of the approaching snorkeler (e.g., it was disturbed by another fish), the trial was abandoned. Starting points and the survey direction for each observer were haphazardly assigned prior to surveys, to avoid overlap of areas (and focal individuals) sampled between observers and to avoid repeatedly surveying the same areas.
Data analysis
The potential effects of protection from fishing (protected vs fished) and body size (LT) on FID were tested for each species using generalised linear mixed models (GLMMs; Bolker et al. 2009). Site was treated as a random effect nested within protection, because each site was either protected or fished. The most parsimonious combination of fixed effects (protection, size, protection × size) was identified using model selection, based on relative model fit and parsimony determined by Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC). For the most parsimonious model, Wald tests were used to examine the null hypothesis that the coefficient = 0 for each parameter.
Data were explored before analysis using boxplots, Cleveland plots and scatterplots following the protocol of Zuur et al. (2010). The most suitable error distribution was selected for each model through observation of diagnostic plots (see below) and an AIC comparison of equivalent model structures employing the normal distribution with an ‘identity’ link, normal distribution with a log link, and gamma distribution with a log link. For all species, the gamma distribution with a log link performed best and was used for all subsequent modelling. Adherence to model assumptions was verified visually using standard model diagnostic plots, including residuals versus fitted values to examine homogeneity and a histogram or Q–Q plot of the residuals for normality.
Modelling was done in R (ver. 4.2.3, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) using the glmmTMB function from the ‘glmmTMB’ package (Brooks et al. 2017). Diagnostics for these models were produced using the ‘DHARMa’ package (Hartig 2022).
Results
FID of all species was higher in fished areas than protected areas, irrespective of the degree of targeting by recreational fishers (Table 1; Fig. 1). However, the magnitude of the effect varied among species, with FID ranging between 2.4 and 1.4 times higher in fished compared to protected areas (Table 1; Fig. 1). The fishing effect was greatest for the two commonly targeted species, yellowfin bream and luderick (Table 1). The full model selection results for each species are presented in Appendix 1.
FID increased with body size for all species except luderick (Table 1; Fig. 2). Each additional cm of length increased FID by a factor ranging between 1.02 and 1.05 (Table 1). There was no apparent pattern of effect size with the degree of targeting; the greatest effect was seen for red morwong (secondary target) and slightly smaller and similar effects were observed for the other species (Table 1). For blue groper, protection interacted with body size, such that the rate of FID increase with body size was greater in fished areas compared to protected areas (Table 1; Figs. 1, 2).
Discussion
This study demonstrates reduced predator-avoidance behaviour of both target and non-target temperate reef fishes inside areas protected from fishing. While common target species exhibited the greatest FID response to protection, partially supporting previous findings that FID increases with fishing intensity (Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2011; Sbragaglia et al. 2018), all six species in the current study were significantly affected, including two species not known to be targeted by fishers in southeastern Australia. The result for rock cale is particularly notable, because this species is both undesirable for fishers and herbivorous (Yiu et al. 2018), meaning even accidental line catches are uncommon. Fishing pressure for this species is therefore extremely low (A.M.F. pers. comm.), yet mean FID was 1.8 times higher in fished areas than protected areas. Our results are similar to a finding for a tropical surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus striatus) in French Polynesia, which also exhibited greater FID outside of MPAs despite not being harvested (Tran et al. 2016). However, differences in FID between protected and unprotected areas in that study were only observed in the presence of a spear, which our observers did not use. Our results contrast with those of Januchowski-Hartley et al. (2013) who found no increase in FID for a non-targeted family of fishes (Chaetodontidae) across an MPA boundary despite finding an effect for targeted species. Our results add to a growing body of research that supports complex effects of fishing on FID that are dependent on species and ecological context.
Given both target and non-target species were affected in the current study, the mechanisms responsible for increased predator-avoidance behaviour in response to fishing may be direct, indirect, or both. Species subject to targeted fishing may develop heightened predator responses via ‘near misses’, yet non-target species are much less likely to experience such direct encounters. However, individuals of non-target species may have indirectly learned to avoid humans in fished areas through social transference of behaviour from target species (Chivers et al. 2002; Brown and Laland 2003; Askey et al. 2006). There is a wealth of research (predominantly within terrestrial and freshwater literature) showing that social facilitation of alarm cues and/or predator recognition can have a substantial impact on the response of predator-naïve individuals (Brown and Laland 2003; Griffin 2004; Fernö et al. 2006). Socially transmitted information on predator presence or identity is an important mechanism for changing a fish’s behaviour; such socially transmitted information is relatively widespread in teleost species (Brown and Laland 2003). Therefore, predator-naïve individuals could be alerted to the presence of potential predators via their associations with other experienced conspecifics (Magurran and Higham 1988) or heterospecifics (Krause 1993).
While socially transferred fear responses have obvious short-term benefits for fish, such as escape from novel predators, longer-term exposure to such cues may have a net negative effect on fitness. This may be particularly true for non-target species, because fishing poses minimal risk, and heightened predator-avoidance behaviour is, therefore, unlikely to reduce total mortality. This behaviour may, however, suppress essential foraging or reproductive behaviours which would reduce fitness if sustained. Given that recreational fishing is a sustained pressure in populated areas, it is likely that any negative effects of fishing on the feeding or reproductive behaviour of non-target species would be maintained through time. Further investigation of the potential negative consequences of heightened predator-avoidance behaviour in response to fishing is, therefore, warranted.
The patterns in FID observed for target species in the current study may have been influenced by differences in abundance between fished and protected areas. Although the effect varies among species, locations and times, numerous studies have identified higher abundances of fished species in ‘no-take’ protected areas compared to fished areas in southeastern Australia, including the protected sites investigated in the current study (Kelaher et al. 2014; Harasti et al. 2018a, 2018b; Turnbull et al. 2018). Specifically, the two common target species (yellowfin bream, luderick) and one secondary target species (red morwong) in the current study were found to be more abundant in protected areas than fished areas (Harasti et al. 2018a; Turnbull et al. 2018). Fish have been shown to be more tolerant of approach when in larger schools (Stankowich and Blumstein 2005), in contrast to other taxa (e.g., reptiles, birds) which have greater flight initiation distances when in larger groups (Ydenberg and Dill 1986; Stankowich and Blumstein 2005). Hence, the lower FID found for yellowfin bream, luderick and red morwong in protected areas in the current study may be due in part to their greater abundance in those sites relative to fished areas and the likely larger schools or closer proximity resulting from this. Interestingly, a previous study found no difference in the abundance of blue groper between Cabbage Tree Bay Reserve (one of our protected sites) and fished areas (Turnbull et al. 2018). The lower FID found for this species in protected areas in the current study may not, therefore, be related to differences in abundance.
The impact of protection on FID found in the current study was surprising, given the small size of each protected area surveyed (Fly Point: 0.14 hectares; Cabbage Tree: 20 hectares; Bushrangers Bay: 3.88 hectares) and the large home-ranges of numerous species. For example, both yellowfin bream and luderick undertake substantial daily, monthly, and yearly coastal movement, encompassing 10–100 s of km (Gray et al. 2012; Pollock 1982). Such movement would be predominantly within areas open to fishing. Therefore, differences in FID response between protected and fished areas for these fishes may have resulted from a rapid switch in predator vigilance. Although there is still little information on the time it takes for fish to show a change in behaviour from being naïve to showing an aversion to fishers, evidence from freshwater systems indicates fish can become wary of fishing practices within days of exposure (Askey et al. 2006). In fact, angling pressure (within freshwater lakes) can have substantial and rapid impacts on the ‘catchability’ of fishes, with sustained fishing effort resulting in quick and substantial drops in catch rates over a 30 day period (Askey et al. 2006; Cooke et al. 2013). Future research should attempt to examine the spatio-temporal dynamics of fishing-induce predator-avoidance behaviour, to understand the relative impacts on mobile versus sedentary species within a ‘patchwork’ of protected areas.
Data availability
Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.
References
Arlinghaus R, Laskowski KL, Alós J, Klefoth T, Monk CT, Nakayama S, Schröder A (2017) Passive gear-induced timidity syndrome in wild fish populations and its potential ecological and managerial implications. Fish Fish 18:360–373
Askey PJ, Richards SA, Post JR, Parkinson EA (2006) Linking angling catch rates and fish learning under catch-and-release regulations. N Am J Fish Manage 26:1020–1029
Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135
Brooks ME, Kristensen K, Van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, Skaug HJ, Machler M, Bolker BM (2017) glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J 9:378–400
Brown C, Laland KN (2003) Social learning in fishes: a review. Fish Fish 4:280–288
Chivers DP, Mirza RS, Johnston JG (2002) Learned recognition of heterospecific alarm cues enhances survival during encounters with predators. Behaviour 139:929–938
Cole RG (1994) Abundance, size structure, and diver-oriented behaviour of three large benthic carnivorous fishes in a marine reserve in northeastern New Zealand. Biol Conserv 70:93–99
Cooke SJ, Raby GD, Donaldson MR, Hinch SG, O’connor CM, Arlinghaus R, Danylchuk AJ, Hanson KC, Clark TD, Patterson DA, Suski CD (2013) The physiological consequences of catch-and-release angling: perspectives on experimental design, interpretation, extrapolation and relevance to stakeholders. Fish Manage Ecol 20:268–287
Feary DA, Cinner JE, Graham NAJ, Hartley F (2011) Effects of customary marine closures on fish behavior, spearfishing success, and underwater visual surveys. Conserv Biol 25:341–349
Fernö A, Huse G, Jakobsen PJ, Kristiansen TS (2006) The role of fish learning skills in fisheries and aquaculture. In: Brown C et al (eds) Fish cognition and behavior Fish and Aquatic Resources Series, vol 11. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 278–310
Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2010) Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724
Frid A, Dill L (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol 6:1–11
Gotanda KM, Turgeon K, Kramer DL (2009) Body size and reserve protection affect flight initiation distance in parrotfishes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1563–1572
Gray CA, Haddy JA, Fearman J, Barnes LM, MacBeth WG, Kendall BW (2012) Reproduction, growth and connectivity among populations of Girella tricuspidata (Pisces: Girellidae). Aquatic Biol 16:53–68
Griffin AS (2004) Social learning about predators: a review and prospectus. Learn Behav 32:131–140
Harasti D, Davis TR, Mitchell E, Lindfield S, Smith SD (2018a) A tale of two islands: decadal changes in rocky reef fish assemblages following implementation of no-take marine protected areas in New South Wales, Australia. Reg Stud Mar Sci 18:229–236
Harasti D, Williams J, Mitchell E, Lindfield S, Jordan A (2018b) Increase in relative abundance and size of snapper Chrysophrys auratus within partially-protected and no-take areas in a temperate marine protected area. Front Mar Sci 5:208
Hartig F (2022) DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.4.6
Januchowski-Hartley FA, Graham NAJ, Feary DA, Morove T, Cinner JE (2011) Fear of fishers: human predation explains behavioral changes in coral reef fishes. PLoS ONE 6:e22761
Januchowski-Hartley FA, Nash KL, Lawton RJ (2012) Influence of spear guns, dive gear and observers on estimating fish flight initiation distance on coral reefs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 26(469):113–119
Januchowski-Hartley FA, Graham NAJ, Cinner JE, Russ GR (2013) Spillover of fish naïveté from marine reserves. Ecol Lett 16:191–197
Januchowski-Hartley FA, Graham NA, Cinner JE, Russ GR (2015) Local fishing influences coral reef fish behavior inside protected areas of the Indo-Pacific. Biol Conserv 182:8–12
Jayakody S, Sibbald AM, Gordon IJ, Lambin X (2008) Red deer Cervus elephus vigilance behaviour differs with habitat and type of human disturbance. Wildl Biol 14:81–91
Kelaher BP, Coleman MA, Broad A, Rees MJ, Jordan A, Davis AR (2014) Changes in fish assemblages following the establishment of a network of no-take marine reserves and partially-protected areas. PLoS ONE 9(1):e85825
Kilgo JC, Labisky RF, Fritzen DE (1998) Influences of hunting on the behavior of white-tailed deer: implications for conservation of the Florida Panther. Conserv Biol 12:1359–1364
Krause J (1993) The effect of ‘Schreckstoff’ on the shoaling behaviour of the minnow: a test of Hamilton’s selfish herd theory. Anim Behav 45:1019–1024
Lima SL (1987) Vigilance while feeding and its relation to the risk of predation. J Theor Biol 124:303–316
Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation—a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640
Magurran AE, Higham A (1988) Information transfer across fish shoals under predator threat. Ethology 78:153–158
Manassa RP, McCormick MI, Chivers DP (2013) Socially acquired predator recognition in complex ecosystems. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1033–1040
Matson TK, Goldizen AW, Putland DA (2005) Factors affecting the vigilance and flight behaviour of impalas. S Afr J Wildl Res 35:1–11
Murphy JJ, Ochwada-Doyle FA, West LD, Stark KE, Hughes JM (2020) The NSW recreational fisheries monitoring program—survey of recreational fishing, 2017/18. NSW DPI—Fisheries Final Report Series. NSW DPI Fisheries, Taylor’s Beach
Nunes JAC, Costa Y, Blumstein DT, Leduc AO, Dorea AC, Benevides LJ, Sampaio CL, Barros F (2018) Global trends on reef fishes’ ecology of fear: flight initiation distance for conservation. Mar Env Res 136:153–157
Nunes JAC, Blumstein DT, Giglio VJ, Barros F, Quimbayo JP (2019) Reef fish antipredator behavior in remote islands does not reflect patterns seen in coastal areas. Ethol Ecol Evol 31(6):557–567
Ordiz A, Stoen OG, Saebo S, Kindberg J, Delibes M, Swenson JE (2012) Do bears know they are being hunted? Biol Conserv 152:21–28
Pereira PHC, Macedo CHR, de Lima GV, de Jesus BL (2020) Effects of depth on reef fish flight initiation distance: implications of deeper reefs conservation. Environ Biol Fish 103:1247–1256
Pollock BR (1982) Movements and migrations of yellowfin bream, Acanthopagrus australis (Gunther), in Moreton Bay, Queensland as determined by tag recoveries. J Fish Biol 20:245–252
Quadros AL, Barros F, Blumstein DT, Meira VH, Nunes JAC (2019) Structural complexity but not territory sizes influences flight initiation distance in a damselfish. Mar Biol 166:1–6
Reimers E, Loe LE, Eftestøl S, Colman JE, Dahle B (2009) Effects of hunting on response behaviors of wild reindeer. J Wildl Manage 73:844–851
Samia DS, Bessa E, Blumstein DT, Nunes JA, Azzurro E, Morroni L, Sbragaglia V, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Geffroy B (2019) A meta-analysis of fish behavioural reaction to underwater human presence. Fish Fish 20:817–829
Sbragaglia V, Morroni L, Bramanti L, Weitzmann B, Arlinghaus R, Azzurro E (2018) Spearfishing modulates flight initiation distance of fishes: the effects of protection, individual size, and bearing a speargun. ICES J Mar Sci 75(5):1779–1789
Sbragaglia, V., Arlinghaus, R., Blumstein, D. T., Diogo, H., Giglio, V. J., Gordoa, A., ... & Villasante, S. (2023). A global review of marine recreational spearfishing. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 1–24.
Sih A, Crowley P, Mcpeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K (1985) Predation, competition, and prey communities—a review of field experiments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 16:269–311
Stamoulis KA, Harvey ES, Friedlander AM, Williams ID, Weng KC, Wiggins C, Wagner GW, Conklin EJ (2019) Flight behavior of targeted fishes depends on variables other than fishing. Ecol Indic 96:579–590
Stankowich T (2008) Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 141:2159–2173
Stankowich T, Blumstein DT (2005) Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proc Roy Soc B 272:2627–2634
Thiel D, Ménoni E, Brenot J, Lukas J (2007) Effects of recreation and hunting on flushing distance of Capercaillie. J Wildl Manage 71:1784–1792
Tran DS, Langel KA, Thomas MJ, Blumstein DT (2016) Spearfishing-induced behavioral changes of an unharvested species inside and outside a marine protected area. Curr Zool 62:39–44
Turnbull JW, Shah Esmaeili Y, Clark GF, Figueira WF, Johnston EL, Ferrari R (2018) Key drivers of effectiveness in small marine protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 27(9):2217–2242
Underwood AJ, Kingsford MJ, Andrew NL (1991) Patterns in shallow subtidal marine assemblages along the coast of New South Wales. Austr J Ecol 6:231–249
Ydenberg RC, Dill LM (1986) The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv Stud Behav 16:229–249
Yiu BA, Booth DJ, Fowler AM, Feary DA (2018) Macroalgal resource use differences across age and size classes in the dominant temperate herbivorous fish Aplodactylus lophodon (Aplodactylidae). Mar Freshw Res 70(4):531–540
Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14
Acknowledgements
DAF was supported by the University of Technology, Sydney, under the Chancellors Postdoctoral Research Fellowship scheme. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr Russ Cole.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. DAF was supported by the University of Technology, Sydney, under the Chancellors Postdoctoral Research Fellowship scheme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DAF and DJB conceived and designed the study. DAF and AMF collected the data and conducted the analyses. All authors were involved with drafting and editing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the survey of organisms for the study have been followed.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: W. Figueira.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Feary, D.A., Fowler, A.M. & Booth, D.J. Predator-avoidance behaviour of target and non-target temperate reef fishes is lower in areas protected from fishing. Mar Biol 171, 66 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-023-04382-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-023-04382-2