Cooperation in communication networks: indirect reciprocity in interactions between cleaner fish and client reef fish

Bshary, Redouan; D’souza, Arun

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511610363.027

Cited by 23 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, large clients that happen to observe such an interaction are deceived by biting cleaners due to a signal out of its typical context (Bshary 2002a): clients rely on false information to invite for inspection and are then cheated. "Biting" individuals were invariably females, and biting was typically documented during the spawning season (Bshary and D'Souza, 2005).…”

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortisol mediates cleaner wrasse switch from cooperation to cheating and tactical deception

Soares

Cardoso

Grutter

et al. 2014

Hormones and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent empirical research, mostly done on humans, recognizes that individuals" physiological state affects levels of cooperation. An individual"s internal state may affect the payoffs of behavioural alternatives, which in turn could influence the decision to either cooperate or to defect. However, little is known about the physiology underlying condition dependent cooperation. Here, we demonstrate that shifts in cortisol levels affect levels of cooperation in wild cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus. These cleaners cooperate by removing ectoparasites from visiting "client" reef fishes but prefer to eat client mucus, which constitutes cheating. We exogenously administrated one of three different compounds to adults: a) cortisol, b) glucocorticoid receptor antagonist mifepristone RU486 or c) sham (saline); and observed their cleaning behaviour during the following 45 min. The effects of cortisol match an earlier observational study that first described the existence of "cheating" cleaners: such cleaners provide small clients with more tactile stimulation with their pectoral and pelvic fins, a behaviour that attracts larger clients that are then bitten to obtain mucus. Blocking glucocorticoid receptors led to more tactile stimulation to large clients. As energy demands and associated cortisol concentration level shifts affect cleaner wrasse behavioural patterns, cortisol potentially offers a general mechanism for condition dependent cooperation in vertebrates.

show abstract

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortisol mediates cleaner wrasse switch from cooperation to cheating and tactical deception

Soares

Cardoso

Grutter

et al. 2014

Hormones and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apparently, the current behaviour of the cleaner predicts to a certain extent how cooperative the following interaction will be, therefore eavesdropping on the interactions of others appears to contain reliable information for clients (Covas et al, 2007). Cleaners, in turn, can make use of an eavesdropping audience to signal their (short term) quality as cleaner (Bshary and Würth, 2001;Bshary, 2002;Bshary and D'Souza, 2004;Bshary and Grutter, 2006). Signal reliability is central for prestige based explanations of cooperative investment and it remains a challenging question to determine under which conditions signal reliability can evolve (see also Covas et al, 2007) so prestige can be an explanation of helping behaviour.…”

Section: Group Augmentation: Can It Results From By-product Mutualism?mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the further integration of cooperative breeding and cooperation theory

Bergmüller

Russell

Johnstone

et al. 2007

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a synopsis about the commentaries to the target article "Integrating cooperative breeding into theoretical concepts of cooperation", in which we attempted to integrate general mechanisms to explain cooperative behaviour among unrelated individuals with classic concepts to explain helping behaviour in cooperative breeders that do not invoke kin-based benefits. Here we (1) summarize the positions of the commentators concerning the main issues we raised in the target article and discuss important criticisms and extensions. (2) We relate our target article to some recent reviews on the evolution of cooperation and, (3) clarify how we use terminology with regard to cooperation and cooperative behaviour. (4) We discuss several aspects that were raised with respect to cooperative interactions including by-product mutualism, generalised reciprocity and multi-level selection and, (5) examine the alternatives to our classification scheme as proposed by some commentaries. (6) Finally, we highlight several aspects that might hinder the application of game theoretical mechanisms of cooperation in cooperatively breeding systems. Although there is broad agreement that cooperative breeding theory should be integrated within the more general concepts of cooperation, there is some debate about how this may be achieved. We conclude that the contributions in this special issue provide a fruitful first step and ample suggestions for future directions with regard to a more unified framework of cooperation in cooperative breeders.

show abstract

“…It turns out that bystanding clients (social eavesdroppers) keep tabs on the cooperative behaviour of cleaner wrasses, perhaps by tallying jolts or remaining attentive to cleaners who are chased by resident fish retaliating a bite (Bshary & D'Souza 2005). Clients consequently invite the services of cooperative cleaners most often, cleaners with no record less often, and cheaters least often (Bshary 2002;Bshary & D'Souza 2005). Thus, the presence of image scoring clients and their punishment of cheaters drive positive selection on cleaners that cooperate indiscriminately when bystanders are present (figure 2, IV; Bshary & D'Souza 2005) because doing so would ensure the maintenance of a positive image score and an abundance of feeding opportunity.…”

Section: Tit-for-tat and Image Scoring In A Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cleaners will cooperate with small, non-predatory clients (as above) and exploit the image scoring system to lure to the area larger, non-predatory clients whose mucus is more easily obtained (Bshary 2002). It is possible that these apparently deceptive cheaters bite only out of necessity; for instance, perhaps cleaners exploit image scoring only when starved or in poor condition (Bshary & D'Souza 2005 Szalai & Számadó 2009). Most aggressive encounters move through a series of increasingly escalated phases that appear to provide progressively more accurate information about the fighting ability of a signaller to the receiver (Enquist & Leimar 1983).…”

Section: Tit-for-tat and Image Scoring In A Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies on dishonest aggressive signalling and cooperation support this prediction. Hungry female cleaner wrasses cheat their clients more often than males (Bshary & D'Souza 2005); vulnerable, newly molted stomatopods (Gonodactylus bredini ) flaunt aggressive intent despite being unable to fight (Steger & Caldwell 1983); small hermit crabs and those facing well-endowed opponents dishonestly signal aggressive intent (cheliped presentation ;Laidre 2009;Arnott & Elwood 2010) and small male green tree frogs will invest in emitting lower frequency calls in response to intrusions by large males (Bee et al 2000). Communication networks may thus be one source that selects for inter-individual variation in levels of cooperation and deception, a topic that has received increasing attention (Bergmü ller et al 2010;McNamara & Leimar 2010).…”

Section: Conditional and Condition-dependent Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social eavesdropping and the evolution of conditional cooperation and cheating strategies

Earley

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The response of bystanders to information available in their social environment can have a potent influence on the evolution of cooperation and signalling systems. In the presence of bystanders, individuals might be able to increase their payoff by exaggerating signals beyond their means (cheating) or investing to help others despite considerable costs. In doing so, animals can accrue immediate benefits by manipulating (or helping) individuals with whom they are currently interacting and delayed benefits by convincing bystanders that they are more fit or cooperative than perhaps is warranted. In this paper, I provide some illustrative examples of how bystanders could apply added positive selection pressure on both cooperative behaviour and dishonest signalling during courtship or conflict. I also discuss how the presence of bystanders might select for greater flexibility in behavioural strategies (e.g. conditional or condition dependence), which could maintain dishonesty at evolutionarily stable frequencies under some ecological conditions. By recognizing bystanders as a significant selection pressure, we might gain a more realistic approximation of what drives signalling and/or interaction dynamics in social animals.

show abstract

Cooperation in communication networks: indirect reciprocity in interactions between cleaner fish and client reef fish

Cited by 23 publications

References 35 publications

Cortisol mediates cleaner wrasse switch from cooperation to cheating and tactical deception

Cortisol mediates cleaner wrasse switch from cooperation to cheating and tactical deception

On the further integration of cooperative breeding and cooperation theory

Social eavesdropping and the evolution of conditional cooperation and cheating strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About