Habitat/sex differences in time at cleaning stations and ectoparasite loads in a Caribbean reef fish

Abstract

We compared time spent at cleaning stations and ectoparasite loads for adult and subadult yellowtail damselfish Microspathodon chrysurus on nearshore fringing reefs in Barbados. In a preliminary study on 2 reefs in summer 1997, both time spent at cleaning stations and frequency of chafing were inversely correlated with distance from shore. A subsequent study in spring 1998 of fish at the shore-and seaward ends of 8 reefs revealed a strong sex by habitat association, with males predominating at the seaward end and females predominating at the shore end. Females and combined fish at the shore end of reefs had access to fewer cleaners but spent more time visiting cleaners than males and combined fish at the seaward end of reefs. Chafing showed the same relatlve difference but was not significant. Ectoparasites included gnathiid isopod larvae, parasitic copepods, and dactylogyrid monogeneans. Total crustacean loads, but not monogenean loads, increased with body size. With the effects of body size statistically removed, crustacean loads were significantly higher in females and fish at the shore end of reefs. Monogeneans showed a similar but marginally non-significant trend. These data indicate an association between ectoparasite loads and amount of time spent at cleaners, and thus appear consistent with adaptive, mutualistic hypotheses of client-cleaner interactions. However, the causal relationships between them, habitat, and sex remain to be determined.

Parasite distribution on client reef fish determines cleaner fish foraging patterns

“…To summarise, cleaners adapt their foraging behaviour to parasite location and do remove the parasites. Assuming that monogeneans are indeed detrimental to their hosts (Thoney & Hargis 1991), our results thus support the recently growing evidence that clients benefit from cleaning interactions (Grutter 1996, 1999, Sikkel et al 2000.…”

“…More importantly, infected fish spend more time next to a cleaner behind glass than uninfected fish, and infected fish also spend more time next to a cleaner compared to a control fish than do uninfected fish (Grutter 2001). Furthermore, Gorlick (1984) and Sikkel et al (2000) found that cleaner fish clean infected client individuals longer than uninfected individuals of the same client species. What is still unknown is whether cleaners feed selectively on the parasites.…”

“…In addition, parasite densities on clients determine cleaning duration. Client body size correlates with ectoparasite load and the tendency to get cleaned, both within species and between species (Grutter 1995a, Sikkel et al 2000, and this correlation can be used to predict other variables, such as cleaner fish densities (Arnal et al 1999). More importantly, infected fish spend more time next to a cleaner behind glass than uninfected fish, and infected fish also spend more time next to a cleaner compared to a control fish than do uninfected fish (Grutter 2001).…”

Do ectoparasites determine cleaner fish abundance? Evidence on two spatial scales

“…By contrast, high densities of sponge-dwelling cleaning gobies, which feed mainly on benthic invertebrates within sponge tissue (Whiteman & Côté 2002), were not associated with ectoparasite emergence or client numbers. Contrary to one of our predictions, we found that higher densities of coral-dwelling cleaning gobies tended to coincide with lower gnathiid loads on their clients, at least on a small, island-wide scale (see also Sikkel et al 2000). Our prediction was based on the premise that cleaner fish are known to approach and inspect preferentially clients with high ectoparasite loads (Gorlick 1984, Grutter 1995b.…”

Shrimps remove ectoparasites from fishes in temperate waters

“…Moreover, the maintenance of the diversity of fishes is dependent on the presence of cleaners (Grutter et al 2003), and fishes with large ectoparasite loads tend to spend more time with cleaners (Sikkel et al 2000).…”