Parasite distribution on client reef fish determines cleaner fish foraging patterns

Bshary, Redouan; Grutter, Alexandra S.

doi:10.3354/meps235217

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inspection duration has been suggested to be a function of body size and ectoparasite load, as larger clients harbor more parasites leading to greater foraging success for cleaners (Grutter 1995;Bshary and Grutter 2002;Becker and Grutter 2005), but cleaner group size may prolong cleaning interactions as well (Gingins and Bshary 2015). Consequently, cleaners may prefer larger bodied clients.…”

Section: Client Diversity Frequency and Durationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Temporal patterns of Pederson shrimp (Ancylomenes pedersoni Chace 1958) cleaning interactions on Caribbean coral reefs

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

are most active at dawn. These data suggest that the services provided by cleaner shrimp and cleaner gobies, rather than client identity, independently structure these interactions and drive the discordance in usage patterns between cleaner type. We propose two non-exclusive hypotheses to explain the differences in the temporal patterns of activity between cleaner gobies and A. pedersoni: (1) the proximate causes driving fish visitation rate (e.g., parasite removal or tactile stimulation) to goby and shrimp stations differ, and (2) each cleaner type targets different ectoparasites that differ temporally in their diel infestation rate on reef fish. Our study provides an important rationale for pursuing these questions and broadens our understanding of cleaning services on Caribbean coral reefs.

show abstract

Section: Client Diversity Frequency and Durationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Temporal patterns of Pederson shrimp (Ancylomenes pedersoni Chace 1958) cleaning interactions on Caribbean coral reefs

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Client traits that may affect a cleaner's choice of clients include client's ectoparasite load (Gorlick 1984;Bshary and Grutter 2002b), size (Grutter et al 2005), relative density (Adam 2010), and solicitation behaviour (Losey 1974). Early studies noted that Labroides spp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish mucus versus parasitic gnathiid isopods as sources of energy and sunscreens for a cleaner fish

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cleaning behaviour of the bluestreak cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus is extensively used as a model system for understanding cooperation. It feeds mainly on blood-sucking gnathiid isopods and also on the epidermal mucus of client fish; the nutritional quality of these foods, however, is unknown. The epidermal mucus of reef fish contains ultraviolet (UV)-absorbing compounds (mycosporine-like amino acids, MAAs), which are only obtained via the diet; nevertheless, while La. dimidiatus has high amounts of MAAs in its mucus, their source is unknown. Therefore, the energetic value (calories and protein estimated using carbon and nitrogen) and MAA level in gnathiids and mucus from several clients [parrotfishes, wrasses (Labridae), and a snapper (Lutjanidae)] were determined. The energetic value of mucus and gnathiids varied among fishes. Overall, carbon, nitrogen, calories, and protein per dry weight were higher in the mucus of most client species compared to gnathiids. Thus, depending on the client species, mucus may be energetically more advantageous for cleaner wrasse to feed on than gnathiids. UV absorbance, a confirmed proxy for MAA levels, indicated high MAA levels in mucus, whereas gnathiids had no detectable MAAs. This suggests that La. dimidiatus obtain MAAs from mucus but not from gnathiids. Hence, in addition to energy, the mucus of some clients also provides La. dimidiatus with the added bonus of UV-absorbing compounds. This may explain why cleaner fish prefer to feed on mucus over gnathiid isopods. The likely costs and benefits to clients of the removal of UV protecting mucus and parasitic gnathiids, respectively, and the variation in benefits gained by cleaner fish from feeding on these foods may explain some variation in cooperation levels in cleaning interactions.

show abstract

“…When investigating how cleaners forage, Bshary and Grutter [25] showed that L. dimidiatus spent more time on, and took more feeding bites from the parasitized side of the surgeonfish Ctenochaetus striatus compared to the unparasitized side. They concluded that cleaners optimize their foraging by concentrating on areas of a client's body where parasites are located.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oceanic Sharks Clean at Coastal Seamount

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactions between pelagic thresher sharks (Alopias pelagicus) and cleaner wrasse were investigated at a seamount in the Philippines. Cleaning associations between sharks and teleosts are poorly understood, but the observable interactions seen at this site may explain why these mainly oceanic sharks regularly venture into shallow coastal waters where they are vulnerable to disturbance from human activity. From 1,230 hours of observations recorded by remote video camera between July 2005 and December 2009, 97 cleaner-thresher shark events were analyzed, 19 of which were interrupted. Observations of pelagic thresher sharks interacting with cleaners at the seamount were recorded at all times of day but their frequency declined gradually from morning until evening. Cleaners showed preferences for foraging on specific areas of a thresher shark's body. For all events combined, cleaners were observed to conduct 2,757 inspections, of which 33.9% took place on the shark's pelvis, 23.3% on the pectoral fins, 22.3% on the caudal fin, 8.6% on the body, 8.3% on the head, 2.1% on the dorsal fin, and 1.5% on the gills respectively. Cleaners did not preferentially inspect thresher sharks by time of day or by shark sex, but there was a direct correlation between the amount of time a thresher shark spent at a cleaning station and the number of inspections it received. Thresher shark clients modified their behavior by “circular-stance-swimming,” presumably to facilitate cleaner inspections. The cleaner-thresher shark association reflected some of the known behavioral trends in the cleaner-reef teleost system since cleaners appeared to forage selectively on shark clients. Evidence is mounting that in addition to acting as social refuges and foraging grounds for large visiting marine predators, seamounts may also support pelagic ecology by functioning as cleaning stations for oceanic sharks and rays.

show abstract

Parasite distribution on client reef fish determines cleaner fish foraging patterns

Cited by 19 publications

References 25 publications

Temporal patterns of Pederson shrimp (Ancylomenes pedersoni Chace 1958) cleaning interactions on Caribbean coral reefs

Temporal patterns of Pederson shrimp (Ancylomenes pedersoni Chace 1958) cleaning interactions on Caribbean coral reefs

Fish mucus versus parasitic gnathiid isopods as sources of energy and sunscreens for a cleaner fish

Oceanic Sharks Clean at Coastal Seamount

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About