Choosy reef fish select cleaner fish that provide high-quality service

Bshary, Redouan; Schäffer, Daniel E.

doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1923

Cited by 211 publications

(187 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

182

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our field observations and our aquarium experiment on cleaner fish pairs yielded consistent results that support the cooperative solution predicted by the model. Our results help to explain the observation that clients with choice options seem to preferentially visit stations with pairs of cleaner fish 23 . Although standard game theoretical analyses of iterated prisoner's dilemmas propose tit-for-tat-like solutions [1][2][3][4] , these kinds of strategies are rarely found outside of humans 24 .…”

supporting

confidence: 60%

Pairs of cooperating cleaner fish provide better service quality than singletons

Bshary

Grutter

Willener

et al. 2008

Nature

Self Cite

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Service providers may vary service quality depending on whether they work alone or provide the service simultaneously with a partner. The latter case resembles a prisoner's dilemma [1][2][3][4] , in which one provider may try to reap the benefits of the interaction without providing the service. Here we present a game-theory model based on the marginal value theorem 5 , which predicts that as long as the client determines the duration, and the providers cooperate towards mutual gain, service quality will increase in the pair situation. This prediction is consistent with field observations and with an experiment on cleaning mutualism, in which stable male-female pairs of the cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus repeatedly inspect client fish jointly. Cleaners cooperate by eating ectoparasites 6 off clients but actually prefer to cheat and eat client mucus 7 . Because clients often leave in response to such cheating, the benefits of cheating can be gained by only one cleaner during a pair inspection. In both data sets, the increased service quality during pair inspection was mainly due to the smaller females behaving significantly more cooperatively than their larger male partners. In contrast, during solitary inspections, cleaning behaviour was very similar between the sexes. Our study highlights the importance of incorporating interactions between service providers to make more quantitative predictions about cooperation between species.Many cooperative interactions can be seen as an exchange of goods, services or commodities between two classes of traders [8][9][10] . Here we investigated traders that provide a service to a second class of traders, such as an ant partner species-for example, lycaenid butterfly larvae-providing a sugary solution to ants 11 , rhizobial bacteria fixing nitrogen for leguminous plants 12 or cleaner fish removing ectoparasites from client reef fish 13 . We have used the last example as our model system. Cleaners prefer the mucus of some client species more than gnathiid isopods 7 , the most commonly found ectoparasites of reef fishes 14 . Clients use various actions to make cleaners forage against their preference 15,16 , the simplest form of control being to terminate the interaction by swimming off in response to a cheating bite 17 . Adult cleaners often live in pairs of a male and the largest female in his harem 18 and they commonly inspect larger clients simultaneously. Pair inspections result in cleaners facing a problem: a visiting client may leave after a cheat, even though only one cleaner was responsible for the cheating whereas the second cleaner cooperated. Hence, the cooperative cleaner loses a foraging opportunity owing to its partner's action, whereas the cheating cleaner gains a bite of mucus. We explored both mathematically and empirically how these pay-off asymmetries influence the service quality provided in paired compared with solitary inspections.We explored a game in which one class of individuals provides a service (cleaners remove ectoparasites) to a second clas...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 60%

Pairs of cooperating cleaner fish provide better service quality than singletons

Bshary

Grutter

Willener

et al. 2008

Nature

Self Cite

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is essential when individuals interact with multiple partners because it allows for simultaneous comparisons of quality among competitors. For instance, using a biological market framework, researchers have demonstrated how client fish will switch to better quality cleaners if they are cheated by a cleaner that feeds on their mucus or scales (20,29,30).…”

Section: Microbial Market Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In human economies, this idea manifests as "price wars." For instance, cleaner fish provide a higher-quality cleaning service in the presence of other competing cleaner fish (29,30).…”

Section: (Iv) Price Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of microbial markets

Werner

Strassmann

Ivens

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

184

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological market theory has been used successfully to explain cooperative behavior in many animal species. Microbes also engage in cooperative behaviors, both with hosts and other microbes, that can be described in economic terms. However, a market approach is not traditionally used to analyze these interactions. Here, we extend the biological market framework to ask whether this theory is of use to evolutionary biologists studying microbes. We consider six economic strategies used by microbes to optimize their success in markets. We argue that an economic market framework is a useful tool to generate specific and interesting predictions about microbial interactions, including the evolution of partner discrimination, hoarding strategies, specialized versus diversified mutualistic services, and the role of spatial structures, such as flocks and consortia. There is untapped potential for studying the evolutionary dynamics of microbial systems. Market theory can help structure this potential by characterizing strategic investment of microbes across a diversity of conditions. cooperation | mutualism | trade | partner choice

show abstract

“…Consequently, the 'price' a helper will pay for group membership at any given point of time depends on the helpers' and breeders' current state, but the value of help will also change dynamically over time. Partner choice can also yield partner switching as the control mechanism that promotes cooperative behaviour (Bshary and Schäffer, 2002;Ferrière et al, 2002). Partner switching is equivalent to negative pseudo-reciprocity: in case of failure to invest the partner will selfishly end the interaction/relationship and start a new one with another individual.…”

Section: Wrightmentioning

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

Choosy reef fish select cleaner fish that provide high-quality service

Cited by 211 publications

References 34 publications

Pairs of cooperating cleaner fish provide better service quality than singletons

Pairs of cooperating cleaner fish provide better service quality than singletons

Evolution of microbial markets

On the further integration of cooperative breeding and cooperation theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About