Cleaner fish really do clean

Grutter, Alexandra S.

doi:10.1038/19443

Cited by 241 publications

(204 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

197

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A variety of studies indicate that these control mechanisms seem to work in that clients receive a net benefit from cleaning interactions (Grutter 1999(Grutter , 2001Sikkel et al 2000). However, I will present evidence that a minority of cleaner fish, L. dimidiatus, cheat their clients much more frequently than most of their conspecifics do.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Biting cleaner fish use altruism to deceive image–scoring client reef fish

Bshary

2002

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

131

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans are more likely to help those who they have observed helping others previously. Individuals may thus benefit from being altruistic without direct reciprocity of recipients but due to gains in 'image' and associated indirect reciprocity. I suggest, however, that image-scoring individuals may be exploitable by cheaters if pay-offs vary between interactions. I illustrate this point with data on cleaner-client reef fish interactions. I show the following: (i) there is strong variation between cleaners with respect to cheating of clients (i.e. feeding on client tissue instead of parasites); (ii) clients approach cleaners, that they observe cooperating with their current client and avoid cleaners that they observe cheating; (iii) cleaners that cheat frequently are avoided more frequently than more cooperative cleaners; (iv) cleaners that cheat frequently behave altruistically towards their smallest client species; (v) altruistic acts are followed by exploitative interactions. Thus, it appears that cleaners indeed have an image score, which selects for cooperative cleaners. However, cheating cleaners use altruism in potentially low-pay-off interactions to deceive and attract image-scoring clients that will be exploited.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Biting cleaner fish use altruism to deceive image–scoring client reef fish

Bshary

2002

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

131

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mutualism between the cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus and its client reef fish seems to be a good model system to study some of these control mechanisms (Bshary & Noë 2003;Bshary & Bronstein 2004). While a variety of studies support the mutualistic nature of cleaning interactions in general (Grutter 1999;Grutter & Lester 2002;Cheney & Cô té 2003), there is experimental evidence for an important conflict: the cleaner fish prefers some mucus over ectoparasites (Grutter & Bshary 2003). Mucus is important for a client's health (Ebran et al 1999 and references therein), so its loss should be costly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Punishment and partner switching cause cooperative behaviour in a cleaning mutualism

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are the mechanisms that prevent partners from cheating in potentially cooperative interactions between unrelated individuals? The cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus and client reef fish both benefit from an interaction as long as the cleaner eats ectoparasites. However, the cleaner fish prefers some client mucus, which constitutes cheating. Field observations suggested that clients control such cheating by using punishment (chasing the cleaner) or by switching partners (fleeing from the cleaner). Here, we tested experimentally whether such client behaviours result in cooperative cleaner fish. Cleaners were allowed to feed from Plexiglas plates containing prawn items and fish flake items. A lever attached to the plates allowed us to mimic the behaviours of clients. As cleaners showed a strong preference for prawn over flakes, we taught them that eating their preferred food would cause the plate to either chase them or to flee, while feeding on flakes had no negative consequences. We found a significant shift in cleaner fish foraging behaviour towards flake feeding after six learning trials. As punishment and terminating an interaction resulted in the cleaners feeding against their preferences in our experiment, we propose that the same behaviours in clients improve the service quality of cleaners under natural conditions.

show abstract

“…The results of a series of studies in a range of reef fishes have validated that ectoparasite removal by cleaner wrasses plays an important role during cleaner-client interactions (Grutter, 1996a(Grutter, , 1999Bshary and Grutter, 2002b;Grutter and Lester, 2002;Grutter and Bshary, 2003). These results are (i) the presence of parasitic isopods causes clients to visit cleaner wrasses (Hemigymnus melapterus: Grutter, 2001), (ii) cleaner wrasses significantly reduce the ectoparasites load of clients (Pomacentrus vaiuli: Gorlick et al, 1987;H.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Does access to the bluestreak cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus affect indicators of stress and health in resident reef fishes in the Red Sea?

Ros¹,

Lusa²,

Meyer³

et al. 2011

Hormones and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactions between the bluestreak cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus and its client reef fish are a textbook example of interspecific mutualism. The fact that clients actively visit cleaners and invite inspection, together with evidence that cleaners eat many client ectoparasites per day, indeed strongly suggests a mutualistic relationship. What remains unknown is how parasite removal affects the physiology of clients and thereby their body condition, health, and immune function. Here we addressed these issues in a field study in Ras Mohammed National Park, Egypt. In our study area, small reef patches are inter-spaced with areas of sandy substrate, thereby preventing many species (i.e., residents, including cleaner wrasses) from travelling between the reef patches. This habitat structure leads to a mosaic of resident clients with and without access to bluestreak cleaner wrasses, further referred to as "cleaner access", on which we focused our study. We found that residents with cleaner access had higher body condition than residents without cleaner access. However, indicators of stress like variation in cortisol levels corrected for handling time and various immune parameters were apparently unaffected by cleaner access. In fact antibody responses were significantly higher in fishes without cleaner access. This suggests that cleaner access decreases the need for active immunity and that this releases resources that might be allocated to other functions such as somatic growth and reproduction.

show abstract

Cleaner fish really do clean

Cited by 241 publications

References 3 publications

Biting cleaner fish use altruism to deceive image–scoring client reef fish

Biting cleaner fish use altruism to deceive image–scoring client reef fish

Punishment and partner switching cause cooperative behaviour in a cleaning mutualism

Does access to the bluestreak cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus affect indicators of stress and health in resident reef fishes in the Red Sea?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About