Cleaner wrasse prefer client mucus: support for partner control mechanisms in cleaning interactions

Grutter, Alexandra S.; Bshary, Redouan

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0077

Cited by 181 publications

(199 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

189

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the cleaner wrasse L. dimidiatus feeds against its preference when interacting with a client reef fish (Grutter & Bshary 2003). If instead, the cleaner chooses the larger immediate benefit (a bite of mucus), it may risk losing the chance for numerous future interactions.…”

Section: Hormones and The Cognitive Modules Underlying Cooperative Bementioning

confidence: 99%

Hormonal mechanisms of cooperative behaviour

Soares

Bshary

Fusani

et al. 2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the diversity, evolution and stability of cooperative behaviour has generated a considerable body of work. As concepts simplify the real world, theoretical solutions are typically also simple. Real behaviour, in contrast, is often much more diverse. Such diversity, which is increasingly acknowledged to help in stabilizing cooperative outcomes, warrants detailed research about the proximate mechanisms underlying decision-making. Our aim here is to focus on the potential role of neuroendocrine mechanisms on the regulation of the expression of cooperative behaviour in vertebrates. We first provide a brief introduction into the neuroendocrine basis of social behaviour. We then evaluate how hormones may influence known cognitive modules that are involved in decision-making processes that may lead to cooperative behaviour. Based on this evaluation, we will discuss specific examples of how hormones may contribute to the variability of cooperative behaviour at three different levels: (i) within an individual; (ii) between individuals and (iii) between species. We hope that these ideas spur increased research on the behavioural endocrinology of cooperation.

show abstract

Section: Hormones and The Cognitive Modules Underlying Cooperative Bementioning

confidence: 99%

Hormonal mechanisms of cooperative behaviour

Soares

Bshary

Fusani

et al. 2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We predicted that cleaners should be able to solve a reverse reward contingency task, based on the fact that cleaners can control impulsive behaviour in a diVerent situation, i.e. when they feed against their preference in interactions with client reef Wsh (Grutter and Bshary 2003;Bshary and Grutter 2005;Bshary et al 2007;.…”

Section: Ecological Versus Anthropocentric Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We predict this should translate into the ability to succeed in a reverse reward contingency task. Cleaner wrasses (Labroides dimidiatus) feed on parasites but prefer mucus which they obtain by biting so called client Wsh (Grutter and Bshary 2003). This results in a conXict of interests between cleaners and clients: clients visit cleaners at their stations in order to get their parasites removed, but cleaners prefer the mucus they obtain by biting cleaners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do cleaner fish learn to feed against their preference in a reverse reward contingency task?

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to control impulsive behaviour has been studied in animals with a standard test in which subjects need to choose the smaller of two food items in order to receive the larger one (reverse reward contingency). As a variety of mammals that have been tested so far (mostly primates) have great diYculties to solve the task, it has been proposed that it is generally cognitively demanding. However, according to an ecological approach to cognition, a species' ability to solve the task should not depend on its general cognitive abilities but on whether its ecology causes selective pressure on the ability to restrain foraging behaviour. We tested this hypothesis using the cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus), a Wsh species that feeds against its preference in nature when engaging in cleaning interactions with so called 'client Wsh'. None of the eight tested individuals learned to choose a non-preferred item after 200 trials. In a subsequent test, one subject learned to respond correctly in a large or none contingency task (only the choice of the small food was rewarded). After a short re-experience treatment, this individual learned to solve the reverse reward task after 30 trials. In conclusion, we did not Wnd support for the general idea that interactions with clients prepared cleaners to quickly solve a reverse reward test. However, the results suggest that the potential to solve a reverse reward contingency may not be restricted to mammals but could be present also in a Wsh species in which the problem of choosing a non-preferred food over a preferred one is an ever present challenge in nature.

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

Self Cite

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 wrasse prefer client mucus: support for partner control mechanisms in cleaning interactions

Cited by 181 publications

References 26 publications

Hormonal mechanisms of cooperative behaviour

Hormonal mechanisms of cooperative behaviour

Do cleaner fish learn to feed against their preference in a reverse reward contingency task?

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