The benefit of obligate versus facultative strategies in a shrimp–goby mutualism

Lyons, Patrick

doi:10.1007/s00265-013-1497-6

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research indicated that predation risk perceived by coral reef herbivorous fishes increased with distance from refuge habitat and affected herbivory rates (Gil et al, 2017). More generally, a number of studies on escape behavior yielded important implications for the reef fishes' ecology of fear (e.g., the influence of fishing, marine protected areas, surveyors, prey body size, proximity of refugia, mutualism between preys, and group size) (Madin et al, 2011;Januchowski-Hartley et al, 2012;Lyons, 2013;Nunes et al, 2018). This study therefore contributes the first example linking a coral reef tourism-driven increase in perceived predation risk with potential ecosystemic consequences relevant for the reef fishes' ecology of fear.…”

Section: Bread Feeding Events Disrupted Natural Fish Foraging Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Feed or Not to Feed? Coral Reef Fish Responses to Artificial Feeding and Stakeholder Perceptions in the Aitutaki Lagoon, Cook Islands

Prinz

Story²,

Lyon³

et al. 2020

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feeding wild animals is a regular habit in ecotourism worldwide with poorly known consequences for ecosystem functioning. This study investigates how effective bread feeding is at attracting coral reef fish in the South Pacific, which feeding groups of fish are most attracted, and how natural foraging rates of an omnivorous and a grazingdetritivorous fish are affected. Data were collected at sites where fish are regularly fed bread by snorkellers and at comparison sites where bread was only provided for this study, within the Aitutaki lagoon (Cook Islands). The fish community was censused and foraging rates of two model species (Chaetodon auriga, Ctenochaetus striatus) were quantified one hour before, during, and an hour after feeding events. Twentyfive percent of the species present at all sites (piscivores-invertivores) were effectively attracted to bread. Overall, mean fish density was higher at tourism feeding sites than at the comparison sites. During bread feeding events, taxonomic richness decreased, compared to the hours prior and after feeding across all sites. As piscivore-invertivores were consistently attracted to bread, localized shifts in their dominance over other trophic groups may be expected if bread feeding persists, likely carrying consequences for ecosystem functioning. The effect of bread feeding events on natural foraging rates differed between the model species. C. auriga ceased foraging on natural foods to feed on bread. Although C. striatus never fed on bread, its foraging rate on epilithic algal matrices decreased during bread feeding events. This indirect non-lethal ecological consequence of bread feeding contributes a previously unanticipated example relevant to the "ecology of fear" in marine fish. Stakeholder interviews revealed that locals favor feeding to sustain tourist satisfaction, whereas tourists appreciate snorkeling regardless of feeding. This indicates an opportunity for restrictions on fish feeding with minimal drawbacks for tourism. Future research on fish metabolism and cascading effects on the reef benthos may reveal further impacts of feeding on coral reef communities.

show abstract

Section: Bread Feeding Events Disrupted Natural Fish Foraging Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Feed or Not to Feed? Coral Reef Fish Responses to Artificial Feeding and Stakeholder Perceptions in the Aitutaki Lagoon, Cook Islands

Prinz

Story²,

Lyon³

et al. 2020

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…where a mutualist population facilitates the acquisition of an increased share of the total mass by the beneficiary population rather than directly providing it, are considered in the model. Such transfers may occur through one population improving the fitness of the other, for example in the common goby -shrimp mutualism, where the shrimp provides signals to the goby that there are no predators present and it may leave the burrow to forage for food (Thompson et al 2006, Lyons 2013. Such interactions form the foundation of many examples of the standard model and are the sole mutualism interactions modelled in both the standard model and HD2010.…”

Section: The Example Ecr Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking obligate mutualism models in an extended consumer-resource framework

Cropp

Norbury

2018

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A simple model of obligate mutualist populations is presented in an extended consumerresource (ECR) framework to resolve some of the deficiencies of traditional models. Varying parameters representing the costs of providing a mutualist benefit allows the model to smoothly and stably transition between many existing models of obligate mutualism. Varying density-independent mortality parameters allows us to include or exclude Allee effects, while varying an obligation parameter allows us to smoothly transition between facultative and obligate mutualism. Explicit and exact accounting of mutualism benefits, measured in terms of a finite total amount of cycling limiting resource, is shown to lead to population models that bridge between apparently incompatible models of obligate mutualism. This brings models of obligate mutualism into the Conservative Normal theoretical framework alongside models of competition, mixotrophy and predation.

show abstract

“…Introduction. Mutualist interactions, in which a population benefits from the presence of another population, have long been recognized as one of the most ubiquitous population interactions in nature [2,3,20,23,26]. In the first major review of mutualism Boucher [2] claimed that roughly half of all population interactions among green (i.e., photosynthesizing) species are cooperative, catalytic, or in some way mutualist in that each population benefits from the presence of the others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Obligate mutualisms between heterotrophs are common, for example, protection obligations such as the sea anemone and the clown fish or the goby and the shrimp; see [20] for an example of experiments in the Bahamas. Protection mutualisms may serve to facilitate growth or reduce mortality, which can produce analogous obligation terms in model equations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Obligate Mutualism in a Resource-Based Framework

Cropp¹,

Norbury²

2019

SIAM Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Obligate mutualist interactions appear to be ubiquitous in nature but cannot be described by the simple models that have been so effective for developing the theory of other population interactions including competition, predation, mixotrophy, and facultative mutualism. We present a teaching framework that extends the standard Lotka-Volterra analysis of these interactions to the more complicated obligate mutualism. This provides a useful addition to applications of dynamical systems theory for mathematics students and an advanced course in population dynamics for ecology students. The theoretical framework used in this work is based on explicitly accounted resources and per capita rates of change for populations that are negative when they have no resources and positive when they have maximal resources. We extend the Lotka-Volterra models by including terms that capture the "catalytic" effect of obligation, reflecting that while one population may be necessary for survival of another, the obligated population does not necessarily consume it. A key attribute of our consumer-resource approach is that the catalytic services provided by obligate mutualists are treated as pseudoresources for the purposes of determining these rates of change. This framework allows all major ecosystem population interactions to be modeled within a single, simple consumer-resource framework, and it reveals how populations can smoothly change their trophic status through a continuum of stable coexistence states.

show abstract

The benefit of obligate versus facultative strategies in a shrimp–goby mutualism

Cited by 21 publications

References 38 publications

To Feed or Not to Feed? Coral Reef Fish Responses to Artificial Feeding and Stakeholder Perceptions in the Aitutaki Lagoon, Cook Islands

To Feed or Not to Feed? Coral Reef Fish Responses to Artificial Feeding and Stakeholder Perceptions in the Aitutaki Lagoon, Cook Islands

Linking obligate mutualism models in an extended consumer-resource framework

Obligate Mutualism in a Resource-Based Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About