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

Recent studies on cleaning behaviour suggest that there are conflicts between cleaners and their clients over what cleaners eat. The diet of cleaners usually contains ectoparasites and some client tissue. It is unclear, however, whether cleaners prefer client tissue over ectoparasites or whether they include client tissue in their diet only when searching for parasites alone is not profitable. To distinguish between these two hypotheses, we trained cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus to feed from plates and offered them client mucus from the parrotfish Chlorurus sordidus, parasitic monogenean flatworms, parasitic gnathiid isopods and boiled flour glue as a control. We found that cleaners ate more mucus and monogeneans than gnathiids, with gnathiids eaten slightly more often than the control substance. Because gnathiids are the most abundant ectoparasites, our results suggest a potential for conflict between cleaners and clients over what the cleaner should eat, and support studies emphasizing the importance of partner control in keeping cleaning interactions mutualistic.     

Short‐Term Variation in the Level of Cooperation in the Cleaner Wrasse Labroides dimidiatus: Implications for the Role of Potential Stressors

There is a wealth of game theoretical approaches to the evolution and maintenance of cooperation between unrelated individuals and accumulating empirical tests of these models. This contrasts strongly with our lack of knowledge on proximate causes of cooperative behaviour. Marine cleaning mutualism has been used as a model system to address functional aspects of conflict resolution: client reef fish benefit from cleaning interactions through parasite removal, but cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus prefer client mucus. Hence, feeding against their preference represents cooperative behaviour in cleaners. Cleaners regularly cheat non‐predatory clients while they rarely cheat predatory clients. Here, we asked how precisely cleaners can adjust service quality from one interaction to the next. We found that non‐predatory clients receive a better service if the previous client was a predator than if the previous client was a non‐predator. In a related laboratory experiment, a hand‐net used as a stressor resulted in cleaners feeding more against their preference in subsequent interactions. The combination of the cleaners’ behaviour in the two studies shows that the cleaners’ service quality for a given client species is not fixed, but it can be manipulated. The results suggest that short‐term stress is one factor that causes cleaners to increase their levels of cooperation, a hypothesis that is amenable to further experiments manipulating the endocrine system.     

Caribbean Cleaning Gobies Prefer Client Ectoparasites Over Mucus

If cooperation often involves investment, then what specific conditions prevent selection from acting on cheaters that do not invest? The mutualism between the Indo‐Pacific cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus and its reef fish clients has been a model system to study conflicts of interest and their resolution. These cleaners prefer client mucus over ectoparasites – that is, they prefer to cheat – but punishment and partner switching by clients enforce cooperative behaviour by cleaners. By contrast, clients of Caribbean cleaning gobies (Elacatinus spp.) do not to use punishment or partner switching. Here, we test the hypothesis that the behavioural differences between these two cleaner fish systems are caused by differences in cleaner foraging preferences. In foraging choice experiments, we offered broadstripe cleaning gobies Elacatinus prochilos client‐derived parasitic isopods, client mucus and a control food item. The cleaning gobies significantly preferred ectoparasites over mucus or the control item, which contrasts with cleaner wrasses. We propose that the low level of cleaner–client conflict arising from cleaning goby foraging preferences explains the observed lack of strategic partner control behaviour in the clients of cleaning gobies.     

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

Reef fish that actively visit cleaner fish to have parasites and dead or infected tissue removed face two potential problems: they might have to wait while cleaners inspect other clients, and cleaners might feed on healthy body tissue, a behaviour that is referred to as cheating. Individuals of some ‘client’ species have large home ranges, which cover several cleaning stations, while others have small territories or home ranges with access to only one cleaning station. The former can thus choose between cleaners, while the latter cannot. We investigated whether clients with large home ranges change cleaning partners to outplay cleaners against each other to achieve (1) priority of access over clients with no choice at cleaning stations and (2) control over cheating by cleaners. We followed individuals of longnosed parrotfish, Hipposcarus harid, for up to 120 min in their natural environment and noted their interactions with cleaner wrasses, Labroides dimidiatus. Individuals were likely to return to the same cleaning station if the previous interaction had ended without conflict but changed cleaners for the next inspection if they had been either cheated or ignored, at least if the time between two consecutive visits was short. The overall attractiveness of a cleaning station seemed to be largely independent of service quality, which appeared to be similar at all stations. This is the first empirical evidence that the option to change partners is used as a control mechanism to stabilize cooperative behaviour.     

Degrees of honesty: cleaning by the redlip cleaner wrasse Labroides rubrolabiatus

Cleaning symbioses among coral reef fishes are highly variable. Cleanerfishes vary in how much they cooperate with (i.e. remove only ectoparasites) or cheat (i.e. bite healthy tissue, scales or mucus) on their fish clients. As a result, clients use various strategies to enforce cooperation by cleaners (e.g. punishment or partner choice), and cleaners use tactile stimulation to manipulate cheated client behaviour. We provide the first detailed observations of cleaning behaviour of the redlip cleaner wrasse Labroides rubrolabiatus and ask where interactions with this cleanerfish lie on the continuum of cleanerfish honesty, client control, and cleanerfish manipulation. Ninety per cent of redlip cleaner wrasses took jolt-inducing cheating bites from their clients, but they did so at a very low rate (~ 2 jolts per 100 s inspection). Retaliatory chases by clients were uncommon. Three-quarters (30 of 40) of cleaner wrasses used tactile stimulation on their clients, but rarely did so to reconcile with cheated clients. Instead, the majority (70%) of tactile stimulation events targeted a passing client that then stopped for inspection. The relationship between redlip cleaner wrasses and their clients appears to be less conflictual than those documented in other Labroides cleanerfishes. Future studies should test whether this low level of conflict is consistent across space and time and is underpinned by a preference for ectoparasites over other client-gleaned items. As an active cleaner that appears to take few cheating bites from their clients, L. rubrolabiatus has the potential to be as important a driver of fish health and community structure on coral reefs as its better-known relatives.

     

Geographic Variation in the Behaviour of the Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus (Labridae)

Geographical variation in the outcome of interspecific interactions has a range of proximate ecological causes. For instance, cleaning interactions between coral reef fishes can result in benefits for both the cleaner and its clients. However, because both parties can cheat and because the rewards of cheating may depend on the local abundance of ectoparasites on clients, the interaction might range from exploitative to mutualistic. In a comparative analysis of behavioural measures of the association between the cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus and all its client species, we compared cleaning interactions between two sites on the Great Barrier Reef that differ with respect to mean ectoparasite abundance. At Heron Island, where client fish consistently harbour fewer ectoparasites, client species that tended to pose for cleaners were more likely to receive feeding bites by cleaners than client species that did not pose for cleaners. This was not the case at Lizard Island, where ectoparasites are significantly more abundant. Client fish generally spent more time posing for cleaners at Lizard Island than their conspecifics at Heron Island. However, fish at Heron Island were inspected longer on average by cleaners than conspecifics at Lizard Island, and they incurred more bites and swipes at their sides per unit time from cleaners. These and other differences between the two sites suggest that the local availability of ectoparasites as a food source for cleaners may determine whether clients will seek cleaning, and whether cleaners will feed on parasites or attempt to feed on client mucus. The results suggest that cleaning symbiosis is a mosaic of different outcomes driven by geographical differences in the benefits for both participants.     

Asymmetric cheating opportunities and partner control in a cleaner fish mutualism

How can cooperation persist if, for one partner, cheating is more profitable than cooperation in each round, while the other partner has no option to cheat? Our laboratory experiments suggest that such a situation exists between the cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus and its nonpredatory client reef fish species, which actively seek cleaners to have their ectoparasites removed. Clients Ctenochaetus striatus regularly jolted in response to cleaner mouth contact, and these jolts were not linked to the removal of parasites. In addition, cleaners did not search for parasites but fed on mucus when exposed to anaesthetized clients, which could not control the cleaners' behaviour. Field data showed that clients often terminated an interaction immediately after a jolt. Client species with access to only one cleaning station, owing to their small territories or home ranges, terminated interactions mainly by chasing cleaners while clients with access to two or more cleaning stations mainly swam away. Thus, the chasing of cleaners appeared to be a form of punishment, imposing costs on the cleaner at the client's (momentary) expense. Chasing yields future benefits, as jolts were on average less frequent during interactions between cleaners and individuals that had terminated their previous interaction by aggressive chasing.     

Punishment and partner switching cause cooperative behaviour in a cleaning mutualism

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.     

Diurnal variation in the abundance of juvenile parasitic gnathiid isopods on coral reef fish: implications for parasite-cleaner fish interactions

 The dynamics of parasitic gnathiid isopod infestation on the fish Hemigymnus melapterus were examined at Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef, by measuring the abundance and feeding state of gnathiids on fish collected between dawn and sunset and by estimating the time required for gnathiids to become engorged on host fluids. A model was developed to estimate gnathiid abundance on fish for any given time of day and host size. Fish at dawn had 2.4 times as many gnathiids compared with fish at sunset, indicating that some gnathiids infest fish overnight. Most gnathiids had engorged guts (72–86%); the proportion of empty guts and engorged guts did not differ in three time periods of collection (<0800 h, 0800 to 1100 h, and >1100 h). In the laboratory, gnathiids fed quickly with 75% of gnathiids exposed to fish for 4 h having engorged guts. The short time required for gnathiids to become engorged and the presence of gnathiids with empty guts throughout the day suggests that gnathiids also infest fish during the day. Thus gnathiids eaten by cleaner fish during the day may be replaced by other gnathiids during the day or night suggesting that interactions between gnathiids and cleaner fish are highly dynamic. Accepted: 15 April 1999     

In situ evidence for ectoparasites as a proximate cause of cleaning interactions in reef fish

Although cleaning interactions are deemed a textbook example of mutualism, there is limited evidence that clients benefit from cleaning in terms of reduced ectoparasite loads. The proximate causes of cleaning behaviour are also contentious. We examined the effect of ectoparasite load (i.e. the number of larval gnathiid isopods) on client behaviour under natural conditions. Diel variation in gnathiid loads of longfin damselfish, Stegastes diencaeus, a common coral reef fish client of cleaning gobies (Elacatinus spp.), was correlated with variation in gnathiid emergence from the substratum at sites in both Puerto Rico and St John, northeastern Caribbean. Both benthic emergence of gnathiids and their infestation on damselfish peaked in the morning. Concomitantly, clients spent significantly more time posing for and being inspected by cleaners in the morning than at other times of day. Our results corroborate recent experimental results on captive clients and are consistent with the mutualistic interpretation of cleaning symbioses.     

Cleaning interactions at the only atoll in the South Atlantic

In marine ecosystems, cleaning is a mutualistic relationship in which so-called cleaners remove ectoparasites, diseased tissue, or mucus from the body of their clients, and thus help to maintain a healthy reef community. In spite of its importance in many marine habitats, this interaction remains poorly understood, particularly at oceanic islands. Here, we present the first comprehensive study of cleaning interactions in a reef fish assemblage at Rocas, the only atoll in the South Atlantic. We recorded 318 cleaning events, in which six fish species, including two endemic ones, and two shrimp species acted as cleaners. The clients serviced by these cleaners were 21 bony fish species, one shark and one sea turtle. The cleaner wrasse Thalassoma noronhanum and the cleaner goby Elacatinus phthirophagus were the cleaners with the greatest number of events and species richness of clients. Additionally, 82% of clients in the cleaning events were non-piscivores, and the abundance of both cleaners and clients positively influenced the number of cleaning events (R² = 0.4; p < 0.001). Our results indicate that Rocas atoll has a high species richness of cleaner species despite its small size and highlight the importance of studies of cleaning symbiosis, even in isolated places with low species richness, for a better comprehension of this association in reefs.     

Cleaning interactions at the southern limit of tropical reef fishes in the Western Atlantic

Cleaning associations are one of the most dynamic and complex mutualistic interactions of reef environments and are often influenced by local conditions. In the Western Atlantic (WE) most studies concentrate in tropical areas, with little attention to subtropical areas. We examined an assemblage of cleaner fish and their clients on the rocky reefs of the coast of Santa Catarina state, South Brazil, the southern limit of tropical reef fishes in the WE. We recorded 150 cleaning interactions, in which four fish species and one shrimp species acted as facultative cleaners. The grunt Anisotremus virginicus and the angelfish Pomacanthus paru serviced most clients. Fifteen fish species acted as clients, among which the most frequent was the planktivorous grunt Haemulon aurolineatum (31%). Cleaning interactions occurred mostly (87%) with non-carnivorous clients and the number of interactions was not related to the abundance of the species involved. The absence of dedicated cleaner fishes at the study sites and the replacement of their roles by facultative cleaners may be related to local conditions, including cold currents and reduction of rock cover. Under these circumstances, clients take advantage of the services offered by facultative cleaners, a characteristic of temperate areas.     

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

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.     

Crime and punishment in a roaming cleanerfish

Cheating is common in cooperative interactions, but its occurrence can be controlled by various means ranging from rewarding cooperators to active punishment of cheaters. Punishment occurs in the mutualism involving the cleanerfish Labroides dimidiatus and its reef fish clients. When L. dimidiatus cheats, by taking scales and mucus rather than ectoparasites, wronged clients either chase or withhold further visits to the dishonest cleaner, which leads to more cooperative future interactions. Punishment of cheating L. dimidiatus may be effective largely because these cleaners are strictly site-attached, increasing the potential for repeated interactions between individual cleaners and clients. Here, we contrast the patterns of cheating and punishment in L. dimidiatus with its close relative, the less site-attached Labroides bicolor. Overall, L. bicolor had larger home ranges, cheated more often and, contrary to our prediction, were punished by cheated clients as frequently as, and not less often than, L. dimidiatus. However, adult L. bicolor, which had the largest home ranges, did not cheat more than younger conspecifics, suggesting that roaming, and hence the frequency of repeated interactions, has little influence on cheating and retaliation in cleaner–client relationships. We suggest that roaming cleaners offer the only option available to many site-attached reef fish seeking a cleaning service. This asymmetry in scope for partner choice encourages dishonesty by the partner with more options (i.e. L. bicolor), but to be cleaned by a cleaner that sometimes cheats may be a better option than not to be cleaned at all.     

Parasite infection rather than tactile stimulation is the proximate cause of cleaning behaviour in reef fish.

Cleaning behaviour is a popular example of non-kin cooperation. However, quantitative support for this is generally sparse and the alternative, that cleaners are parasitic, has also been proposed. Although the behaviour involves some of the most complex and highly developed interspecific communication signals known, the proximate causal factors for why clients seek cleaners are controversial. However, this information is essential to understanding the evolution of cleaning. I tested whether clients seek cleaners in response to parasite infection or whether clients seek cleaners for tactile stimulation regardless of parasite load. Parasite loads on client fish were manipulated and clients exposed to cleaner fish and control fish behind glass. I found that parasitized client fish spent more time than unparasitized fish next to a cleaner fish. In addition, parasitized clients spent more time next to cleaners than next to control fish, whereas unparasitized fish were not attracted to cleaners. This study shows, I believe for the first time, which is somewhat surprising, that parasite infection alone causes clients to seek cleaning by cleaners and provides insight into how this behaviour evolved.     

Cleaner wrasses Labroides dimidiatus are more cooperative in the presence of an audience

Humans may help others even in?situations where the recipient will not reciprocate [1-5]. In some cases, such behavior can be explained by the helpers increasing their image score, which will increase the probability that bystanders will help them in the future [5-7]. For other animals, the notion that many interactions take place in an environment containing an audience of eavesdropping bystanders has also been proposed to have important consequences for social behavior, including levels of cooperation [8]. However, experimental evidence is currently restricted to the demonstration that cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus can learn to solve a foraging task [9]. The cleaners learned to feed against their preference on artificial clients if that allowed them to access additional artificial clients, which would translate into cooperatively eating ectoparasites rather than cheating by eating client mucus under natural conditions [10]. Here we show that cleaners immediately increase current levels of cooperation in the presence of?bystander client reef fish. Furthermore, we find that bystanders respond to any occurrence of cleaners cheating their current client with avoidance. In conclusion, the results demonstrate, for the first time, that image scoring by an audience indeed leads to increased levels of cooperation in a nonhuman animal.     

Cleaner fish use tactile dancing behavior as a preconflict management strategy

The most commonly asked question about cooperative interactions is how they are maintained when cheating is theoretically more profitable. In cleaning interactions, where cleaners remove parasites from apparently cooperating clients, the classical question asked is why cleaner fish can clean piscivorous client fish without being eaten, a problem Trivers used to explain reciprocal altruism. Trivers suggested that predators refrain from eating cleaners only when the repeated removal of parasites by a particular cleaner results in a greater benefit than eating the cleaner. Although several theoretical models have examined cheating behavior in clients, no empirical tests have been done (but see Darcy ). It has been observed that cleaners are susceptible to predation. Thus, cleaners should have evolved strategies to avoid conflict or being eaten. In primates, conflicts are often resolved with conflict or preconflict management behavior. Here, I show that cleaner fish tactically stimulate clients while swimming in an oscillating "dancing" manner (tactile dancing) more when exposed to hungry piscivorous clients than satiated ones, regardless of the client's parasite load. Tactile dancing thus may function as a preconflict management strategy that enables cleaner fish to avoid conflict with potentially "dangerous" clients.     

The Meaning of Jolts by Fish Clients of Cleaning Gobies

Cooperative interactions offer the inherent possibility of cheating by each of the interacting partners. A key challenge to behavioural observers is to recognize these conflicts, and find means to measure reliably cheating in natural interactions. Cleanerfish Labroides dimidiatus cheat by taking scales and mucus from their fish clients and such dishonest cleaning has been previously recognized in the form of whole‐body jolts by clients in response to cleaner mouth contact. In this study, we test whether jolts may be a general client response to cheating by cleaners. We experimentally varied the ectoparasite loads of yellowtail damselfish (Microspathodon chrysurus), a common client of the cleaning goby Elacantinus evelynae, and compared the rates of jolts on parasitized and deparasitized clients. As predicted if jolts represent cleaner cheating, deparasitized clients jolted more often than parasitized clients, and overall jolt rates increased over time as client parasite load was presumably reduced by cleaning activity. Yellowtail damselfish in the wild jolted significantly less frequently than those in captivity, which is consistent with a loss of ectoparasites during capture. Our results suggest that jolts by clients of cleaning gobies are not related to the removal of ectoparasites. Client jolts may therefore be a generally accurate measure of cheating by cleanerfish.     

Patterns of resource-use and competition for mutualistic partners between two species of obligate cleaner fish

Cleaner mutualisms on coral reefs, where specialized fish remove parasites from many species of client fishes, have greatly increased our understanding of mutualism, yet we know little about important interspecific interactions between cleaners. Here, we explore the potential for competition between the cleaners Labroides dimidiatus and Labroides bicolor during two distinct life stages. Previous work has demonstrated that in contrast to L. dimidiatus, which establish cleaning stations, adult L. bicolor rove over large areas, searching for clients. We show that site-attached juvenile L. bicolor associate with different microhabitat than juvenile L. dimidiatus and that L. bicolor specialize on a narrower range of species than L. dimidiatus as both juveniles and adults. Further, we present evidence suggesting that differences in resource-use are influenced by competitive interactions between the two species. Finally, we discuss the implications of these results for understanding the ecology and evolution of the mutualism.     

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

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.