The cost of cleanerfish mimics to their models

In aggressive mimicry, a 'predatory' species resembles a model that is harmless or beneficial to a third species, the 'dupe'. Perhaps the most extraordinary case of aggressive mimicry occurs in Indo‐Pacific cleaning symbioses, where cleaner wrasses (the models) remove ectoparasites from larger fish clients. Several species of fangblennies mimic cleaners in behaviour and coloration. Instead of removing ectoparasites, however, fangblennies tear off fins, skin and scales from unsuspecting clients (the dupes). There is some debate over the extent to which cleanerfish mimics are really mimics because in some populations, the contribution of fish tissue to fangblenny diet is limited. In this study, I examine the impact of the resemblance between bluestriped fangblennies ( Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus ) and its putative model, the juvenile bluestreak cleaner wrasse ( Labroides dimidiatus ), on the model's cleaning activity to test the theoretical prediction that mimics should decrease the fitness of their models. I show that the presence of a bluestripe fangblenny in the vicinity of cleaner wrasses results in significantly lower client visit rates and inspection times compared to cleaners without a fangblenny nearby, and discuss why cleaner wrasses tolerate mimics near cleaning stations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus manipulate client reef fish by providing tactile stimulation.

The cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus often touches 'client' reef fish dorsal fin areas with its pelvic and pectoral fins. The relative spatial positions of cleaner and client remain constant and the cleaner's head points away from the client's body. Therefore, this behaviour is not compatible with foraging and the removal of client ectoparasites. As clients seek such 'tactile stimulation', it can be classified as an interspecific socio-positive behaviour. Our field observations on 12 cleaners (observation time of 112h) suggest that cleaners use tactile stimulation in order to successfully (i) alter client decisions over how long to stay for an inspection, and (ii) stop clients from fleeing or aggressive chasing of the cleaner in response to a cleaner fish bite that made them jolt. Finally, predatory clients receive tactile stimulation more often than non-predatory clients, which might be interpreted as an extra service that cleaners give to specific partners as pre-conflict management, as these partners would be particularly dangerous if they started a conflict. We therefore propose that cleaner fish use interspecific social strategies, which have so far been reported only from mammals, particularly primates.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Linking cranial morphology to prey capture kinematics in three cleaner wrasses: Labroides dimidiatus,Larabicus quadrilineatus,and Thalassoma lutescens

Cleaner fishes are well known for removing and consuming ectoparasites off other taxa. Observers have noted that cleaners continuously “pick” ectoparasites from the bodies of their respective client organisms, but little is known about the kinematics of cleaning. While a recent study described the jaw morphology of cleaners as having small jaw‐closing muscles and weak bite forces, it is unknown how these traits translate into jaw movements during feeding to capture and remove ectoparasites embedded in their clients. Here, we describe cranial morphology and kinematic patterns of feeding for three species of cleaner wrasses. Through high‐speed videography of cleaner fishes feeding in two experimental treatments, we document prey capture kinematic profiles for Labroides dimidiatus, Larabicus quadrilineatus, and Thalassoma lutescens. Our results indicate that cleaning in labrids may be associated with the ability to perform low‐displacement, fast jaw movements that allow for rapid and multiple gape cycles on individually targeted items. Finally, while the feeding kinematics of cleaners show notable similarities to those of “picker” cyprinodontiforms, we find key differences in the timing of events. In fact, cleaners generally seem to be able to capture prey twice as fast as cyprinodontiforms. We thus suggest that the kinematic patterns exhibited by cleaners are indicative of picking behavior, but that “pickers” may be more kinematically diverse than previously thought. J. Morphol. 276:1377–1391, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

To clean or not to clean: Cleaning mutualism breakdown in a tidal environment

The dynamics and prevalence of mutualistic interactions, which are responsible for the maintenance and structuring of all ecological communities, are vulnerable to changes in abiotic and biotic environmental conditions. Mutualistic outcomes can quickly shift from cooperation to conflict, but it unclear how resilient and stable mutualistic outcomes are to more variable conditions. Tidally controlled coral atoll lagoons that experience extreme diurnal environmental shifts thus provide a model from which to test plasticity in mutualistic behavior of dedicated (formerly obligate) cleaner fish, which acquire all their food resources through client interactions. Here, we investigated cleaning patterns of a model cleaner fish species, the bluestreak wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus), in an isolated tidal lagoon on the Great Barrier Reef. Under tidally restricted conditions, uniquely both adults and juveniles were part‐time facultative cleaners, pecking on Isopora palifera coral. The mutualism was not completely abandoned, with adults also wandering across the reef in search of clients, rather than waiting at fixed site cleaning stations, a behavior not yet observed at any other reef. Contrary to well‐established patterns for this cleaner, juveniles appeared to exploit the system, by biting (“cheating”) their clients more frequently than adults. We show for the first time, that within this variable tidal environment, where mutualistic cleaning might not represent a stable food source, the prevalence and dynamics of this mutualism may be breaking down (through increased cheating and partial abandonment). Environmental variability could thus reduce the pervasiveness of mutualisms within our ecosystems, ultimately reducing the stability of the system.     

Roving and Service Quality in the Cleaner Wrasse Labroides bicolor

The cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus occupies fixed ‘cleaning stations’ on coral reefs, which ‘client’ reef fish visit repeatedly to have parasites removed. Conflict arises because cleaners prefer to cheat by feeding on client mucus instead of parasites. Clients can prevent L. dimidiatus from always cheating using control mechanisms such as chasing and partner switching, which depend on repeated interactions. These control mechanisms would be undermined in the absence of frequent repeated interactions, if cleaners roved over large areas. Roving behaviour has been anecdotally described for the closely related cleaner wrasse Labroides bicolor. Here we report field data comparing these two species in Moorea, French Polynesia. Our results confirmed that L. bicolor home ranges are much larger than L. dimidiatus home ranges, and showed that cleaning interactions occurred all over the L. bicolor home range: home range of cleaning interactions increased with total home range size. Moreover, we found that cleaner initiation of interactions increased with home range size in L. bicolor, which would give L. bicolor with large home ranges additional leverage to increase cheating. In line with these results, we found that client jolt rate (used as a measure of cheating) was higher among clients of cleaners with large home ranges. Our results emphasise the importance of game structure and control over initiating interactions as parameters in determining the nature of interactions in mutualisms.     

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.     

Size and stripes: how fish clients recognize cleaners

Little is known of how individuals find each other in interspecific mutualisms involving free-living partners. We tested the importance of two factors, namely body size and the presence of a lateral body stripe, in the recognition of cleanerfish by their fish clients. Clients on an Indonesian reef flat readily approached wooden models of the bluestreak cleaner wrasse, Labroides dimidiatus, which varied in size and stripe characteristics. The composition of the clientele of models was not significantly different from that of natural cleaning stations, suggesting that fish visiting the models were seeking to be cleaned. Normal-sized models of cleaner wrasses attracted significantly more clients, which showed more intense interest and stayed with the models for significantly longer, than super-sized models. For normal-sized models, the number of clients increased as the length of the cleaner's lateral stripe increased (from 0, to 44, 67 and 100% of body length). However, there was no effect of stripe length on client numbers for super-sized models. Client interest also did not vary with stripe length for models of either size. Small body size and the presence of a lateral stripe therefore appear to be long-distance signals that their bearer may be a cleaner, but after initial attraction, client interest is maintained by other cues. Alternative short-distance signals may include colour, other visual signals such as cleanerfish dances, or physical contact between cleaner and client.     

Does client size affect cleaner fish choice of client? An empirical test using client fish models

To determine whether the choice of client fishes in the cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus was influenced by client size, cleaner fish were given a choice of equal amount of food spread on large and small client redfin butterflyfish Chaetodon trifasciatus models. All large models received bites from cleaners compared to 27% for small models. Seventy‐nine per cent of cleaners took their first bite from the large fish model. The results suggest that client size may affect cleaner fish choice.     

Temporal Variation in Cleanerfish and Client Behaviour: Does It Reflect Ectoparasite Availability?

We tested the importance of ectoparasites as the proximate cause of cleaning interactions by comparing the activity of Caribbean cleaning gobies (Elacatinus evelynae) and of their clients during three daily periods (early morning, midday, and late afternoon) in which ectoparasite availability varied naturally. Emergence from the benthos of gnathiid isopod larvae, the main target of cleaning goby predation, was higher at night, when cleaners were inactive, than during the day. As a result, overall ectoparasite loads on client fish tended to be higher in the morning. Inspection bouts by cleaning gobies were longest in the morning, but also at midday when ectoparasite availability on clients was lower. Client fish were observed at cleaning stations most often in the afternoon, when they harboured few ectoparasites, but they were more likely to adopt incitation poses, which increase the likelihood of being cleaned, in the morning than later in the day. Most cleaner and client behaviours therefore did not change predictably in response to natural diurnal variation in ectoparasite availability. Our study suggests that the ultimate and proximate causes of cleaning behaviour need not necessarily coincide.