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.     

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 Personality Behind Cheating: Behavioural Types and the Feeding Ecology of Cleaner Fish

The complex mutualistic relationship between the cleaner fish (Labroides dimidiatus) and their ‘clients’ in many reef systems throughout the world has been the subject of debate and research interest for decades. Game‐theory models have long struggled with explaining how the mixed strategies of cheating and honesty might have evolved in such a system and while significant efforts have been made theoretically, demonstrating the nature of this relationship empirically remains an important research challenge. Using the experimental framework of behavioural syndromes, we sought to quantitatively assess the relationship between personality and the feeding ecology of cleaner fish to provide novel insights into the underlying mechanistic basis of cheating in cleaner‐client interactions. First, we observed and filmed cleaner fish interactions with heterospecifics, movement patterns and general feeding ecology in the wild. We then captured and measured all focal individuals and tested them for individual consistency in measures of activity, exploration and risk taking (boldness) in the laboratory. Our results suggest a syndrome incorporating aspects of personality and foraging effort are central components of the behavioural ecology of L. dimidiatus on the Great Barrier Reef. We found that individuals that exhibited greater feeding effort tended to cheat proportionately less and move over smaller distances relative to bolder more active, exploratory individuals. Our study demonstrates for the first time that individual differences in personality might be mechanistically involved in explaining how the mixed strategies of cheating and honesty persist in cleaner fish mutualisms.     

The behavioural ecology of marine cleaning mutualisms

Cleaning interactions, in which a small ‘cleaner’ organism removes and often consumes material from a larger ‘client’, are some of the most enigmatic and intriguing of interspecies interactions. Early research on cleaning interactions canonized the view that they are mutualistic, with clients benefiting from parasite removal and cleaners benefiting from a meal, but subsequent decades of research have revealed that the dynamics of these interactions can be highly complex. Despite decades of research on marine cleaning interactions (the best studied cleaning systems), key questions remain, including how the outcome of an individual cleaning interaction depends on ecological, behavioural, and social context, how such interactions arise, and how they remain stable over time. Recently, studies of marine parasites, long-term data from coral reef communities with and without cleaners, increased behavioural observations recorded using remote video, and a focus on a larger numbers of cleaning species have helped bring about key conceptual advances in our understanding of cleaning interactions. In particular, evidence now suggests that the ecological, behavioural, and social contexts of a given cleaning interaction can result in the outcome ranging from mutualistic to parasitic, and that cleaning interactions are mediated by signals that can also vary with context. Signals are an important means by which animals extract information about one another, and thus represent a mechanism by which interspecific partners can determine when, how, and with whom to interact. Here, I review our understanding of the behavioural ecology of marine cleaning interactions. In particular, I argue that signals provide a useful framework for advancing our understanding of several important outstanding questions. I discuss the costs and benefits of cleaning interactions, review how cleaners and clients recognize and assess one another using signals, and discuss how signal reliability, or ‘honesty’, may be maintained in cleaning systems. Lastly, I discuss the sensory ecology of both cleaners and clients to highlight what marine cleaning systems can tell us about signalling behaviour, signal form, and signal evolution in a system where signals are aimed at multiple receiver species. Overall, I argue that future research on cleaning interactions has much to gain by continuing to shift the research focus toward examining the variable outcomes of cleaning interactions in relation to the broader behavioural, social, and ecological contexts.     

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.     

Colourful stripes send mixed messages to safe and risky partners in a diffuse cleaning mutualism

The steps by which neutral, random and/or negative biological interactions evolve into mutualistic ones remain poorly understood. Here, we study Elacatinus gobies and the ‘client’ fishes they clean. Colourful stripes are common to mutualist cleaners and noncleaning sister species. Blue stripes are unique to cleaners and are more conspicuous to predators than are basal yellow or green stripes. In turn, we focused on the role of colour as a potentially specialized signal. We show that cleaners may possess a chemical defence and demonstrate that stripes are sufficient to elicit client posing behaviour and to deter attack, corroborating the putative role of chemistry. Analysis of previously published records shows that yellow cleaners interact with predatory clients less often compared to green and blue cleaners. Our results highlight evolution from predator resistance to advertising with conspicuous signals. Similar trajectories, via recognizable signals to risky partners, may be common in other diffuse mutualisms.     

Mutualism or parasitism? The variable outcome of cleaning symbioses

The exact nature of many interspecific interactions remains unclear, with some evidence suggesting mutualism and other evidence pointing to parasitism for the same pair of interacting species. Here, we show spatial variation in the outcome of the cleaning relationship between Caribbean cleaning gobies (Elacatinus evelynae) and longfin damselfish (Stegastes diencaeus) over the distribution range of these species, and link this variation to the availability of ectoparasites. Cleaning interactions at sites with more ectoparasites were characterized by greater reductions in ectoparasite loads on damselfish clients and lower rates of removal of scales and mucus (i.e. cheating) by cleaning gobies, whereas the opposite was observed at sites where ectoparasite abundance was lower. For damselfish clients, cleaning was therefore clearly mutualistic in some locations, but sometimes neutral or even parasitic in others. Seasonal variability in ectoparasite abundance may ensure that locally low parasite availability, which promotes cleanerfish cheating, may be a transient condition at any given site. Conflicting conclusions about the nature of cleaning symbioses may, therefore, be explained by variation in ectoparasite abundance.     

Strategy Diversity Stabilizes Mutualism through Investment Cycles,Phase Polymorphism,and Spatial Bubbles

There is continuing interest in understanding factors that facilitate the evolution and stability of cooperation within and between species. Such interactions will often involve plasticity in investment behavior, in response to the interacting partner''s investments. Our aim here is to investigate the evolution and stability of reciprocal investment behavior in interspecific interactions, a key phenomenon strongly supported by experimental observations. In particular, we present a comprehensive analysis of a continuous reciprocal investment game between mutualists, both in well-mixed and spatially structured populations, and we demonstrate a series of novel mechanisms for maintaining interspecific mutualism. We demonstrate that mutualistic partners invariably follow investment cycles, during which mutualism first increases, before both partners eventually reduce their investments to zero, so that these cycles always conclude with full defection. We show that the key mechanism for stabilizing mutualism is phase polymorphism along the investment cycle. Although mutualistic partners perpetually change their strategies, the community-level distribution of investment levels becomes stationary. In spatially structured populations, the maintenance of polymorphism is further facilitated by dynamic mosaic structures, in which mutualistic partners form expanding and collapsing spatial bubbles or clusters. Additionally, we reveal strategy-diversity thresholds, both for well-mixed and spatially structured mutualistic communities, and discuss factors for meeting these thresholds, and thus maintaining mutualism. Our results demonstrate that interspecific mutualism, when considered as plastic investment behavior, can be unstable, and, in agreement with empirical observations, may involve a polymorphism of investment levels, varying both in space and in time. Identifying the mechanisms maintaining such polymorphism, and hence mutualism in natural communities, provides a significant step towards understanding the coevolution and population dynamics of mutualistic interactions.     

A decrease in the abundance and strategic sophistication of cleaner fish after environmental perturbations

Coral reef ecosystems are declining worldwide and under foreseeable threat due to climate change, resulting in significant changes in reef communities. It is unknown, however, how such community changes impact interspecific interactions. Recent extreme weather events affecting the Great Barrier Reef, that is, consecutive cyclones and the 2016 El Niño event, allowed us to explore potential consequences in the mutualistic interactions involving cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus (hereafter “cleaner”). After the perturbations, cleaner densities were reduced by 80%, disproportionally compared to the variety of reef fish clients from which cleaners remove ectoparasites. Consequently, shifts in supply and demand yielded an increase in the clients’ demand for cleaning. Therefore, clients became less selective toward cleaners, whereas cleaners were able to choose from a multitude of partners. In parallel, we found a significant decline in the ability of cleaners to manage their reputation and to learn to prioritize ephemeral food sources to maximize food intake in laboratory experiments. In other words, cleaners failed to display the previously documented strategic sophistication that made this species a prime example for fish intelligence. In conclusion, low population densities may cause various effects on individual behavior, and as a consequence, interspecific interactions. At the same time, our data suggest that a recovery of population densities would cause a recovery of previously described interaction patterns and cleaner strategic sophistication within the lifetime of individuals.     

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.     

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.

     

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.     

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.     

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.     

On the evolution of non-specific mutualism

It has been argued that mutualisms are non-specific when mutualistic interactions are weak and transient, and become more specific as interactions increase in strength. However, this runs counter to the observation that there exist tightly linked mutualisms of great antiquity that are highly nonspecific. Here we argue that mutualism generates positive, interspecific, frequency-dependent selection, which acts as a cohesive evolutionary force, discouraging evolution of specificity. A simple mathematical model is constructed to analyse the evolution of a community consisting of two guilds of species with mutualistic between-guild interactions, two competing species in each guild and two genetically distinct phenotypes within each species. With some simplifying assumptions, the trajectories in the neighbourhood of the only interior equilibrium point are determined analytically in terms of interactions between individuals. These show that the equilibrium is locally stable (no evolution) when there is little differentiation between phenotypes in mutualistic and interspecific, competitive interactions. On the other hand, when there is strong differentiation between phenotypes in their mutualistic interactions, the equilibrium is unstable and the community starts to evolve towards non-specificity. There are, however, two forces counteracting this tendency which, if sufficiently potent, cause evolution towards specificity. The first is generated by strong differentiation between phenotypes in interspecific competition; the second is caused by specificity which already exists between species in their mutualistic interactions. Thus, the tendency for non-specificity or specificity to evolve depends on the interplay between antagonistic and mutualistic interactions in the community. We illustrate these results with some numerical examples and, finally, survey some data on specificity of mutualisms in the light of the analysis.     

From parasitism to mutualism: partner control in asymmetric interactions

Intraspecific cooperation and interspecific mutualism often feature a marked asymmetry in the scope for exploitation. Cooperation may nevertheless persist despite one‐sided opportunities for cheating, provided that the partner vulnerable to exploitation has sufficient control over the duration of interaction. Here we develop a simple, game theoretical model of this form of partner control. We show that as a victim's ability to terminate an encounter increases, selection can favour reduced exploitation, resulting in a switch from parasitism to mutualism. For a given level of control, exploitation is likely to be less intense and the interaction to last longer when there are greater mutualistic benefits to be gained, and when the benefits of cheating are lower relative to the costs inflicted on the victim. Observations of interactions between cleaner‐fish and non‐predatory species of client are shown to match these predictions.     

Male cleaner wrasses adjust punishment of female partners according to the stakes

Punishment is an important deterrent against cheating in cooperative interactions. In humans, the severity of cheating affects the strength of punishment which, in turn, affects the punished individual's future behaviour. Here, we show such flexible adjustments for the first time in a non-human species, the cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus), where males are known to punish female partners. We exposed pairs of cleaners to a model client offering two types of food, preferred 'prawn' items and less-preferred 'flake' items. Analogous to interactions with real clients, eating a preferred prawn item ('cheating') led to model client removal. We varied the extent to which female cheating caused pay-off reduction to the male and measured the corresponding severity of male punishment. Males punished females more severely when females cheated during interactions with high value, rather than low value, model clients; and when females were similar in size to the male. This pattern may arise because, in this protogynous hermaphrodite, cheating by similar-sized females may reduce size differences to the extent that females change sex and become reproductive competitors. In response to more severe punishment from males, females behaved more cooperatively. Our results show that punishment can be adjusted to circumstances and that such subtleties can have an important bearing on the outcome of cooperative interactions.     

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.     

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.     

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.