Voici les éléments 1 - 2 sur 2
- PublicationMétadonnées seulementCleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus manipulate client reef fish by providing tactile stimulation(2001)
;Wurth, ManuelaThe 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 112 h) 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.
- PublicationAccès libreIndo-Pacific parrotfish exert partner choice in interactions with cleanerfish but Caribbean parrotfish do not
;Soares, Marta C ;Cardoso, Sónia C ;Nicolet, Katia J ;Côté, Isabelle MCooperation theory puts a strong emphasis on partner control mechanisms that have evolved to stabilize cooperation against the temptation of cheating. The marine cleaning mutualism between the Indo-Pacific bluestreack cleaner wrasse, Labroides dimidiatus, and its reef fish ‘clients’ has been a model system to study partner control mechanisms and counterstrategies. These cleaners cooperate by eating ectoparasites; however, they can cheat by taking client mucus, which they prefer. Such a conflict may be the exception. For example, Caribbean cleaning gobies, Elacatinus spp., prefer to eat ectoparasites instead of mucus. While partner control mechanisms and counterstrategies seem to be absent in cleaning gobies, no study has directly compared cleaner wrasses and cleaning gobies by using the same methods. We examined systematic differences in cleaning interaction patterns and strategic behaviour exhibited by 12 closely related parrotfish species in the two systems. Parrotfish seeking cleaner wrasses visited them more often and spent more time with their cleaner than parrotfish seeking cleaning gobies. Moreover, the clients of cleaner wrasses returned more often to the same cleaner following a positive interaction, whereas the clients of cleaning gobies were less influenced by the outcome of previous interactions. We hypothesize that the higher frequency and repeated nature of interactions observed in the cleaner wrasse system, combined with the need to resolve conflicts, might have been prerequisites for the development of complex behavioural strategies.