Voici les éléments 1 - 2 sur 2
- PublicationAccès librePunishment and partner switching cause cooperative behaviour in a cleaning mutualism(2005)
;Grutter, Alexandra S.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.
- 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.