Client fish ectoparasite loads and cleaner shrimp Urocaridella sp c hunger levels affect cleaning behaviour

Cleaning is a classic example of mutualism and determining the factors that maintain the balance between the costs and benefits for mutualist partners can assist our understanding of how cleaning relationships are maintained. Optimal foraging theory suggests two factors that might help to maintain the relationship between cleaners and their clients: client ectoparasite load and cleaner hunger levels. The ecological relevance and importance of foraging by cleaner fish in marine systems has been demonstrated repeatedly, yet there is little information available on this behaviour in cleaner shrimp. To determine whether cleaner shrimp base their choice of client fish on food patch quality (i.e. client fish ectoparasite load) we offered the yellow-beaked cleaner shrimp Urocaridella sp. c a choice of parasitized and unparasitized rock cods, Cephalopholis cyanostigma. To determine whether cleaner shrimp hunger levels influence cleaning time, we manipulated hunger levels in Urocaridella sp. c and examined their behaviour towards parasitized client fish. Cleaner shrimp preferred parasitized to unparasitized client fish and food-deprived cleaner shrimp cleaned parasitized rock cods more frequently than satiated cleaner shrimp did. Therefore, variations in client fish ectoparasite load and cleaner shrimp hunger level are two factors that affect the balance in this mutualism. Finally, our results meet some of the assumptions of biological market theory, a framework used to understand cooperative interactions, and thus this framework is suggested for future studies on this cleaning system.

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 flat-worms, 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.

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.