Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:23:28.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patterns of cleaning behaviour on coral reef fish by the anemoneshrimp Ancylomenes pedersoni

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2011

Lindsay K. Huebner  and
Nanette E. Chadwick
Lindsay K. Huebner*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, 101 Rouse Life Sciences Building, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849
Nanette E. Chadwick
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, 101 Rouse Life Sciences Building, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: L.K. Huebner, Department of Biological Sciences, 101 Rouse Life Sciences Building, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849 email: lindsayhuebner@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Little is known about the cleaning behaviour of shrimps in comparison to that of cleaner fish, and only recently have cleaner shrimps been shown to remove parasites effectively from coral reef fish. Here we describe patterns of cleaning interactions between Pederson shrimp Ancylomenes pedersoni and fish clients in St Thomas, US Virgin Islands. Clients observed here were members of at least 16 fish families, including three previously unreported client families. Most cleans lasted <20 seconds; surgeonfish were cleaned most frequently, but lizardfish and groupers received the longest cleans. The shrimp formed social groups of varying sizes on individuals of the host sea anemone Bartholomea annulata, which served as the centres of their cleaning stations. The number and duration of cleans per station increased with the number of resident shrimp, however most anemones hosted small groups of fewer than four individuals, while larger groups of up to nine individuals were relatively rare. Some client fish chased away other fish and competitively excluded them from anemone stations. We conclude that these shrimp clean a wide diversity of clients, vary their clean duration with fish identity, and clean more when in large groups. In addition, clients in part control these patterns of interaction by interfering with access to these stations by other clients.

Keywords

cleaning symbiosiscleaner shrimpAncylomenes pedersoniclient fishgroup sizesea anemone
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 92 , Issue 7 , November 2012 , pp. 1557 - 1562
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnal, C. and Côté, I.M. (1998) Interactions between cleaning gobies and territorial damselfish on coral reefs. Animal Behaviour 55, 1429–1442.Google Scholar
Bansemer, C., Grutter, A.S. and Poulin, R. (2002) Geographic variation in the behaviour of the cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus (Labridae). Ethology 108, 353–366.Google Scholar
Becker, J.H. and Grutter, A.S. (2004) Cleaner shrimp do clean. Coral Reefs 23, 515–520.Google Scholar
Becker, J.H.A. and Grutter, A.S. (2005) Client fish ectoparasite loads and cleaner shrimp Urocaridella sp. c hunger levels affect cleaning behaviour. Animal Behaviour 70, 991–996.Google Scholar
Becker, J.H.A., Curtis, L.M. and Grutter, A.S. (2005) Cleaner shrimp use a rocking dance to advertise cleaning service to clients. Current Biology 15, 760–764.Google Scholar
Bruce, A.J. and Svoboda, A. (1983) Observations upon some pontoniine shrimps from Aqaba, Jordan. Zoologische Verhandelingen 205, 3–44.Google Scholar
Bshary, R. and Grutter, A.S. (2002) Parasite distribution on client reef fish determines cleaner fish foraging patterns. Marine Ecology Progress Series 235, 217–222.Google Scholar
Bshary, R., Grutter, A.S., Willener, A.S.T. and Leimar, O. (2008) Pairs of cooperating cleaner fish provide better service quality than singletons. Nature 455, 964–967.Google Scholar
Bunkley-Williams, L. and Williams, E.H. Jr (1998) Ability of Pederson cleaner shrimp to remove juveniles of the parasitic cymothoid isopod, Anilocra haemuli, from the host. Crustaceana 71, 862–869.Google Scholar
Chadwick, N.E., Ďuriš, Z. and Horká, I. (2008) Biodiversity and behavior of shrimps and fishes symbiotic with sea anemones in the Gulf of Aqaba, northern Red Sea. In Por, F.D. (ed.) The Improbable Gulf: history, biodiversity, and protection of the Gulf of Aqaba (Eilat). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, pp. 209–223.Google Scholar
Chapuis, L. and Bshary, R. (2009) Strategic adjustment of service quality to client identity in the cleaner shrimp, Periclimenes longicarpus. Animal Behaviour 78, 455–459.Google Scholar
Chapuis, L. and Bshary, R. (2010) Signalling by the cleaner shrimp Periclimenes longicarpus . Animal Behaviour 79, 645–647.Google Scholar
Cheney, K.L., Grutter, A.S., Blomberg, S.P. and Marshall, N.J. (2009) Blue and yellow signal cleaning behavior in coral reef fishes. Current Biology 19, 1283–1287.Google Scholar
Corredor, L. (1978) Notes on the behavior and ecology of the new fish cleaner shrimp Brachycarpus biunguiculatus (Lucas) (Decapoda Natantia, Palaemonidae). Crustaceana 35, 35–40.Google Scholar
Côté, I.M., Arnal, C. and Reynolds, J.D. (1998) Variation in posing behaviour among fish species visiting cleaning stations. Journal of Fish Biology 53, 256–266.Google Scholar
Côté, I.M. (2000) Evolution and ecology of cleaning symbioses in the sea. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 38, 311–355.Google Scholar
Criales, M.M. (1979) Ecology and ethology of the fish cleaner shrimps Periclimenes pedersoni Chace and Lysmata grabhami (Gordon) in Santa Marta Bay (Colombia). Acta Científica Venezolana 30, 570–576.Google Scholar
Debelius, H. (1999) Crustacea guide of the world. Frankfurt: Ikan.Google Scholar
Foster, S.A. (1985) Wound healing: a possible role of cleaning stations. Copeia 4, 875–880.Google Scholar
Grutter, A.S. (1995) Relationship between cleaning rates and ectoparasite loads in coral reef fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 118, 51–58.Google Scholar
Gwaltney, C.L. and Brooks, W.R. (1994) Host specificity of the anemoneshrimp Periclimenes pedersoni and P. yucatanicus in the Florida Keys. Symbiosis 16, 83–93.Google Scholar
Humann, P. and DeLoach, N. (2006) Reef creature identification: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas. 2nd edition. Jacksonville, FL: New World Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Johnson, W.S. and Ruben, P. (1988) Cleaning behavior of Bodianus rufus, Thalassoma bifasciatum, Gobiosoma evelynae, and Periclimenes pedersoni along a depth gradient at Salt River Submarine Canyon, St Croix. Environmental Biology of Fishes 23, 225–232.Google Scholar
Lieske, E. and Myers, R.F. (2004) Coral reef guide: Red Sea. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Limbaugh, C., Pederson, H. and Chace, F.A. Jr (1961) Shrimps that clean fishes. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 11, 237–257.Google Scholar
Mahnken, C. (1972) Observations on cleaner shrimps in the genus Periclimenes . Bulletin of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 14, 71–83.Google Scholar
McCammon, A., Sikkel, P.C. and Nemeth, D. (2010) Effects of three Caribbean cleaner shrimps on ectoparasitic monogeneans in a semi-natural environment. Coral Reefs 29, 419–426.Google Scholar
Nelsen, M. (2008) Modeling of population dynamics in the corkscrew anemone Bartholomea annulata on Caribbean coral reefs. Master's thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA.Google Scholar
Okuno, J. and Bruce, A.J. (2010) Designation of Ancylomenes gen. nov., for the ‘Periclimenes aesopius species group’ (Crustacea: Decapoda: Palaemonidae), with the description of a new species and a checklist of congeneric species. Zootaxa 2372, 85–105.Google Scholar
Östlund-Nilsson, S., Becker, J.H.A. and Nilsson, G.E. (2005) Shrimps remove ectoparasites from fishes in temperate waters. Biology Letters 1, 454–456.Google Scholar
Potts, G.W. (1973) The ethology of Labroides dimidiatus (Cuv. & Val.) (Labridae, Pisces) on Aldabra. Animal Behaviour 21, 250–291.Google Scholar
Sargent, R.C. and Wagenbach, G.E. (1975) Cleaning behavior of the shrimp, Periclimenes anthophilus Holthuis and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (Crustacea: Decapoda: Natantia). Bulletin of Marine Science 25, 466–472.Google Scholar
Sikkel, P.C., Schaumburg, C.S. and Mathenia, J.K. (2006) Diel infestation dynamics of gnathiid isopod larvae parasitic on Caribbean reef fish. Coral Reefs 25, 683–689.Google Scholar
Soares, M.C., Côté, I.M., Cardoso, S.C. and Bshary, R. (2008) The cleaning goby mutualism: a system without punishment, partner switching or tactile stimulation. Journal of Zoology 276, 306–312.Google Scholar
Spotte, S. (1998) “Cleaner” shrimps? Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen 52, 59–64.Google Scholar
Spotte, S. (1999) Possible synonymy of the Western Atlantic anemone shrimps Periclimenes pedersoni and P. anthophilus based on morphology. Bulletin of Marine Science 65, 407–417.Google Scholar
Wicksten, M.K. (1995a) Associations of fishes and their cleaners on coral reefs of Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles. Copeia 2, 477–481.Google Scholar
Wicksten, M.K. (1995b) Within-species variation in Periclimenes yucatanicus (Ives), with taxonomic remarks on P. pedersoni Chace (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea: Palaemonidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 108, 458–464.Google Scholar
Wicksten, M.K. (1998) Behaviour of cleaners and their client fishes at Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles. Journal of Natural History 32, 13–30.Google Scholar
Wicksten, M.K. (2009) Interactions with fishes of five species of Lysmata (Decapoda, Caridea, Lysmatidae). Crustaceana 82, 1213–1223.Google Scholar