Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cheney, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Côté, I. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cheney, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Côté, I. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 14 No. 6: 892-896
© 2003 International Society for Behavioral Ecology

The ultimate effect of being cleaned: does ectoparasite removal have reproductive consequences for damselfish clients?

Karen L. Cheney and Isabelle M. Côté

Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

Address correspondence to I. M. Côté. E-mail: i.cote{at}uea.ac.uk.

The mutualistic nature of cleaning symbioses has long remained unconfirmed because of the difficulty in showing net benefits for clients. We have previously shown that cleaning gobies (Elacatinus spp.) within territories of Caribbean longfin damselfish (Stegastes diencaeus) reduce the number of gnathiid isopod ectoparasites on territory owners. We now investigate whether this benefit of being cleaned has reproductive consequences for male longfin damselfish. The mating success, rate of egg loss, and parental aggression of 40 nest-guarding males were assessed during six consecutive monthly reproductive periods. Ten males had cleaning stations within their territory, 10 males were without cleaning stations, and 20 males initially with a cleaning station had their cleaners removed half-way through the study. Ectoparasite loads on our focal fish were very low; however, damselfish with cleaning stations still had significantly fewer ectoparasites than did fish without cleaning stations. There was, however, no significant difference in the number of eggs, clutches, or area of clutches received, or in the number of eggs lost before hatching between damselfish with and without cleaners. We also found no difference in parental male aggression between damselfish with and without cleaners. We conclude that although ectoparasite removal appears to have no direct consequence for reproduction, at least for the levels of infestations observed on our study site, it may still affect other aspects of damselfish fitness such as survival.

Key words: cleaning behavior, Elacatinus spp., Gnathiidae, Gobiosoma spp., reproductive success, Stegastes diencaeus.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Biol LettHome page
K. L Cheney and I. M Cote
Mutualism or parasitism? The variable outcome of cleaning symbioses
Biol Lett, June 22, 2005; 1(2): 162 - 165.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.