IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v14y2003i6p892-896.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Karen L. Cheney
  • Isabelle M. Coˆte´

Abstract

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. Copyright 2003.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen L. Cheney & Isabelle M. Coˆte´, 2003. "The ultimate effect of being cleaned: does ectoparasite removal have reproductive consequences for damselfish clients?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 14(6), pages 892-896, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:14:y:2003:i:6:p:892-896
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arg079
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:14:y:2003:i:6:p:892-896. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.