Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T06:42:10.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative Importance of Cleaning Behaviour in Centrolabrus Exoletus and other Wrasse at Arrábida, Portugal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Miguel Henriques  and
Vitor C. Almada
Miguel Henriques
Affiliation:
*Parque Natural da Arrábida, Institute) da Conservação da Natureza, Praça da República, 2900 Setúbal, Portugal.
Vitor C. Almada
Affiliation:
Unidade de Investigação em EcoEtologia, Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, R. Jardim do Tabaco 44, 1100 Lisboa, Portugal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Underwater behavioural observations were conducted to evaluate the relative importance of cleaning behaviour in three species of common north-eastern Atlantic wrasse (Teleostei: Labridae). At the study site, the only cleaner was Centrolabrus exoletus. A total of 12 species was cleaned, with the wrasse, Symphodus melops and Labrus bergylta being the species most frequently cleaned. Neither S. melops nor Ctenolabrus rupestris, known to be cleaners in other sites or in captivity, could be observed cleaning other fishes. Centrolabrus exoletus was found to be a facultative cleaner fish with cleaning acts representing only 7% of the observed feeding acts. In focal observations of host fishes, the incidence of cleaning acts reached a level (11 h-1 per host) similar to that reported for tropical reef fishes and probably reflects the high numbers of cleaners available. Some factors that may affect the origin of the cleaning interactions are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , August 1997 , pp. 891 - 898
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1997

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

Bjordal, A., 1988. Cleaning symbiosis between wrasse (Labridae) and lice infested salmon (Salmo salar) in mariculture. International Councillor the Exploration of the Sea (CM Papers and Reports), CM1988/F:17, 1–8.Google Scholar
Costello, M.J., 1991. Review of the biology of wrasse (Labridae: Pisces) in Northern Europe. Progress in Underwater Science, 16, 29–51.Google Scholar
Costello, M.J., 1993. Controlling sea-lice infestations on farmed salmon in Northern Europe: options and the use of cleaner fish. World Aquaculture, 24, 49–55.Google Scholar
Costello, M.J. & Bjordal, A., 1990. How good is this natural control on sea-lice? Fish Farmer, 13, 44–46.Google Scholar
Darkov, A.A. & Mochek, A.D., 1980. Cleaning symbiosis in Black Sea fishes. Journal of Ichthyology, 20, 152–155.Google Scholar
Darkov, A.A. & Panyushkin, S.N., 1988. Cleaning symbiosis in six freshwater fish species. Journal of Ichthyology, 28, 161–167.Google Scholar
Deady, S. & Fives, J.M., 1995. The diet of corkwing wrasse, Crenilabrus melops, in Galway Bay, Ireland, and in Dinard, France. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 75, 635–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deady, S., Varian, S.J.A. & Fives, J.M., 1995. The use of cleaner-fish to control sea lice on two Irish salmon (Salmo salar) farms with particular reference to wrasse behaviour in salmon cages. Aquaculture, 131, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, D.P., 1980. Cleaning behavior in sunfish hybrids under laboratory conditions. Copeia, 1980, 869–870.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
Hilldén, N.-O., 1983. Cleaning behaviour of the goldsinny (Pisces, Labridae) in Swedish waters. Behavioural Processes, 8, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobson, E.S., 1971. Cleaning symbiosis among California inshore fishes. Fishery Bulletin. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, DC, 69, 419–523.Google Scholar
Lemaire, P. & Maigret, J., 1987. Importance relative des différents stimuli dans le comportement de nettoyage de Labroides dimidiatus (Cuv. et Val., 1839). Annales de I'lnstitut Océanographique, 63, 69–83.Google Scholar
Limbaugh, C, 1961. Cleaning symbiosis. Scientific American, 205, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losey, G.S., 1972. The ecological importance of cleaning symbiosis. Copeia, 1972, 820–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losey, G.S., 1979. Fish cleaning symbiosis: proximate causes of host behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 27, 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losey, G.S. & Margules, L., 1974. Cleaning symbiosis provides a positive reinforcer for fish. Science, New York, 184, 179–180.Google Scholar
Martin, P. & Bateson, P., 1993. Measuring behaviour - an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, G.W., 1973a. The ethology of Labroides dimidiatus (Cuv. & Val.) (Labridae, Pisces) on Aldraba. Animal Behaviour, 21, 250–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, G.W., 1973b. Cleaning symbiosis among British fish with special reference to Crenilabrus melops (Labridae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 53, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelsen, T.J., 1981. Der Seeteufer (Lophius piscatorius, L.) in Gefangenschaft. Zeitschrift des Kolner Zoo, 24, 17–19.Google Scholar
Sayer, M.D.J., Gibson, R.N. & Atkinson, R.J.A., 1995. Growth, diet and condition of goldsinny on the west coast of Scotland. Journal of Fish Biology, 46, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyman, R.L. & Ward, J.A., 1972. A cleaning symbiosis between the cichlid fishes Etroplus maculatus and Etroplus suratensis. I. Description and possible evolution. Copeia, 1972, 834–837.Google Scholar
Youngbluth, M.J., 1968. Aspects of the ecology and ethology of the cleaning fish, Labroides phthirophagus Randall. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, Berlin, 25, 915–932.Google Scholar