Mutualism or parasitism? The variable outcome of cleaning symbioses

Abstract

The exact nature of many interspecific interactions remains unclear, with some evidence suggesting mutualism and other evidence pointing to parasitism for the same pair of interacting species. Here, we show spatial variation in the outcome of the cleaning relationship between Caribbean cleaning gobies (Elacatinus evelynae) and longfin damselfish (Stegastes diencaeus) over the distribution range of these species, and link this variation to the availability of ectoparasites. Cleaning interactions at sites with more ectoparasites were characterized by greater reductions in ectoparasite loads on damselfish clients and lower rates of removal of scales and mucus (i.e. cheating) by cleaning gobies, whereas the opposite was observed at sites where ectoparasite abundance was lower. For damselfish clients, cleaning was therefore clearly mutualistic in some locations, but sometimes neutral or even parasitic in others. Seasonal variability in ectoparasite abundance may ensure that locally low parasite availability, which promotes cleanerfish cheating, may be a transient condition at any given site. Conflicting conclusions about the nature of cleaning symbioses may, therefore, be explained by variation in ectoparasite abundance.

Figure 1

Ectoparasite load (number of gnathiid larvae per fish) on longfin damselfish from different Caribbean islands. Black bars: damselfish with a cleaning station within their territory; white bars: damselfish without a cleaning station in their territory. Means are shown +1 s.e. Sample sizes are given in parentheses.

Figure 2

Percentage of non-parasitic client-gleaned material ingested per cleaning goby in relation to average ectoparasite load recorded on longfin damselfish from six Caribbean islands. Means are shown ±1 s.e. J=Jamaica, T=Tobago, B=Barbados, C=Curaçao, SJ=St John, PR=Puerto Rico.