Skip to main content
Log in

Dynamics of demographically open mutualists: immigration, intraspecific competition, and predation impact goby populations

  • Population Ecology
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although it is now recognized that mutualistic species are common and can have stable populations, the forces controlling their persistence are poorly understood. To better understand the mechanisms that impact the stability of obligate mutualists, I conducted several field experiments within a sandy coral reef lagoon in Moorea, French Polynesia that manipulated densities of fish (gobies) that interact mutualistically with shrimp. Obligate, mutualistic partnerships of gobies and shrimp are common on Indo-Pacific coral reefs and have been shown previously to interact as follows: shrimp construct burrows in which both species reside, and gobies warn shrimp of predators through tactile communication. Augmentation of gobies by up to 100% above ambient densities within 9 m2 plots produced no change in overall density of gobies or shrimp because gobies competed intraspecifically for a limited number of shrimp burrows and smaller gobies were outcompeted by larger individuals. I used predators to assess the impact of goby removal on the stability of goby and shrimp populations. First, although surveys taken throughout the lagoon revealed no relationship between goby and predator densities, predators correlated negatively with the proportion of adult gobies and positively with the proportion of small gobies paired with large shrimp. Second, experimental augmentation of predators resulted in a dramatic reduction of adult gobies within predator-addition plots, but had no impact on overall densities as immigrants rapidly replaced the missing adult gobies. Furthermore, goby turnover resulted in an increase in the proportion of small gobies paired with large shrimp because body sizes of gobies and shrimp in a burrow were similar prior to predator introduction, and predators apparently had a greater impact on gobies than shrimp. The mechanisms that prevent expansion (intraspecific competition) and collapse (immigration) of goby-shrimp populations likely contribute to local-scale stability of mutualistic populations in other terrestrial and aquatic environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal AA, Karban R (1997) Domatia mediate plant-anthropod mutualism. Nature 387:562–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Amarasekare P (2004) Spatial dynamics of mutualistic interaction. J Anim Ecol 73:128–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Billick I, Tonkel K (2003) The relative importance of spatial versus. temporal variability in generating a conditional mutualism. Ecology 84:289–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Boucher DH, James S, Keeler KH (1982) The ecology of mutualism. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:315–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenton LM, Addicott JF (1992) Density-dependent mutualism in an aphid-ant interaction. Ecology 73:2175–2180

    Google Scholar 

  • Buston P (2003) Forcible eviction and prevention of recruitment in the clown anemonefish. Behav Ecol 14:576–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor RC (1995) The benefits of mutualism: a conceptual framework. Biol Rev 70:427–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins RA (1979) Ecology of Gobiid fishes associated with Alpheid shrimps. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Sydney

  • Dean AD (1983) A simple model of mutualism. Am Nat 121:409–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickman CR (1992) Commensal and mutualistic interactions among terrestrial vertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 7:194–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez M-J, Barrada I (2003) Variation in the outcome of population interactions: bifurcations and catastrophes. J Math Biol 46:571–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs J-PA, Munday PL (2004) Intraspecific competition controls spatial distribution and social organization of the coral-dwelling goby Gobiodon histrio. Mar Ecol Prog Ser (in press)

  • Holland JN, DeAngelis DL, Bronstein JL (2002) Population dynamics and mutualism: functional responses of benefits and costs. Am Nat 159:231–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutson V, Law R, Lewis D (1985) Dynamics of ecologically obligate mutualisms—effects of spatial diffusion on resilience of the interacting species. Am Nat 126:445–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones GP, Milicich MJ, Emslie MJ, Lunow C (1999) Self-recruitment in a coral reef fish population. Nature 402:802–804

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karplus I (1987) The association between gobiid fishes and burrowing alpheid shrimps. Ocean Mar Biol 25:507–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Karplus I, Szlep R, Tsurnamal M (1974) The burrows of alpheid shrimp associated with Gobiid fish in the Northern Red Sea. Mar Biol 24:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karplus I, Tsurnamal M, Szlep R, Algom D (1979) Film analysis of the tactile communication between Cryptocentrus steinitzi (Pisces, Gobiidae) and Alpheus purpurilenticularis (Crustacea, Alpheidae). Z Tierpsychol 49:337–351

    Google Scholar 

  • May RM (1973) Qualitative stability in model ecosystems. Ecology 54:638–641

    Google Scholar 

  • May RM (1982) Mutualistic interactions among species. Nature 296:803–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JL, Schultz ET, Helfman GS (1983) Fish schools—an asset to corals. Science 220:1047–1049

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mora C, Sale PF (2002) Are populations of coral reef fish open or closed? Trends Ecol Evol 17:422–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales MA (2000) Mechanisms and density dependence of benefit in an ant-membracid mutualism. Ecology 81:482–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch WW (1994) Population regulation in theory and practice. Ecology 75:271–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton AP, English-Loeb G, Gadoury D, Seem RC (2000) Mycophagous mites and foliar pathogens: leaf domatia mediate tritrophic interactions in grapes. Ecology 81:490–499

    Google Scholar 

  • Polunin NVC, Lubbock R (1977) Prawn-associated gobies (Teleostei: Gobiidae) from the Seychelles, Western Indian Ocean: systematics and ecology. J Zool London 183:63–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam R (1988) Sources, sinks and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt RJ, Holbrook SJ (2003) Mutualism can mediate competition and promote coexistence. Ecol Lett 6:898–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sponaugle S, Cowen RK (1994) Larval durations and recruitment patterns of 2 Caribbean gobies (Gobiidae)—Contrasting early-life histories in demersal spawners. Mar Biol 120:133–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Stachowicz JJ (1999) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. BioScience 51:235–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Stachowicz JJ, Hay ME (1999) Mutualism and coral persistence: the role of herbivore resistance to algal chemical defense. Ecology 80:2085–2101

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson AR (2003) Population ecology of marine mutualists. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara

  • Thompson AR (2004) Habitat and mutualism affect the distribution and abundance of a shrimp-associated goby. Mar Freshwater Res 55:105–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer JH, Boucher DH (1978) Varieties of mutualistic interactions in population models. J Theor Biol 74:549–558

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson MH (1972) The analysis of biological populations. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Yangisawa Y (1982) Social behaviour and mating system of the gobiid fish Amblyeleotris japonica. Jpn J Ichth 28:401–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Yangisawa Y (1984) Studies on the interspecific relationship between gobiid fish and snapping shrimp. II. Life history and pair formation of snapping shrimp Alpheus bellulus. Publ Seto Mar Biol Lab 29:93–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacherl DC (2003) Trace elemental fingerprinting of gastropod statoliths to study larval dispersal trajectories. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 248:297–303

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank A. Anker, S. Cooper, S. Holbrook, I. Karplus, B. Larson, P. Munday, R. Nisbet and R. Schmitt for critical discussion, N. Davies and B. Williamson for technical assistance, and S. Ferse, D. Geiger, M. Schmitt, S. Schellenberg, C. Thacker, B. Wolcott, and, especially, J. White for assistance in the field. Funding for this work was provided by R.T.G. and G.R.T. Programs in Spatial Ecology (NSF BIR94-13141 and NSF GER93-54870, both to W. Murdoch) and grants by the National Science Foundation to R Schmitt and S. Holbrook (OCE99-10677) and R. Nisbet (DEB01-08450). This paper is contribution #112 of the UC Berkeley Richard B. Gump South Pacific Research Station.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew R. Thompson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, A.R. Dynamics of demographically open mutualists: immigration, intraspecific competition, and predation impact goby populations. Oecologia 143, 61–69 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1775-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1775-0

Keywords

Navigation