Interactions between fangblennies (Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus) and their potential victims: fooling the model rather than the client?
- 190 Downloads
Lepidophagous (scale-eating) blue-striped fangblennies (Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus Bleeker 1852) are often found sympatrically with the bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus Valenciennes 1839). They have some resemblance to the juvenile L. dimidiatus and have previously been reported as aggressive cleaner wrasse mimics. We observed 14 P. rhinorhynchus on a small area in the barrier reef near Hoga Island, Indonesia to assess the effects of client size on the behaviour and attack success of fangblennies: our results suggest that fangblennies are selective with regard to victim size; fish avoided by the fangblennies are significantly larger than those not avoided and attack success is significantly higher at intermediate victim size classes. The behaviour of the victims also has a significant direct effect on the foraging success of the fangblennies; where the potential victim posed, 63.6% were ignored by the fangblenny and only 7.4% of attacks were successful on posing fish as opposed to a surprise attack success rate of 71.6%. Overall, victims which exhibited the pose behaviour were significantly smaller in size. It appears likely that the predatory strategy of these fangblennies varies with victim size and that mimicry plays a minor role in attracting potential victims. We suggest that in common with other mimetic fish the resemblance of fangblennies to juvenile bluestreak cleaner wrasse allows them to actively hunt in areas where adult cleaners are common thus, indirectly improving their feeding opportunities.
KeywordsFish Density Attack Success Potential Victim Potential Client Clean Fish
We thank the staff of Hoga Island Marine Research facility for their assistance, I. M. Côté for her assistance and Redouan Bshary for useful discussions. MLJ would like to acknowledge the support of colleagues at the Centre for Coastal Studies that permitted his extensive time in the field.
- Côté IM (2000) Evolution and ecology of cleaning symbioses in the sea. Mar Biol Oceanogr Annu Rev 38:311–355Google Scholar
- Carpenter GDH, Ford EB (1933) Mimicry. Methuen, London, pp 134Google Scholar
- Clark KR, Warwick RM (1994) Changes in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Natural Environmental Research Council, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
- Deloach N (1999) Reef fish behaviour. New World Publications, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Dusenbery D (1992) Sensory ecology. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- English S, Wilkinson C, Baker V (1997) Survey manual for tropical marine resources. Australian Institute for Marine Resources, TownsvilleGoogle Scholar
- Fowler J, Cohen L, Jarvis P (1998) Practical statistics for field biology. Wiley, EnglandGoogle Scholar
- Kuwamura T (1981) Mimicry of the cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus by the blennies Aspidontus taeniatus and Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus. Nanki Seibutu 23:61–70Google Scholar
- Lieske E, Myers R (1996) Coral reef fishes. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Turner JRG (1971) Studies of Mullerian mimicry and its evolution in burnet moths and heliconid butterflies. In: Creed R (ed) Ecological genetics and evolution. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar