Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 393–397 | Cite as

A new heterospecific foraging association between the puddingwife wrasse,Halichoeres radiatus, and the bar jack,Caranx Tuber: evaluation of the foraging consequences

  • Troy A. Baird


The bar jack,Caranx Tuber, was commonly observed to follow individual puddingwife wrasses,Halichoeres radiatus, that were foraging on the substrate. Individuals of both species actively pursued the other to maintain these heterospecific foraging ‘teams’, were sometimes attracted to feeding acts initiated by team partners, and the foraging rates of teamed jacks and wrasses were positively correlated. Pilfering of food items was rare, suggesting little, if any, competition cost of this foraging association. The ratio of bites to search in teamed jacks was over three times that when solitary, and jacks were sometimes aggressive to conspecifics attempting to join their team, suggesting that the association is beneficial to the jacks. Both bite and search rates were higher in puddingwifes when teamed with a jack, indicating that the association also benefits the wrasses. Benefits to puddingwifes may be derived directly from attendants because wrasses were sometimes attracted to jack foraging acts. However, increased foraging in wrasses may also be a consequence of heightened motivation to feed owing to heterospecific social facilitation.

Key words

Feeding Interspecific association Social behavior Labridae Carangidae Reef Fish 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Aronson, R.B. & S.L. Sanderson. 1987. Benefits of heterospecific foraging by the Caribbean wrasse,Halichoeres garnoti (Pisces: Labridae). Env. Biol. Fish. 18: 303–308.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, T.A. & T.D. Baird. 1992. Colony formation and some possible benefits and costs of gregarious living in the territorial sand tilefish,Malacanthus plumieri. Bull. Mar. Sci. 50: 56–65.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, T.A. & N.R. Liley. 1989. The evolutionary significance of harem polygyny in the sand tilefish,Malacanthus plumieri: resource or female defence? Anim. Behav. 38: 817–829.Google Scholar
  4. Baird, T.A., C.H. Ryer & B.L. Olla. 1991. Social enhancement of foraging on an ephemeral food source in juvenile walleye pollock,Theragra chalcogramma. Env. Biol. Fish. 31: 307–311.Google Scholar
  5. Benkman, C.W. 1988. Flock size, food dispersion, and the feeding behavior of crossbills. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 23: 167–175.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, C.W. & M. Mangel. 1986. The evolutionary advantages of group foraging. Theor. Pop. Biol. 30: 45–75.Google Scholar
  7. Cody, M.L. 1971. Finch flocks of the Mojave Desert. Theor. Pop. Biol. 2: 142–158.Google Scholar
  8. Devore, I. & R.R.L. Hall. 1965. Baboon ecology. pp. 20–52.In: I. Devore(ed.) Primate Behavior, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Diamant, A. & M. Shpigel. 1985. Interspecific feeding associations of groupers (Teleosti: Serranidae) with octopuses and moray eels in the Gulf of Eilat (Agaba). Env. Biol. Fish. 13: 153–159.Google Scholar
  10. Dubin, R.E. 1982. Behavioral interactions between Caribbean reefish and eels (Muraenidae and Ophinchtidae). Copeia 1982: 229–232.Google Scholar
  11. Götmark, F., D.W. Winkler & M. Andersson. 1986. Flock-feeding on fish schools increases individual success in gulls. Nature 319: 589–591.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Krebs, J.R., M.H. MacRoberts & J.M. Cullen. 1972. Flocking and feeding in the great tit,Parus major, an experimental study. Nature 114: 507–530.Google Scholar
  13. Moynihan, M. 1962. The organization and probable evolution of some mixed species of neotropical birds. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 143: 1–40.Google Scholar
  14. Olla, B.L. & C. Samet. 1974. Fish-to-fish attraction and facilitation of feeding behavior as mediated by visual stimuli in striped mullet,Mugil cephalus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31: 1621–1630.Google Scholar
  15. Pitcher, T.J., A.E. Magurran & I.J. Winfield. 1982. Fish in larger shoals find food faster. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10: 149–151.Google Scholar
  16. Pulliam, R.H. & G.C. Millikan. 1982. Social organization in the nonreproductive season. pp. 169–197.In: D.S. Farner, J.R. King & K.C. Parkes (ed.) Avian Biology, Vol. 6. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  17. Pulliam, R.H. & T. Caraco. 1984. Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? pp. 122–147.In: J.R. Krebs & N.B. Davies(ed.) Behavioural Ecology an Evolutionary Approach, Second Edition, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Randall, J.E. 1967. Food habits of reef fishes of the West Indies. Stud. Trop. Oceanog. 5: 665–847.Google Scholar
  19. Ryer, C.H. & B.L. Olla. 1991. Information transfer and the facilitation and inhibition of feeding in a schooling fish. Env. Biol. Fish. 30: 317–323.Google Scholar
  20. Sikkel, P.C. & P.D. Hardison. 1992. Interspecific feeding associations between the goatfishMuloides martinicus (Mullidae) and a possible aggressive mimic, the snapperOcyurus chrysunus (Lutjanidae). Copeia 1992: 914–917.Google Scholar
  21. Snedecor, G.W. & W.G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical methods. 7th Edition, Iowa State University Press, Ames. 507 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Strand, S. 1988. Following behavior: interspecific foraging associations among Gulf of California reef fishes. Copeia 1988: 351–357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Troy A. Baird
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Central OklahomaEdmondUSA

Personalised recommendations