Interactions between fangblennies (Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus) and their potential victims: fooling the model rather than the client?

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Bshary R, Grutter AS (2002) Asymmetric cheating opportunities and partner control in cleaner fish mutualism. Anim Behav 63:547–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bshary R, Schäffer D (2002) Choosy reef fish select cleaner fish that provide high quality service. Anim Behav 63:557–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Côté IM (2000) Evolution and ecology of cleaning symbioses in the sea. Mar Biol Oceanogr Annu Rev 38:311–355

    Google Scholar 

  4. Côté IM, Cheney KL (2004) Distance-dependent costs and benefits of aggressive mimicry in a cleaning symbiosis. Proc R Soc B 271(1557):2627–2630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Côté IM, Cheney KL (2005) Animal mimicry: choosing when to be a cleaner fish. Nature 433:211–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Côté IM, Arnal C, Reynolds JD (1998) Variation in posing behaviour among fish species visiting cleaning stations. J Fish Biol 53(Suppl A):256–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carpenter GDH, Ford EB (1933) Mimicry. Methuen, London, pp 134

  8. Clark KR, Warwick RM (1994) Changes in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Natural Environmental Research Council, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  9. Deloach N (1999) Reef fish behaviour. New World Publications, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dusenbery D (1992) Sensory ecology. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eibl-Eibesfeldt I (1959) Der Fisch Aspidontus taeniatus als Nachahmer des Putzers Labroides dimidiatus. Z Tierpsychol 12:203–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. English S, Wilkinson C, Baker V (1997) Survey manual for tropical marine resources. Australian Institute for Marine Resources, Townsville

    Google Scholar 

  13. Foster SA (1958) Group foraging by a coral reef fish: a mechanism for gaining access to defended resources. Anim Behav 33:782–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fowler J, Cohen L, Jarvis P (1998) Practical statistics for field biology. Wiley, England

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grutter AS (1995) Relationship between cleaning rates and ectoparasite loads in coral reef fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 118:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huheey JE (1988) Mathematical models of mimicry. Am Nat 131:S22–S41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuwamura T (1981) Mimicry of the cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus by the blennies Aspidontus taeniatus and Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus. Nanki Seibutu 23:61–70

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kuwamura T (1983) Reexamination on the aggressive mimicry of the cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus by the blenny Aspidontus taeniatus. J Ethol 1:22–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lieske E, Myers R (1996) Coral reef fishes. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moland E, Jones GP (2004) Experimental confirmation of aggressive mimicry by a coral reef fish. Oecologia 140:676–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pohlmann K, Grasso FW, Breithaupt T (2001) Tracking wakes: the nocturnal predatory strategy of piscivorous catfish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(13):7371–7374

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Potts GW (1973) The ethology of Labroides dimidiatus (Cuv. & Val.) (Labridae; Pisces) on Aldabra. Anim Behav 21:250–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sazima I (2002) Juvenile snooks (Centropomidae) as mimics of mojarras (Gerreidae), with a review of aggressive mimicry in fishes. Environ Biol Fishes 65:37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stummer LE, Weller JA, Johnson ML, Côté IM (2004) Size and stripes: how fish clients recognize cleaners. Anim Behav 68:145–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  26. Underwood AJ (1997) Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magnus L. Johnson.

Additional information

Communicated by J. P. Thorpe, Port Erin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, M.L., Hull, S.L. Interactions between fangblennies (Plagiotremus rhinorhynchus) and their potential victims: fooling the model rather than the client?. Marine Biology 148, 889–897 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-005-0118-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fish Density
  • Attack Success
  • Potential Victim
  • Potential Client
  • Clean Fish