Compensatory cleaner-seeking behavior following spawning in female yellowtail damselfish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 296:1-11 (2005) - doi:10.3354/meps296001 Compensatory cleaner-seeking behavior following spawning in female yellowtail damselfish Paul C. Sikkel1,4,*, Steven E. Herzlieb2, Donald L. Kramer3 1Bellairs Research Institute of McGill University, St. James, Barbados2Center for Marine and Environmental Studies, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas 00802, US Virgin Islands3Department of Biology, McGill University, 1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1B1, Canada4Present address: Department of Biology, Murray State University, 334 Blackburn Hall, Murray, Kentucky 42071-0009, USA *Email: paul.sikkel@murraystate.edu ABSTRACT: Marine reef fishes may spend a significant proportion of their daily activity budgets visiting cleaning stations. Nevertheless, the roles of ectoparasites and of interactions with cleaners in shaping patterns of diel activity in these fishes have been largely ignored, possibly because the importance of cleaning for the hosts remains controversial. In diurnal species, a peak in ectoparasite infestation exists at dawn, suggesting that higher rates of cleaner-seeking during this time should be beneficial to hosts. In this study, we quantified the diel pattern of visitations to cleaners, as well as other major activities, in female yellowtail damselfish Microspathodon chrysurus on a Barbadian fringing reef. Females of this species leave their territories near dawn at 3 d intervals to spawn on male territories. On non-spawning days, cleaning peaked at dawn, when fish spent >20% of their time with cleaners, and declined thereafter, averaging over 11% of the time budget during the entire day. Supplemental observations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands also revealed dawn peaks in cleaner-seeking activity. Feeding and territory defense together occupied less than 3% of the time budget at dawn, and never seemed frequent enough to interfere with cleaning. On spawning days, 30% of females visited cleaners at male nests or while traveling back to their territories, and 24% visited cleaners on their own territories during revisitation trips before spawning was completed; nevertheless, they spent <1/3 as much time with cleaners as did non-spawning females. Reduced cleaner-seeking indicates that spawning competes with cleaner visitation in damselfish time budgets, producing a tradeoff between cleaning and reproduction. In the 30 min after spawning, females significantly increased their rate of interaction with cleaners, compared with the same time on non-spawning days, and regained about 68% of the missed time with cleaners; feeding and aggression did not differ between spawning and non-spawning females. Compensatory post-spawning visiting of cleaners supports the hypothesis that cleaning at dawn is important, probably because of negative consequences of the dawn peak in parasite loads. KEY WORDS: Cleaning · Symbiosis · Diel activity cycles · Ectoparasite · Coral reef fish · Pomacentridae · Spawning Full text in pdf format NextExport citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 296. Online publication date: July 12, 2005 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2005 Inter-Research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".