Functional niches of cleanerfish species are mediated by habitat use, cleaning intensity and client selectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An animal's functional niche is a complex, multidimensional construct, mediated by an individual's morphology, physiology and behaviour. Behavioural aspects of the niche can be difficult to quantify, as their expression is often subtle and tailored to an infinite number of different situations that involve sophisticated mechanisms such as mutualisms, species dominance or fear effects. The extreme diversity of tropical fish assemblages has led to extensive debate over the extent to which species differ in their resource use and functional role. Ectoparasite removal by cleanerfish species is considered a behaviourally complex interspecific interaction in vertebrates, but differences in the services rendered by various species of cleanerfish, and potential consequences for the range of clients (i.e. resources) they attract, have rarely been examined. Here, we quantify differences among three coexisting species of morphologically similar cleaner wrasses (Labroides bicolor, L. dimidiatus and L. pectoralis) in the global centre of marine biodiversity, the Coral Triangle. We found no clear taxonomic partitioning of clients among cleanerfishes. However, the three cleanerfish species exhibited distinct habitat preferences, and differed in their cleaning intensity: L. bicolor serviced the fewest species and clients, while L. pectoralis serviced the most clients and spent the most time cleaning. Accordingly, L. pectoralis showed no preference for clients based on client size or abundance, while both L. bicolor and L. dimidiatus had a higher likelihood of interacting with clients based on their size (larger client species in L. bicolor, smaller client species in L. dimidiatus) and abundance (more abundant client species for both). Our results suggest that the services rendered by the three species of cleanerfishes differ in their spatial availability, quality and selectivity, thus permitting the coexistence of these species despite their ecological similarity. This, in turn, creates a complex seascape of species-specific cleaning services that underpins crucial biotic interactions in the ocean's most diverse ecosystem.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".