Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Presence Does Not Indirectly Affect Demersal Zooplankton

Coral reef mutualisms involve complex trophic ecological relationships that produce indirect effects. Excluding mutualistic cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus from reefs indirectly increases the abundance of many fishes and reduces demersal stages of their ectoparasitic prey (gnathiid isopods). Wheth...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Alexandra S. Grutter, Natsumi Nishikawa, Julian Uribe-Palomino, Anthony J. Richardson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-06-01
Series:Frontiers in Marine Science
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.812989/full
_version_ 1797787748769202176
author Alexandra S. Grutter
Natsumi Nishikawa
Julian Uribe-Palomino
Julian Uribe-Palomino
Anthony J. Richardson
Anthony J. Richardson
author_facet Alexandra S. Grutter
Natsumi Nishikawa
Julian Uribe-Palomino
Julian Uribe-Palomino
Anthony J. Richardson
Anthony J. Richardson
author_sort Alexandra S. Grutter
collection DOAJ
description Coral reef mutualisms involve complex trophic ecological relationships that produce indirect effects. Excluding mutualistic cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus from reefs indirectly increases the abundance of many fishes and reduces demersal stages of their ectoparasitic prey (gnathiid isopods). Whether cleaners affect populations of planktivorous fishes that consume demersal zooplankton, and consequently indirectly affect the rest of the demersal zooplankton community — via presumed changes in planktivory — is unknown. Therefore, using a long-term cleaner fish manipulation on patch reefs (July 2000 to December 2012, Great Barrier Reef), we tested whether cleaner treatment (removal or control) affects planktivorous fish abundance and diversity, and demersal zooplankton biomass, abundance, and diversity. Fish surveys, 9 and 12 years after removing cleaners revealed fewer fish on removal compared to control reefs for one of the three most abundant planktivores, but not total abundance (Pomacentridae, 26 species), diversity, and composition. Emerging zooplankton were sampled during the day and night over nine sampling trips across 12 years. There was no effect of cleaner treatment on post-removal values, compared with pre-removal values in July 2000, for zooplankton biomass, abundance, diversity, and composition (34 taxa). Zooplankton abundance showed no diel differences, but diversity, and occasionally biomass, were higher at night. Zooplankton composition also showed diel differences, with three taxa contributing the most to this dissimilarity [Cirripeda nauplii, Facetotecta (Arthopoda), Oikopleuridae (Chordata)]. Zooplankton diversity did not differ among times, abundance was higher in January 2002 relative to July 2000, and composition differed among all times. The lack of detectable indirect effects of cleaner fish presence on zooplankton (non-gnathiid) may partly be due to cleaners’ variable effect on planktivorous fish abundance, but also the result of invertebrate planktivory and other processes that affect zooplankton populations not investigated here. Nevertheless, the pronounced diel and temporal changes in zooplankton observed likely influence coral reef trophic interactions.
first_indexed 2024-03-13T01:26:19Z
format Article
id doaj.art-7b7994c0f2e3485caa0daf9c6c555a08
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2296-7745
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-13T01:26:19Z
publishDate 2022-06-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Marine Science
spelling doaj.art-7b7994c0f2e3485caa0daf9c6c555a082023-07-04T15:25:44ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Marine Science2296-77452022-06-01910.3389/fmars.2022.812989812989Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Presence Does Not Indirectly Affect Demersal ZooplanktonAlexandra S. Grutter0Natsumi Nishikawa1Julian Uribe-Palomino2Julian Uribe-Palomino3Anthony J. Richardson4Anthony J. Richardson5School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, AustraliaSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, AustraliaCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Oceans and Atmosphere, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, St. Lucia, QLD, AustraliaSchool of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, AustraliaCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Oceans and Atmosphere, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, St. Lucia, QLD, AustraliaSchool of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, AustraliaCoral reef mutualisms involve complex trophic ecological relationships that produce indirect effects. Excluding mutualistic cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus from reefs indirectly increases the abundance of many fishes and reduces demersal stages of their ectoparasitic prey (gnathiid isopods). Whether cleaners affect populations of planktivorous fishes that consume demersal zooplankton, and consequently indirectly affect the rest of the demersal zooplankton community — via presumed changes in planktivory — is unknown. Therefore, using a long-term cleaner fish manipulation on patch reefs (July 2000 to December 2012, Great Barrier Reef), we tested whether cleaner treatment (removal or control) affects planktivorous fish abundance and diversity, and demersal zooplankton biomass, abundance, and diversity. Fish surveys, 9 and 12 years after removing cleaners revealed fewer fish on removal compared to control reefs for one of the three most abundant planktivores, but not total abundance (Pomacentridae, 26 species), diversity, and composition. Emerging zooplankton were sampled during the day and night over nine sampling trips across 12 years. There was no effect of cleaner treatment on post-removal values, compared with pre-removal values in July 2000, for zooplankton biomass, abundance, diversity, and composition (34 taxa). Zooplankton abundance showed no diel differences, but diversity, and occasionally biomass, were higher at night. Zooplankton composition also showed diel differences, with three taxa contributing the most to this dissimilarity [Cirripeda nauplii, Facetotecta (Arthopoda), Oikopleuridae (Chordata)]. Zooplankton diversity did not differ among times, abundance was higher in January 2002 relative to July 2000, and composition differed among all times. The lack of detectable indirect effects of cleaner fish presence on zooplankton (non-gnathiid) may partly be due to cleaners’ variable effect on planktivorous fish abundance, but also the result of invertebrate planktivory and other processes that affect zooplankton populations not investigated here. Nevertheless, the pronounced diel and temporal changes in zooplankton observed likely influence coral reef trophic interactions.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.812989/fullPomacentridaedemersal zooplanktonmutualismindirect effectscleaning symbiosisplanktivorous fish
spellingShingle Alexandra S. Grutter
Natsumi Nishikawa
Julian Uribe-Palomino
Julian Uribe-Palomino
Anthony J. Richardson
Anthony J. Richardson
Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Presence Does Not Indirectly Affect Demersal Zooplankton
Frontiers in Marine Science
Pomacentridae
demersal zooplankton
mutualism
indirect effects
cleaning symbiosis
planktivorous fish
title Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Presence Does Not Indirectly Affect Demersal Zooplankton
title_full Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Presence Does Not Indirectly Affect Demersal Zooplankton
title_fullStr Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Presence Does Not Indirectly Affect Demersal Zooplankton
title_full_unstemmed Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Presence Does Not Indirectly Affect Demersal Zooplankton
title_short Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Presence Does Not Indirectly Affect Demersal Zooplankton
title_sort cleaner fish labroides dimidiatus presence does not indirectly affect demersal zooplankton
topic Pomacentridae
demersal zooplankton
mutualism
indirect effects
cleaning symbiosis
planktivorous fish
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.812989/full
work_keys_str_mv AT alexandrasgrutter cleanerfishlabroidesdimidiatuspresencedoesnotindirectlyaffectdemersalzooplankton
AT natsuminishikawa cleanerfishlabroidesdimidiatuspresencedoesnotindirectlyaffectdemersalzooplankton
AT julianuribepalomino cleanerfishlabroidesdimidiatuspresencedoesnotindirectlyaffectdemersalzooplankton
AT julianuribepalomino cleanerfishlabroidesdimidiatuspresencedoesnotindirectlyaffectdemersalzooplankton
AT anthonyjrichardson cleanerfishlabroidesdimidiatuspresencedoesnotindirectlyaffectdemersalzooplankton
AT anthonyjrichardson cleanerfishlabroidesdimidiatuspresencedoesnotindirectlyaffectdemersalzooplankton