I often read in this forum about using cleaner wrasses for control of cryptocaryon irritans. However, they really have no effect on control, not the least reason being that cyrptocaryon irritans (ich) is below the skin not external to it.
In addition, recent studies on cleaning behavior suggest that there are conflicts between cleaners and their clients
over what cleaners eat. The diet of cleaners usually contains ectoparasites, parasites that live on the surface of the host and some client tissue. It is unclear, however, whether cleaners prefer client tissue over ectoparasites or whether they include client tissue in their diet only when searching for parasites alone is not profitable. Cryptocaryon irritans is NOT an ectoparasite and is never found in stomach assays of cleaner wrasses, Labroides dimidiatus. To distinguish between these two hypotheses, cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus were trained to feed from plates and offered them client mucus from the parrotfish Chlorurus sordidus, parasitic monogenean flatworms, parasitic gnathiid isopods and boiled flour glue as a control. Cleaners ate more mucus and monogeneans than gnathiids, with gnathiids eaten slightly more often than the control substance. Because gnathiids are the most abundant ectoparasites, this result suggests a potential for conflict between cleaners and clients over what the cleaner should eat, and support studies emphasizing the importance of partner control in keeping cleaning interactions mutualistic.
Recent evidence shows that clients indeed control cleaner fish behavior in various ways, i.e.
through partner switching or punishment. In the latter, punishment served to control cleaners that readily fed on client
mucus in the absence of client control.
Some fish seem to like being cleaned: angels, butterfly fish, anthias whereas others will not allow it: clownfish, wrasses, firefish, among others. Those fish which do not like being cleaned can often be harassed into intimidation absent sufficient proper clients for cleaner wrasses.
In addition, recent studies on cleaning behavior suggest that there are conflicts between cleaners and their clients
over what cleaners eat. The diet of cleaners usually contains ectoparasites, parasites that live on the surface of the host and some client tissue. It is unclear, however, whether cleaners prefer client tissue over ectoparasites or whether they include client tissue in their diet only when searching for parasites alone is not profitable. Cryptocaryon irritans is NOT an ectoparasite and is never found in stomach assays of cleaner wrasses, Labroides dimidiatus. To distinguish between these two hypotheses, cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus were trained to feed from plates and offered them client mucus from the parrotfish Chlorurus sordidus, parasitic monogenean flatworms, parasitic gnathiid isopods and boiled flour glue as a control. Cleaners ate more mucus and monogeneans than gnathiids, with gnathiids eaten slightly more often than the control substance. Because gnathiids are the most abundant ectoparasites, this result suggests a potential for conflict between cleaners and clients over what the cleaner should eat, and support studies emphasizing the importance of partner control in keeping cleaning interactions mutualistic.
Recent evidence shows that clients indeed control cleaner fish behavior in various ways, i.e.
through partner switching or punishment. In the latter, punishment served to control cleaners that readily fed on client
mucus in the absence of client control.
Some fish seem to like being cleaned: angels, butterfly fish, anthias whereas others will not allow it: clownfish, wrasses, firefish, among others. Those fish which do not like being cleaned can often be harassed into intimidation absent sufficient proper clients for cleaner wrasses.
Last edited:
