Clownfish and anemone mutualism

55semireef

Moved On
*Note that there are only ten species of anemones that will naturally allow clownfish to host them in the wild.

One of the most remarkable symbiotic relationships between two organisms is the mutualism that takes place between clownfish and clownanemones. But one of the most frequently asked questions is "Why are clownfish not harmed by the stingers or nematocysts of the anemone?" Well, even with all of our studies, experiments and hypotheses, there is still no proven answer. There have been a plethora of attempts to clarify this abstruseness by hypothesizing and conducting experiments with detailed observation, but no answer has yet to be found.

Clownfish and damselfish are the only species of fish that can avoid the detrimental stings of anemones. Currently, there are several theories to support this phenomenon.

There are some basic theories out laying on the surface as an explanation. One is that the slime coating of the fish may be be based on sugar rather than proteins so anemones ultimately fail to recognize the fish as food and do not fire their nematocysts. Another, is the mucus coating on the clownfish may mimic the anemone's own coating by careful acclimation of the clownfish so it thus becomes invisible. This is called the hypothesis of camoflauge by Schlichter. However, in my past experiences, I have had a female Tomato Clownfish hosting a purple LTA and a Condy anemone at the same time. How could a clownfish have the ability to host both anemones? Based on the hypothesis of camoflauge, my female Tomato clownfish could not truly have the mucus of the LTA and Condy since it would be a mixture of the two mucus'. That means the mucus that my female Tomato clown possessed worked for both my Condy and LTA therefore my Tomato had somehow developed a mucus that could work on her own.

A possibility in my mind that might allow clownfish to host anemones is that the clownfish may give off pheromones, chemicle signals. These chemical signals may let the anemone know not to react to a clownfishes presence. What I find interesting though is when I feed my Blue Haddoni my female Clarkii still hosts it without being visually stung. This means that either my female Clarkii is completely immune even when the Haddoni is firing its nematocysts or the Haddoni can pinpoint where to fire its stingers without harming the Clarkii. From my observation, I tend to side with the former possibility just because many times I have seen my female clarkii in the same area where the carpet is stinging and grabbing on to its food. Apparently, my female Clarkii is not being stung or else it would move.

Yesterday, I purchased a Heteractis Malu anemone and right away my smaller Clarkii took to it without any evidental acclimation process. Going by this examination, there must be some type of mucus already present on the clarkii that neutralizes the stings. I am not purposely trying to discount Schlichter's hypothesis of camoflauge, I am just simply saying this is now three times where I have seen my Clarkiis immediately "dive" in new anemones. Another time was when I purchased my Clarkiis my female Clarkii that I have now literally dove right into my Bluecarpet. Unless she was able to acclimate herself in the matter of .002432 seconds, it seems irrelevant that Clarkiis need an accimation process.


Acclimation to the tank.

TehCooleztLupe049.jpg


Her immediately in the Carpet

TehCooleztLupe055.jpg



Now with all 28 species of clownfish, this may not be the case with them as with the Clarkiis. Clarkiis seem to host anything from a Condy anemone to the soft coral Xenia.

Not only do I believe pheromones may be involved in the mutualistic relationship, but I think that texture has a play in it as well. It seems to me that anemones will stick to certain things with certain textures and not so much others. If anemones really stick to certain textures, than the texture of the clownfishes mucus might also have a small role in the symbiosis. An anemone would be able to tell the difference between a blenny being caught in the tentacles and a clownfish rubbing up against an anemone.


I am not by any means any expert on this material. All I have done is read articles, take the advice of others, observed and pieced it all together...somewhat. The mutualism of the clownfish and the anemone is still one of the great mysteries on this wonderful planet. Yet so simple but so complex.
 
How could a clownfish have the ability to host both anemones? Based on the hypothesis of camoflauge, my female Tomato clownfish could not truly have the mucus of the LTA and Condy since it would be a mixture of the two mucus'.

I am quite sure that your LTA will not eat your Condy or vise versa or they wouldn't be housed together. With that said, why couldn't it produce a slime coating that closely resembled an anemone of either type and not be attacked by either of yours? I am sure we have all seen a LFS tank with carpets, LTAs, BTAs and the like with clowns in the tank with them .. and yet a clown dosen't get eaten, why would this be?

I used a treatment on a Percula in my younger days (when I was ignorant mostly about SW care and husbandry) and it totally removed the slime coating of the fish. When the treament was done I released it back into the tank and to my horrified surprise the host anemone started to engulf the Percula. I did save the percual, but was also amazed and learned something.


Anyhow, just posting my 2 copper.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8277546#post8277546 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mahlhavoc
I am quite sure that your LTA will not eat your condy or vise versa or they wouldn't be housed together. With that said, why couldn't it produce a slime coating that closely resembled an anemone of either type and not be attacked by either of yours? I am sure we have all seen a LFS tank with carpets, LTAs, BTAs and the like with clowns in the tank with them .. and yet a clown dosen't get eaten, why would this be?

I used a treatment on a Percula in my younger days (when I was ignorant mostly about SW care and husbandry) and it totally removed the slime coating of the fish. When the treament was done I released it back into the tank and to my horrified surprise the host anemone started to engulf the Percula. I did save the percual, but was also amazed and learned something.




Anyhow, just posting my 2 copper.

why couldn't it produce a slime coating that closely resembled an anemone of either type and not be attacked by either of yours? I am sure we have all seen a LFS tank with carpets, LTAs, BTAs and the like with clowns in the tank with them .. and yet a clown dosen't get eaten, why would this be?
As I said, I was basing my argument off the hypothesis of camoflauge. It very well could be a mix, as I proposed.
 
..... a bit of research on the structure and mechanism of the nematocyst itself would assist greatly in the discussion. The trigger, the spring, and the filament are all quite remarkable :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8284223#post8284223 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by traveller7
..... a bit of research on the structure and mechanism of the nematocyst itself would assist greatly in the discussion. The trigger, the spring, and the filament are all quite remarkable :)
So you want me to go do some research? I wouldn't mind at all.:)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8284236#post8284236 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 55semireef
So you want me to go do some research? I wouldn't mind at all.:)
My friend, you have gone this far, why not.

It has been awhile since I have dug through the piles of research papers and who knows what new stuff might have shown up :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8284278#post8284278 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by traveller7
My friend, you have gone this far, why not.

It has been awhile since I have dug through the piles of research papers and who knows what new stuff might have shown up :)

Alright...I will find some time this weekend. I will update it as soon as possible.:)

If anyone else has anything to say on what I have stated so far, feel free to comment or ask questions. :)
 
"Anemones capture prey and protect themselves by using stinging capsules called nematocysts. Nematocysts contain a harpoon-like spine that is fired into the tissue of prey or potential predators.

Over the years many theories have tried to explain why anemonefishes are not stung by their host anemones.

It has been suggested that the tentacles of the anemones that host anemonefishes lack nematocysts. This is not true.

A second theory proposed that anemonefish avoid the tentacles of the host anemone. In some species this is true, but most species do swim between the tentacles and sleep on the oral disc of the anemone at night.

A third theory stated that anemonefishes have very thick skin that protects them from the anemone's nematocysts. This turns out not to be true. The skin of an anemonefish is no thicker than that other damselfishes, which can be stung by nematocysts.

It has also been suggested that when an anemonefish is in the tentacles of an anemone, the anemone does not fire its nematocysts. This is not true because anemones have been observed feeding while the host anemonefishes are between the tentacles.

The currently accepted explanation is that anemonefishes are not stung because they have a protective agent in the mucus that coats their bodies. The interesting question is how do anemonefishes build up this protective coating?

There are two current theories. One is that during several hours of 'acclimatisation' swimming the fish smears mucus from the anemone onto its body. In the same way that the mucus prevents the anemone from stinging itself, it will likewise protect the anemonefish.

The second theory is that the mucous coating of anemonefishes lacks the component that stimulates anemones to fire their nematocysts.

There is evidence to support both theories. For anemonefish species that live in several different species of anemones, the acclimatisation theory may be more relevant. On the other hand, the natural mucus theory may be more relevant for anemonefish species that are host specific."
http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/faq/anemonefish2.htm


I basically agree with the above here. Everything they said that is factual, I have noticed with my clowns.

Heres a great site to get a visual of what sea anemone nematocysts look like if you are not familiar with them.

http://web.nhm.ku.edu/tol/glossary/nematocyst.html
 
The development of the nematocysts was not to protect the clownfish but was developed to protect themselves and capture food. It was during the evolution of the damselfish and clownfish where they developed to become protected by the clownanemones.

Sea anemones have developed specialized structures used to defend against territorial invasion by any intruding species. Three of these structures, acrorhagi, catch tentacls and sweeper tentacles are all modified tentacles. The other structure is a changed element of the mesentery, the mesenteric filament. In addition to their usual tentacles, sea anemones have hollow structures known as acrorhagi which are located at the edge of the body column. When an anemone comes into contact with another, and it does not perceive it as truly inert so an acrorhagial attack occurs, and repeatedly expands and reapplied to the target. As a result of this nematocyst discharge, the tissue beneath the acrorhagial peel becomes necrotic and dies.

Any time there is contact between the target animal, there is a massive discharge of the acrorhagial nematocysts. Its only because there are specified molecules (which have not been yet identified) on the endotherm and ectotherm that apparently trigger the acrorhagial nematocysts. This could be a possible reason clownfish are not affected because they do not possess those specified molecules that trigger an anemones nematocysts. So, if the target animal is truly inert, then there is no iniative thus there is not massive discharge. It was once believed that A. Clarkii had inert mucus because they had neutral polysaccharides that did not trigger any nematocyst discharge according to Lubbock. However, in an experiemnet performed by Lubbock, he noticed that A. Clarkii needed a 4 day acclimation process from leaving Stichodactyla haddoni for Entacmaea quadricolor. If A. Ckarkii truly had inert mucus, then they would have not needed an acclimation process.


I will get some more research tomorrow. :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8292655#post8292655 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 55semireef
......Its only because there are specified molecules (which have not been yet identified) on the endotherm and ectotherm that apparently trigger the acrorhagial nematocysts....
I have always found this concept interesting and puzzling given the quality of analysis we have today.

I'll see if I can find the pictures of the "trigger", quite interesting when considering the above.

I was aware of Lubbock's "testing" but my personal experience does not support the "4 day" conclusion with A. clarkii, S. haddoni, and E. quadricolor. Maybe my pair had prior E. quad exposure or something....or maybe testing was anecdotal. Heck if I know.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8303265#post8303265 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by traveller7
I have always found this concept interesting and puzzling given the quality of analysis we have today.

I'll see if I can find the pictures of the "trigger", quite interesting when considering the above.

I was aware of Lubbock's "testing" but my personal experience does not support the "4 day" conclusion with A. clarkii, S. haddoni, and E. quadricolor. Maybe my pair had prior E. quad exposure or something....or maybe testing was anecdotal. Heck if I know.

Hey Traveller. I really appreciate you participating in this thread. I really wish more members would join because I am sure it would bring more life to this thread and it would probably become rather interesting.

About Lubbock's testing...I wonder if he only tested it once with A. Clarkii from going to S. Haddoni to E. Quadricolor. He might ahve got different results if he tested multiple times. It might also be the personality of the clownfish. Like how comfortable the clownfish feels. I am sure the 4 days was not based purley on acclimation but whether the Clarkii felt secure in their surroundings. Maybe the surrounding enviroment has a role too. Becasue I am pretty sure if a large grouper swam by that little clarkii, I bet that would have some significant influence too.
 
heehee I'm afraid I know nothing I can add to this discussion, other then I too find it amazing a tiny baby clownfish can hide in a huge carpet anemone in a LFS show tank and not be considered some sort of a snack.

hmm, only question I can think of is regarding the other speciies of damsels that host in anemonesat some point in their lives...I remember a photo of a huge anemone in the wild with about 20 domino damsels hiding in it...apprently they only do this when they are juvenilles. ( I dont remember, it was in a magazine some years ago). Does something change on these fish as they reach adulthood that no longer allows them to use the anemone as protection?
 
I had a pair of wild caught clarkii hosting in my 90 gal reef.

a Green haddoni and a green bta and they would flop between the 2 the same way you walk from the bedroom to the living room. i never saw any adverse affects of this so im not sure about the 4 day acclimation period.

i would think the slime coat on the clowns in general may have some neutralizing properties to the nemocysts firing on the anemone itself.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8324570#post8324570 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Geogal17
heehee I'm afraid I know nothing I can add to this discussion, other then I too find it amazing a tiny baby clownfish can hide in a huge carpet anemone in a LFS show tank and not be considered some sort of a snack.

hmm, only question I can think of is regarding the other speciies of damsels that host in anemonesat some point in their lives...I remember a photo of a huge anemone in the wild with about 20 domino damsels hiding in it...apprently they only do this when they are juvenilles. ( I dont remember, it was in a magazine some years ago). Does something change on these fish as they reach adulthood that no longer allows them to use the anemone as protection?

I havn't really researched into Damsels but I too have seen Domino Damsels host a huge Orange Carpet once. It was quite an amazing picture. I will try and find it.
 
I found this picture on the "What color is your Carpet" thread posted by Gary M. This picture is quite remarkable and you can see Domino damsels around it.

Stichodactyla-haddoni-orange-dv1.jpg
 
I was watching 'equator' on discovery hd yesterday. by far the best reef show i have ever seen. when they got to the cardinal fish, they showed a species that uses anemones as protection. It showed them in the lta, then being chased out by some perculas. Pretty sure it was an lta that they were in.

Not much to add to the thread. but from experience of battleing various bacteria infections and a formilin dip or two. I can say for sure that its a mucus coat. when my maroon first started going to the bta. she had to continuously barely touch it for about 45 minutes or so before she could enter it.

Once when taking her to a formilin dip then back to the reef (15 minute period give or take) She went right back to the nem. she got stung over and over. her whole 'chin' area had white stings all over it. she had to rebuild her slime coat before reentering
I felt really bad. It was like she dident know her coat was gone.
 
Back
Top