↓ Skip to main content

Mutualism or parasitism? The variable outcome of cleaning symbioses

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Letters, May 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mutualism or parasitism? The variable outcome of cleaning symbioses
Published in
Biology Letters, May 2005
DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0288
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen L Cheney, Isabelle M Ct

Abstract

The exact nature of many interspecific interactions remains unclear, with some evidence suggesting mutualism and other evidence pointing to parasitism for the same pair of interacting species. Here, we show spatial variation in the outcome of the cleaning relationship between Caribbean cleaning gobies (Elacatinus evelynae) and longfin damselfish (Stegastes diencaeus) over the distribution range of these species, and link this variation to the availability of ectoparasites. Cleaning interactions at sites with more ectoparasites were characterized by greater reductions in ectoparasite loads on damselfish clients and lower rates of removal of scales and mucus (i.e. cheating) by cleaning gobies, whereas the opposite was observed at sites where ectoparasite abundance was lower. For damselfish clients, cleaning was therefore clearly mutualistic in some locations, but sometimes neutral or even parasitic in others. Seasonal variability in ectoparasite abundance may ensure that locally low parasite availability, which promotes cleanerfish cheating, may be a transient condition at any given site. Conflicting conclusions about the nature of cleaning symbioses may, therefore, be explained by variation in ectoparasite abundance.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
Brazil 6 2%
France 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 223 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 19%
Student > Bachelor 39 16%
Researcher 35 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 37 15%
Unknown 28 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 164 66%
Environmental Science 30 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 1%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 32 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2023.
All research outputs
#7,753,480
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Biology Letters
#2,506
of 3,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,823
of 59,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Letters
#21
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 59,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.