Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1039–1050 | Cite as

Ecological differences in the facultative Caribbean cleaning goby Elacatinus prochilos do not predict learning performance in discriminatory two-choice tasks

  • Renata MazzeiEmail author
  • Michelle Lampe
  • Alica Ohnesorge
  • Aude Pajot
  • Marta C. Soares
  • Redouan Bshary
Original Paper

Abstract

The ecological approach to comparative cognition emphasizes that the ecological and social environment are important predictors of cognitive performance. We used this approach to test whether differences in habitat use and social behavior in the facultative Caribbean cleaning goby Elacatinus prochilos predict differences in learning performance in two discriminatory two-choice tasks. This species has two behavioral ecotypes: one that frequently engages in cleaning interactions and inhabits corals in male–female pairs (cleaning gobies) and another that rarely engages in cleaning interactions and inhabits barrel sponges in large groups (sponge-dwellers). We predicted that cleaning gobies would outperform sponge-dwellers in a pattern-cued task, which consisted of identifying the pattern on a plate that consistently provided food, while sponge-dwellers would outperform cleaning gobies in a spatial task, which consisted of identifying the location of the plate. Contrary to our predictions, there was no difference in performance between the two ecotypes. Most of the gobies performed poorly in the pattern-cued task and well in the spatial task. A possible explanation for these results is that the association of a pattern with positive and negative reinforcement may not be a pre-requisite for engaging in cleaning interactions, while spatial skills might be equally required in both ecotypes. Alternatively, the two ecotypes can flexibly adjust to new feeding conditions, which would explain their similar performance in the spatial task. Further research should investigate which aspects of E. prochilos’ social and ecological environment might impose challenges that require spatial cognition and whether individuals can flexibly adjust to new habitats and feeding conditions.

Keywords

Cleaning gobies Cognition Elacatinus prochilos Social behavior Cue use Spatial task 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Yasmin Emery, Kristie Alleyne, Jeniece Germain, and Shawn Simpson for the assistance in the field, the staff of the Bellairs Research Institute and Henri Vallès for the logistical support and Radu Slobodeanu for statistical advice. RM is supported by a scholarship from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Brazil (CNPQ/201522/2014-4). ML received a travel subsidy from the University Fund Nijmegen (SNUF). AO was supported by a “PROMOS” grant from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). M.C.S. is currently supported by National Funds through FCT1 Foundation for Science and Technology. Funding for the project was provided by the CNPQ (grant to Renata Mazzei) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant to Redouan Bshary).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Coastal Zone Management Unit (CZMU) in Barbados. The protocol was approved by the Minister of Environment on behalf of the CZUM (permit reference number: CZ01/9/9).

Supplementary material

10071_2019_1295_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (550 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 550 kb)
10071_2019_1295_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 35 kb)

References

  1. Ashton BJ, Ridley AR, Edwards EK, Thornton A (2018) Cognitive performance is linked to group size and affects fitness in Australian magpies. Nature 554:364–367.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25503 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Balda RP, Kamil AC (1989) A comparative study of cache recovery by three corvid species. Anim Behav 38:486–495.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(89)80041-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bansemer C, Grutter AS, Poulin R (2002) Geographic variation in the behaviour of the cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus (Labridae). Ethology 108:353–366.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00777.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bibost A-L, Brown C (2014) Laterality influences cognitive performance in rainbowfish Melanotaenia duboulayi. Anim Cogn 17:1045–1051.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0734-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binning SA, Roche DG, Grutter AS et al (2018) Cleaner wrasse indirectly affect the cognitive performance of a damselfish through ectoparasite removal. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 285:20172447.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonté E, Kemp C, Fagot J (2014) Age effects on transfer index performance and executive control in baboons (Papio papio). Front Psychol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00188 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bshary R, Grutter AS (2002) Asymmetric cheating opportunities and partner control in a cleaner fish mutualism. Anim Behav 63:547–555.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bshary R, Grutter AS (2006) Image scoring and cooperation in a cleaner fish mutualism. Nature 441:975–978.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04755 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bshary R, Schäffer D (2002) Choosy reef fish select cleaner fish that provide high-quality service. Anim Behav 63:557–564.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buechel SD, Boussard A, Kotrschal A et al (2018) Brain size affects performance in a reversal-learning test. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 285:20172031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns JG, Rodd FH (2008) Hastiness, brain size and predation regime affect the performance of wild guppies in a spatial memory task. Anim Behav 76:911–922.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cardoso SC, Bshary R, Mazzei R et al (2015) Arginine vasotocin modulates associative learning in a mutualistic cleaner fish. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1173–1181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1931-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheney KL, Côté IM (2005) Mutualism or parasitism? The variable outcome of cleaning symbioses. Biol Lett 1:162–165.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0288 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Coile AM, Sikkel PC (2013) An experimental field test of susceptibility to ectoparasitic gnathiid isopods among Caribbean reef fishes. Parasitology 140:888–896.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182013000097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Côté IM (2000) Evolution and ecology of cleaning symbioses in the sea. Oceanogr Mar Biol 38:311–355Google Scholar
  16. Côté I, Soares M (2011) Gobies as cleaners. In: Patzner R, Van Tassell JL, Kovacic M, Kapoor BG (eds) The biology of gobies. Science Publishers, CRC Press, pp 532–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dukas R (1998) Cognitive ecology: the evolutionary ecology of information processing and decision making. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunkley K, Ioannou CC, Whittey KE et al (2019) Cleaner personality and client identity have joint consequences on cleaning interaction dynamics. Behav Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Emery NJ (2004) Are corvids “feathered apes”? Cognitive evolution in crows, jays rooks and jackdaws. In: Watanabe S (ed) Comparative analysis of minds. Keio University Press, Tokyo, Japan, pp 181–213Google Scholar
  20. Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2004a) Comparing the complex cognition of birds and primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan G (eds) Comparative vertebrate cognition. Springer, Boston, pp 3–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2004b) The mentality of crows: convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science 306:1903–1907.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098410 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Gingins S, Bshary R (2016) The cleaner wrasse outperforms other labrids in ecologically relevant contexts, but not in spatial discrimination. Anim Behav 115:145–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gingins S, Werminghausen J, Johnstone RA et al (2013) Power and temptation cause shifts between exploitation and cooperation in a cleaner wrasse mutualism. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280:20130553–20130553.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gingins S, Marcadier F, Wismer S et al (2018) The performance of cleaner wrasse, Labroides dimidiatus, in a reversal learning task varies across experimental paradigms. PeerJ 6:e4745.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4745 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Grutter AS (1996) Parasite removal rates by the cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 130:61–70.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps130061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grutter AS (1999a) Infestation dynamics of gnathiid isopod juveniles parasitic on the coral-reef fish Hemigymnus melapterus (Labridae). Mar Biol 135:545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grutter AS (1999b) Fish cleaning behaviour in Noumea, New Caledonia. Mar Freshw Res 50:209.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF97078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grutter AS, Bshary R (2003) Cleaner wrasse prefer client mucus: support for partner control mechanisms in cleaning interactions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:S242–S244.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grutter AS, Poulin R (1998) Intraspecific and interspecific relationships between host size and the abundance of parasitic larval gnathiid isopods on coral reef fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 164:263–271.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps164263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Healy S, Braithwaite V (2000) Cognitive ecology: a field of substance? Trends Ecol Evol 15:22–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01737-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  33. Ingle DJ (1965) Interocular transfer in goldfish: color easier than pattern. Science 149:1000–1002.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3687.1000 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamil A (1987) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. In: Dienstbier RA, Leger DW (eds) Comparative perspectives in modern psychology, vol 35, Copyright 1988 University of Nebraska Press, pp. 257–308Google Scholar
  35. Kareklas K, Elwood RW, Holland RA (2017) Personality effects on spatial learning: comparisons between visual conditions in a weakly electric fish. Ethology 123:551–559.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12629 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kotrschal A, Taborsky B (2010) Environmental Change Enhances Cognitive Abilities in Fish. PLoS Biol 8:e1000351.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000351 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuroda T, Mizutani Y, Cançado CR, Podlesnik CA (2017) Reversal learning and resurgence of operant behavior in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav Process 142:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lai ZC, Moss MB, Killiany RJ et al (1995) Executive system dysfunction in the aged monkey: spatial and object reversal learning. Neurobiol Aging 16:947–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Luiz OJ, Madin EM, Madin JS et al (2016) A tropical cleaner wrasse finds new clients at the frontier. Front Ecol Environ 14:110–111.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mamuneas D, Spence AJ, Manica A, King AJ (2015) Bolder stickleback fish make faster decisions, but they are not less accurate. Behav Ecol 26:91–96.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marshall JN (2000) Communication and camouflage with the same ‘bright’ colours in reef fishes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 355:1243–1248.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2000.0676 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Messias JPM, Santos TP, Pinto M, Soares MC (2016) Stimulation of dopamine D1 receptor improves learning capacity in cooperating cleaner fish. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mazzei R (2019) Causes and consequences of social phenotypic variation in the Caribbean facultative cleaning goby Elacatinus prochilos. Dissertation, University of Neuchâtel (Unpublished data) Google Scholar
  44. Oates J, Manica A, Bshary R (2010) Roving and service quality in the cleaner wrasse labroides bicolor. Ethology 116:309–315.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01742.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olson DJ, Kamil AC, Balda RP, Nims PJ (1995) Performance of four-seed caching corvid species in operant tests of nonspatial and spatial memory. J Comp Psychol 109:173–181.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.109.2.173 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pepperberg IM, Hartsfield LA (2014) Can grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) succeed on a “Complex” foraging task failed by nonhuman primates (Pan troglodytes, Pongo abelii, Sapajus paella) but solved by wrasse fish (Labroides dimidiatus)? J Comp Psychol 128:10.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petrazzini MEM, Bisazza A, Agrillo C, Lucon-Xiccato T (2017) Sex differences in discrimination reversal learning in the guppy. Anim Cogn 20:1081–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinto A, Oates J, Grutter A, Bshary R (2011) Cleaner wrasses labroides dimidiatus are more cooperative in the presence of an audience. Curr Biol 21:1140–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Poulin R (2000) Variation in the intraspecific relationship between fish length and intensity of parasitic infection: biological and statistical causes. J Fish Biol 56:123–137.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb02090.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pravosudov VV, Clayton NS (2002) A test of the adaptive specialization hypothesis: population differences in caching, memory, and the hippocampus in black-capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapilla). Behav Neurosci 116:515–522.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0735-7044.116.4.515 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Prétôt L, Bshary R, Brosnan SF (2016a) Factors influencing the different performance of fish and primates on a dichotomous choice task. Anim Behav 119:189–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.06.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prétôt L, Bshary R, Brosnan SF (2016b) Comparing species decisions in a dichotomous choice task: adjusting task parameters improves performance in monkeys. Anim Cogn 19:819–834.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0981-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed Nov 2018
  54. Salwiczek LH, Prétôt L, Demarta L et al (2012) adult cleaner wrasse outperform capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees and orang-utans in a complex foraging task derived from cleaner–client reef fish cooperation. PLoS One 7:e49068.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049068 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Seed A, Emery N, Clayton N (2009) Intelligence in corvids and apes: a case of convergent evolution? Ethology 115:401–420.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01644.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shettleworth SJ (1993) Where is the comparison in comparative cognition? Alternative research programs. Psychol Sci 4:179–184.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00484.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Siebeck UE, Litherland L, Wallis GM (2009) Shape learning and discrimination in reef fish. J Exp Biol 212:2113–2119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sih A, Del Giudice M (2012) Linking behavioural syndromes and cognition: a behavioural ecology perspective. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 367:2762–2772.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Soares MC, Cardoso SC, Côté IM (2007) Client preferences by Caribbean cleaning gobies: food, safety or something else? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1015–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0334-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soares MC, Bshary R, Cardoso SC, Côté IM (2008a) The meaning of jolts by fish clients of cleaning gobies. Ethology 114:209–214.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01471.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Soares MC, Bshary R, Cardoso SC, Côté IM (2008b) Does competition for clients increase service quality in cleaning gobies? Ethology 114:625–632.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01510.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Soares MC, Côté IM, Cardoso SC, Bshary R (2008c) The cleaning goby mutualism: a system without punishment, partner switching or tactile stimulation: choice options and partner control. J Zool 276:306–312.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00489.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Soares MC, Bshary R, Côté IM (2009) Cleaning in pairs enhances honesty in male cleaning gobies. Behav Ecol 20:1343–1347.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soares MC, Côté IM, Cardoso SC et al (2010) Caribbean cleaning gobies prefer client ectoparasites over mucus: cleaning gobies prefer ectoparasites. Ethology 116:1244–1248.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01838.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Soares MC, Cardoso SC, Nicolet KJ et al (2013) Indo-Pacific parrotfish exert partner choice in interactions with cleanerfish but Caribbean parrotfish do not. Anim Behav 86:611–615.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Soares MC, Paula JR, Bshary R (2016) Serotonin blockade delays learning performance in a cooperative fish. Anim Cogn 19:1027–1030.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0988-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sovrano VA, Dadda M, Bisazza A (2005) Lateralized fish perform better than nonlateralized fish in spatial reorientation tasks. Behav Brain Res 163:122–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2005.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Therneau T (2015) A package for survival analysis in S. version 2.38Google Scholar
  70. Therneau T (2018) Package ‘coxme’. Mixed Effects Cox Models. R package version 2Google Scholar
  71. Thresher RE (1984) Reproduction in reef fishes. H. Publications, Neptune CityGoogle Scholar
  72. Triki Z, Wismer S, Levorato E, Bshary R (2018) A decrease in the abundance and strategic sophistication of cleaner fish after environmental perturbations. Glob Change Biol 24:481–489.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Triki Z, Wismer S, Rey O et al (2019) Biological market effects predict cleaner fish strategic sophistication. Behav Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Trompf L, Brown C (2014) Personality affects learning and trade-offs between private and social information in guppies, Poecilia reticulata. Anim Behav 88:99–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.11.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wang M-Y, Brennan CH, Lachlan RF, Chittka L (2015) Speed–accuracy trade-offs and individually consistent decision making by individuals and dyads of zebrafish in a colour discrimination task. Anim Behav 103:277–283.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.01.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. White GE, Brown C (2014a) Cue choice and spatial learning ability are affected by habitat complexity in intertidal gobies. Behav Ecol 26:178–184.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. White GE, Brown C (2014b) A comparison of spatial learning and memory capabilities in intertidal gobies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1393–1401.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1747-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. White JW, Grigsby CJ, Warner RR (2007) Cleaning behavior is riskier and less profitable than an alternative strategy for a facultative cleaner fish. Coral Reefs 26:87–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-006-0161-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Whiteman EA, Côté IM (2002a) Cleaning activity of two Caribbean cleaning gobies: intra- and interspecific comparisons. J Fish Biol 60:1443–1458.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jfbi.2002.1947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Whiteman EA, Côté IM (2002b) Sex differences in cleaning behaviour and diet of a Caribbean cleaning goby. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 82(4):655–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Whiteman EA, Côté IM (2003) Social monogamy in the cleaning goby Elacatinus evelynae: ecological constraints or net benefit? Anim Behav 66:281–291.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Whiteman EA, Côté IM (2004a) Individual differences in microhabitat use in a Caribbean cleaning goby: a buffer effect in a marine species?: buffer effect in a Caribbean cleaning goby. J Anim Ecol 73:831–840.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00858.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Whiteman EA, Côté IM (2004b) Dominance hierarchies in group-living cleaning gobies: causes and foraging consequences. Anim Behav 67:239–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wismer S, Pinto AI, Vail AL et al (2014) Variation in cleaner wrasse cooperation and cognition: influence of the developmental environment? Ethology 120:519–531.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zentall TR, Case JP, Luong J (2016) Pigeon’s (Columba livia) paradoxical preference for the suboptimal alternative in a complex foraging task. J Comp Psychol 130:138–144.  https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Zentall TR, Case JP, Berry JR, Luong J (2018) The ephemeral reward task: pigeons and rats fail to learn unless discouraged from impulsive choice. Anim Behav Cogn 5:169–180.  https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.05.01.12.2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eco-Ethologie, Institut de Biologie, Université de NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Animal Ecology and PhysiologyRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.GEOMAR, Helmholtz Centre for Ocean ResearchKielGermany
  4. 4.Christian-Albrechts Universität KielKielGermany
  5. 5.CIBIO/InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos da Universidade do PortoVairãoPortugal

Personalised recommendations