Ecological differences in the facultative Caribbean cleaning goby Elacatinus prochilos do not predict learning performance in discriminatory two-choice tasks
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.
KeywordsCleaning gobies Cognition Elacatinus prochilos Social behavior Cue use Spatial task
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.
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).
- Côté IM (2000) Evolution and ecology of cleaning symbioses in the sea. Oceanogr Mar Biol 38:311–355Google Scholar
- Dukas R (1998) Cognitive ecology: the evolutionary ecology of information processing and decision making. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks CAGoogle Scholar
- Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed Nov 2018
- 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
- 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
- Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Therneau T (2015) A package for survival analysis in S. version 2.38Google Scholar
- Therneau T (2018) Package ‘coxme’. Mixed Effects Cox Models. R package version 2Google Scholar
- Thresher RE (1984) Reproduction in reef fishes. H. Publications, Neptune CityGoogle Scholar