ArticleJournal of fish biology2025
Comparing remote and hand-held video observation methods for quantifying a cleaning mutualism.
Article in Journal of fish biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing remote and hand-held video observation methods for quantifying a cleaning mutualism.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Field studies of cleaning mutualisms use a variety of methods to quantify behavioral dynamics. Studies in marine systems typically utilize data recorded by human observers on scuba or snorkel or via remote underwater video. The effects of these different methods on cleaner-client behaviors have not been rigorously assessed. We quantified cleaner-client interactions at 13 bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) cleaning stations in Moorea, French Polynesia using hand-held and remote videos. We found that cleaning, cheating, and client posing rates, cleaning duration, and client species richness were all greater in the remote than in the hand-held videos, suggesting that human presence disrupts cleaning interactions by inducing antipredator responses among clients. Some metrics, such as the ratio of cleaner chasing to cleaning behavior and the cleaners' benthic feeding rate, were higher for the hand-held than the remote videos, possibly due to limited access of cleaners to clients in the presence of humans. Other metrics, such as cleaner and client chasing rates, the ratio of cleaning to cheating behaviors, and the duration of cleaner chases, did not differ between video types. Finally, piscivorous clients were far more abundant in the remote than the hand-held videos, suggesting that piscivores are particularly sensitive to human presence, likely because they are targeted by fishers. Overall, our study suggests that human presence can bias studies of cleaning behavior and cleaner-client interactions, and that remote cameras should be used to conduct behavioral studies. These potential biases should be considered when interpreting existing behavioral data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.