A hitchhiker guide to manta rays: Patterns of association between Mobula alfredi, M. birostris, their symbionts, and other fishes in the Maldives

Aimee E Nicholson-Jack; Joanna L Harris; Kirsty Ballard; Katy M E Turner; Guy M W Stevens

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253704

. 2021 Jul 14;16(7):e0253704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253704

A hitchhiker guide to manta rays: Patterns of association between Mobula alfredi, M. birostris, their symbionts, and other fishes in the Maldives

Aimee E Nicholson-Jack ^1,^2,^*,^#, Joanna L Harris ^1,^3,^#, Kirsty Ballard ^1,^‡, Katy M E Turner ^2,^‡, Guy M W Stevens ^1,^#

Editor: Johann Mourier⁴

PMCID: PMC8279400 PMID: 34260626

Abstract

Despite being among the largest and most charismatic species in the marine environment, considerable gaps remain in our understanding of the behavioural ecology of manta rays (Mobula alfredi, M. birostris). Manta rays are often sighted in association with an array of smaller hitchhiker fish species, which utilise their hosts as a sanctuary for shelter, protection, and the sustenance they provide. Species interactions, rather than the species at the individual level, determine the ecological processes that drive community dynamics, support biodiversity and ecosystem health. Thus, understanding the associations within marine communities is critical to implementing effective conservation and management. However, the underlying patterns between manta rays, their symbionts, and other hitchhiker species remain elusive. Here, we explore the spatial and temporal variation in hitchhiker presence with M. alfredi and M. birostris throughout the Maldives and investigate the factors which may influence association using generalised linear mixed effects models (GLMM). For the first time, associations between M. alfredi and M. birostris with hitchhiker species other than those belonging to the family Echeneidae are described. A variation in the species of hitchhiker associated with M. alfredi and M. birostris was identified, with sharksucker remora (Echeneis naucrates) and giant remora (Remora remora) being the most common, respectively. Spatiotemporal variation in the presence of manta rays was identified as a driver for the occurrence of ephemeral hitchhiker associations. Near-term pregnant female M. alfredi, and M. alfredi at cleaning stations, had the highest likelihood of an association with adult E. naucrates. Juvenile E. naucrates were more likely to be associated with juvenile M. alfredi, and a seasonal trend in E. naucrates host association was identified. Remora were most likely to be present with female M. birostris, and a mean number of 1.5 ± 0.5 R. remora were observed per M. birostris. It is hoped these initial findings will serve as the basis for future work into the complex relationships between manta rays and their hitchhikers.

Introduction

Symbiosis, when considered biologically, describes a physically close and long-term association between two different species [1–3]. Symbiotic interactions are common in marine ecosystems and are fundamental in regulating the distribution, abundance, and diversity of many taxa [4, 5]. Algae-coral, anemonefish, and cleaner-client mutualisms all provide traditional examples [6–9], where at least one of the interacting species is obligately dependant on the association for all, or part, of its life-history [1, 10]. While some interactions have resulted in significant behavioural adaptions and coevolution, the competitive life of a marine species can encourage short-term and opportunistic associations in order to gain food or protection [11–15]. For example, species of the family Carangidae have been observed to associate with scalloped hammerheads (Sphyrna lewini) to get closer to prey items, and when following cownose rays (Rhinoptera bonasus), cobia (Rachycentron canadum) have been observed to occupy a position above their host to forage on prey rejected by the rays [16]. Pilot fish (Naucrates doctor) are known to commonly associate with large-bodied vertebrates such as sharks, rays and turtles [17], presumably for protection from predation [14].

Species engage in associations that vary in all degrees of intimacy, ranging from obligate to facultative, mutualistic to parasitic, and long-lived to ephemeral [1, 10, 11, 18]. These interactions, rather than the species at the individual level, determine the ecological processes that drive community dynamics, support biodiversity and ecosystem health [19]. Thus, species should not be considered in isolation, and understanding the associations within marine communities is critical to implementing effective conservation and management [5, 18, 20]. Studies that incorporate habitat-specific interactions provide an opportunity to unveil population-wide and long-term patterns into the spatial and behavioural ecology of marine fauna [20–23]. However, our understanding of marine symbionts remains limited due to the logistical challenges associated with studying complex associations in mobile organisms over large spatial scales [21, 24, 25].

Manta rays (Mobula alfredi, M. birostris) are large, filter-feeding batoid rays, with a pelagic existence. Mobula birostris has a circumglobal distribution, while M. alfredi has a semi-circumglobal distribution; both in tropical and subtropical waters [26–28]. They are characteristically slow to mature, have low fecundity, and exhibit migratory and aggregatory behaviours, rendering them significantly vulnerable to exploitation [26, 27]. Consequently, and because of targeted and bycatch fisheries, M. alfredi and M. birostris are classified as Vulnerable and Endangered on the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species, respectively [29–31]. Therefore, successful conservation of these species depends upon bridging knowledge gaps in their biology and ecology [28, 32].

The Maldives archipelago supports globally significant populations of both species of manta ray [27]. Here, coastal reef manta rays (M. alfredi) are commonly found throughout the archipelago, where they migrate east to west through the atolls during the transition into the Northeast (NE) Monsoon (December–March), and west to east during the onset of the Southwest (SW) Monsoon (April–November) [33]. These biannual seasonal migrations determine changes in aggregation site use, as well as the predominant behavioural activities exhibited by the highly philopatric M. alfredi [33, 34]. Unlike the local patterns of residency exhibited by M. alfredi, oceanic manta rays (M. birostris) are only sighted with regularity in the Maldives’ southernmost atolls of Addu and Fuvahmulah, and only for a few months each year (March–April) during the transition from the NE to the SW Monsoon [27, 35]. These southern Maldives sites are in close proximity to deep-water [27]; habitat where this species is often encountered throughout its range [36, 37]. Re-sighting rates of individuals remain extremely low, which, combined with the seasonality of sightings, suggests a large transient population which utilises habitat away from the reef systems of the Maldives. Where the Maldives M. birostris originate from, or travel to, remains unknown [35].

Manta rays are often observed in association with hitchhiker fish species, such as the golden trevally (Gnathanodon speciosus) and members of the remora family (Echeneidae) that closely follow (within 1 m) or attach themselves to their manta ray host [15, 23]. It has been suggested that hitchhiking behaviour evolved as a means to gain protection from predation, enhance foraging opportunities, increase locomotor efficiency, and increase encounters with conspecifics [15, 17, 38–42]. However, investigations into these hitchhiker associations are limited, and the links between interspecific interactions are sensitive to the abiotic environment in which they occur [5, 43, 44].

Here, we explore the spatial and temporal variation in the presence of hitchhikers with M. alfredi and M. birostris throughout the Maldives and investigate the factors which may influence association. This study aims to improve our ecological understanding of interactions between manta rays and their hitchhikers by highlighting how these associations are structured, and what the drivers of the associations might be [11].

Materials and methods

Study area

The Maldives archipelago is comprised of 26 geographical coral atolls and approximately 2,000 islands situated predominantly in the northern Indian Ocean (Fig 1) [45]. The research was carried out under permit from the Maldives’ government (annually renewable permit: PA/2020/PSR-M07).

Fig 1 — Diagram shows the 26 geographical atolls illustrated in green.

Manta ray sightings and hitchhiker species

The unique ventral body pigmentation of each manta ray enables individuals to be distinguished from one-another using a photo-identification (photo-ID) catalogue of the ventral surface of the rays [26, 27, 46]. A manta ray sighting was defined as a confirmed photo-ID of an individual manta ray on a given day at a specific location. Surveys were performed via SCUBA or freediving by trained Manta Trust staff (www.mantatrust.org) and citizen science contributors between 1987–2019. Surveys were carried out across the whole archipelago throughout the year, of all study years, although known M. alfredi and M. birostris aggregation sites were surveyed most frequently, creating some sampling bias.

Where possible each manta ray was identified to species [47], and the sex and maturity status (adult, subadult, juvenile) of each was recorded during the dive/snorkel. For each sighting, the pregnancy status (an estimate of trimester) and primary behavioural activity (cleaning, feeding, courtship, cruising, or breaching) were also recorded [27, 48]. Thereafter, two-step verification and further sighting details were determined through assessment of the image/s by trained staff using the methods described in Stevens [27], and Peel et al. [49]. For this study, manta ray sightings were removed from the analysis if the sex or maturity status of the ray could not be determined.

The presence, number, and species of hitchhikers associated with each manta ray sighting were recorded during the dive/snorkel, and verified by visual analysis of all photo-ID images (Fig 2), using FishBase to determine species identification [50]. The conspicuous colour, patterns and behaviour of cleaner fish (Labridae) enabled them to be clearly distinguished from the hitchhiker species [51]. Identified sharksucker remora (Echeneis naucrates) were further classified as either adults (>20 cm) or juveniles (≤20 cm) based on visual estimates against the host size [39], as well as differences between their colour and body patterns (Fig 2). Any hitchhiker species which could not be identified (due to poor image quality), were removed from the analysis. Each site utilised by M. alfredi was classified by site function (feeding area, cleaning station or cruising area) based on the predominant behaviour observed at the location [34]. Almost all M. birostris observed were cruising, therefore no site function was investigated.

Fig 2 — (A) black trevally (*Caranx lugubris*), (B) bluefin trevally (*Caranx melampygus*), (C) giant trevally (*Caranx ignobilis*), (D) golden trevally (*Gnathanodon speciosus*), (E) pilot fish (*Naucrates doctor*), (F) rainbow runner (*Elagatis bipinnulata*), (G) sharksucker remora (*Echeneis naucrates*) (juvenile inset), (H) giant remora (*Remora remora*), (I) little remora (*Remora albescens*), (J) cobia (*Rachycentron canadum*), (K) red snapper (*Lutjanus bohar*), and (L) Chinese trumpetfish (*Aulostomus chinensis*). All images © The Manta Trust.

Data analysis

Variations in hitchhiker observations

Manta ray (M. alfredi and M. birostris) sightings and the total number of sightings where associated hitchhiker species were observed were summarised. To investigate variations in the total number of the most frequently observed hitchhiker species present with M. alfredi, the difference in the daily mean number of each hitchhiker species (number of sightings / number of hitchhiker species observed) was compared among manta ray sex and pregnancy stage (male, non-pregnant female, 2^nd trimester pregnant female, 3^rd trimester pregnant female, and 4^th trimester pregnant female), season (NE or SW Monsoon), maturity status (adult, subadult, and juvenile), and site function (cleaning station, feeding area, cruising area). For M. birostris, categories included sex (male or female), season, and maturity status. Due to unequal sample sizes, and violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption, a Welch’s ANOVA was used followed by a Games-Howell post-hoc test using the ‘oneway.test’ function of the ‘Rmisc’ R package, and ‘oneway’ function of the ‘userfriendlyscience’ R package, respectively [52].

Spatial and temporal variation in hitchhiker presence

Spatial variation in the presence of the most frequently observed hitchhiker species with M. alfredi (adult and juvenile E. naucrates) were investigated by mapping the percentage of sightings at each site (grouped by site function) where the hitchhiker species was present (total number of sightings where hitchhikers were observed / total number of sightings at the site) in ArcGIS 10.7. Any sites with a total of nine or fewer sightings (213 sites) were excluded to reduce the bias a low number of sightings may have on analysis.

Temporal variation in the presence of adult and juvenile E. naucrates with M. alfredi was investigated using monthly time series. This series incorporated the period with the greatest number of sightings (2008–2019) to provide a suitable period from which to visualise trends (i.e., seasonality). The monthly total number of sightings were corrected for survey effort by calculating the mean monthly number of manta rays observed per survey (monthly total manta ray sightings / monthly total number of surveys).

Generalised linear mixed models

Logistic generalised linear mixed models (GLMM) using R v4.0.0 [52] were used to investigate relationships between the presence of the most frequently observed hitchhiker species (adult and juvenile E. naucrates, G. speciosus, and Lutjanus bohar) with M. alfredi and four explanatory variables: sex with pregnancy status, maturity status, site function (determined by the predominant behaviour observed at the site [34]), and seasonality (NE or SW Monsoon). Due to the low number of recorded associations between M. alfredi and most of the hitchhiker species, only those with sufficient data were included in the GLMM analysis. The same model was used for Remora remora (the most frequently observed hitchhiker species with M. birostris), but without site function, and sex was classified only as male or female as pregnancies were only observed during four sightings. Each GLMM was fitted with a logit link function to the binary response of hitchhiker species presence (1) and absence (0) using the ‘lme4’ R package [53]. Each model contained the manta-ID as a random intercept to account for any temporal autocorrelation arising from individual rays being repeatedly observed [54]. To compare the relative goodness-of-fit, GLMM models without random effects (GLM) were tested. To reliably estimate the parameters, categories of variables with levels observed equal to or less than five times were removed. For example, under the category behavioural activity, the level ‘breaching’ was observed on less than five occasions, so was removed from analysis. The most informative explanatory variables were identified by firstly testing GLMM models with all combinations of explanatory variables. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to test models for multicollinearity; the maximum VIF was <1.5. Model performance was assessed using corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) test statistic [55] using the ‘MuMin’ R package [56], and the DHARMa R package [57] was used to check the model residuals were normally distributed. The highest-ranking models (with the lowest AICc value, S1 Table) for each hitchhiker species were then interpreted in terms of odds ratios (ORs) (the likelihood of the presence of the hitchhiker species in comparison with the reference category). Any models with ΔAICc <2 were considered in interpretation of the highest-ranking model [55]. The significance of each explanatory variable was determined by the 95% confidence interval (CI) of OR, whereby a narrower CI indicates a more precise estimation while, in comparison, a wider CI which had a greater uncertainty. A CI that crossed one is considered non-significant. Any ORs with p > 0.05 are not reported.

Results

Reef manta ray (M. alfredi) sightings and associated hitchhiker species (1987–2019)

A total of 4901 M. alfredi were individually identified [male = 2442 (50%), female = 2459 (50%)] during a total of 72912 sightings, of which 44071 (60%) were of females [adult = 25700 (58%), juvenile = 18371 (42%)] and 28841 (40%) were males [adult = 25968 (90%), subadult = 1443 (5%), juvenile = 1430 (5%)]. All sightings occurred across 353 sites, of which 95 (27%) were cleaning stations [sightings = 24034 (33%)], 53 (15%) were cruising areas [sightings = 129 (0%)], and 205 (58%) feeding areas [sightings = 48749 (67%)].

Twelve different species of hitchhiker were identified with M. alfredi (Table 1 and Fig 3). The most frequently observed hitchhiker species with M. alfredi was E. naucrates. Adult E. naucrates were observed with M. alfredi during 7189 (10%) of the total sightings, and juveniles during 756 (1%) sightings.

Table 1. Summary of hitchhiker species observed with manta rays.

Manta ray species	Hitchhiker species	Total no. hitchhiker individuals observed	No. ray sightings when observed	Max no. observed per sighting	Mean no. per sighting ±SD
Mobula alfredi	Caranx melampygus	53	44	9	1.2 ± 1.2
	Caranx ignobilis	26	26	1	1 ± 0
	Gnathanodon speciosus	1176	536	29	2.1 ± 3.2
	Naucrates doctor	9	6	3	1.5 ± 0.8
	Elagatis bipinnulata	28	25	3	1.2 ± 0.4
	Echeneis naucrates	16549	8211	24	2 ± 1.4
	Echeneis naucrates (juv.)	1025	967	4	1.1 ± 0.3
	Remora remora	1	1	1	1
	Remora albescens	41	40	2	1 ± 0.2
	Rachycentron canadum	18	18	1	1 ± 0
	Lutjanus bohar	247	228	3	1.1 ± 0.3
	Aulostomus chinensis	3	3	1	1 ± 0
Mobula birostris	Caranx lugubris	31	25	3	1.2 ± 0.5
	Naucrates doctor	9	1	9	9
	Echeneis naucrates	6	2	3	3 ± 0
	Echeneis naucrates (juv.)	2	2	1	1 ± 0
	Remora remora	582	398	3	1.5 ± 0.5

Open in a new tab

Total and mean number of hitchhikers observed with Mobula alfredi between 1987–2019 (total sightings = 72912) and Mobula birostris between 1996–2019 (total sightings = 726).

Fig 3 — The total number of sightings where each identified hitchhiker species (n = 12) was observed with *Mobula alfredi* (black) or M. *birostris* (grey). A (10+1) transformation was used for better visualisation of the data.

Variations in hitchhiker associations with reef manta rays (M. alfredi)

Due to the low number of recorded associations between M. alfredi and most of the hitchhiker species, only E. naucrates was investigated further here.

Adult sharksucker remora (E. naucrates)

When present, the number of adult E. naucrates associated with M. alfredi ranged between one and twenty-four individuals per sighting. There was a significant difference in the daily mean number of adult E. naucrates associated with M. alfredi between manta ray sex and pregnancy stage (F_{4, 1302} = 102.6, p < 0.001). The highest mean number of E. naucrates occurred with female M. alfredi in their 4^th trimester of pregnancy; significantly higher (p < 0.001) than with males, non-pregnant females, and 2^nd trimester pregnant females (Fig 4). There was also a significant difference between maturity status categories (F_{2, 3280} = 123.1, p < 0.001), where the highest mean number of E. naucrates were observed with adults, which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than with subadults and juveniles (Fig 4). The total mean number of adult E. naucrates with M. alfredi was also significantly different between site functions (F_{2, 1223} = 222.1, p < 0.001), which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) at cleaning stations and cruising areas than at feeding areas (Fig 4). The total mean number of adult E. naucrates associated with M. alfredi was also significantly different during each season (F_{1, 6431} = 155.7, p < 0.001), with more E. naucrates associated with M. alfredi during the NE Monsoon (p < 0.001) (Fig 4).

Fig 4 — Each category is coloured as per legend with group name below each bar. Letters above each bar correspond to those in brackets after the group name and indicate the groups with a significant difference (p < 0.001).

Juvenile sharksucker remora (E. naucrates)

When present, the number of juvenile E. naucrates associated with M. alfredi ranged between one and four individuals per sighting. There was a significant difference in the daily mean number of juvenile E. naucrates observed between manta ray sex and pregnancy stage (F_{4, 1496} = 19.7, p < 0.001). The highest daily mean number of juveniles occurred with male M. alfredi, which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than pregnant females (Fig 5). There was a significant difference in the maturity status category (F_{2, 2661} = 15.6, p < 0.001), where the highest mean number of juvenile E. naucrates were observed with juvenile M. alfredi; significantly higher than with adults (p < 0.001). The mean number of juvenile E. naucrates associated with M. alfredi was also significantly different between site functions (F_{2, 1204} = 30.3, p < 0.001), with a significantly higher (p < 0.001) amount at feeding areas than at cleaning stations. The daily mean number of juvenile E. naucrates associated with M. alfredi was also significantly different during each season (F_{1, 5828} = 19.3, p < 0.001), with a significantly higher number of E. naucrates associated with M. alfredi during the NE Monsoon (p < 0.001).

Fig 5 — Each category is coloured as per legend with group name below each bar. Letters above each bar correspond to those in brackets after the group name and indicate the groups with a significant difference (p < 0.001).

Spatial and temporal variation in hitchhiker presence

There was a total of 72361 sightings across 149 sites which had ten or more manta ray sightings; 23926 (33%) occurred at cleaning stations where E. naucrates were present during 4474 (19%) of observations, and 48435 (67%) occurred at feeding areas where E. naucrates were present during 2641 (5%) of observations. The highest percentage of E. naucrates presence by atoll occurred within Meemu (40%), North Malé (27%), and Ari (27%) Atolls. The sites with the highest percentage of E. naucrates present were Maayafushi Falhu (60%), a feeding area in Ari Atoll, at Rangali Madivaru (50%), a cleaning station in Ari Atoll, and at Delidhoo (50%), a cleaning station in Thiladhunmathi Atoll. Echeneis naucrates were not observed with M. alfredi at 25 sites, 17 of which are feeding areas (total sightings = 1512) and 8 were cleaning stations (total sightings = 266). The mean percentage of E. naucrates present by site function was 11.6±12.2% at feeding areas, and 12.8±14.4% at cleaning stations (Fig 6).

Fig 6 — Includes feeding areas and cleaning stations with > 10 E. *naucrates* sightings.

The proportion of adult E. naucrates observed with M. alfredi was highest during the NE Monsoon, typically from January to March, at which time the lowest monthly mean number of M. alfredi sightings occurred (Fig 7). There was no seasonal pattern observed in the presence of juvenile E. naucrates with M. alfredi.

Fig 7 — The total monthly number of *Mobula alfredi* sightings 2008–2019, and the percentage of those that had *Echeneis naucrates* associations.

Reef manta ray (M. alfredi) generalised linear mixed models

Adult sharksucker remora (E. naucrates)

The highest ranking GLMM for E. naucrates contained all four predictors (site function, sex, maturity, and season) (S1 Table). The model (Fig 8) suggests that E. naucrates were most likely to be present with M. alfredi at cleaning stations, which were 49% more likely than at feeding areas (OR = 0.51). This hitchhiker species was also most likely to be present on females in their 4^th trimester of pregnancy (OR = 2.6), which was 160% higher than non-pregnant females (reference category), while males (OR = 0.59) were 41% less likely to have E. naucrates hitchhikers than non-pregnant females. Echeneis naucrates were least likely to be present on juvenile M. alfredi (OR = 0.67), which were 31% less likely to have this hitchhiker species than adults (reference category). The GLMM also indicates that the likelihood of E. naucrates presence with M. alfredi was highest during the NE Monsoon (reference category), which was 25% more likely than during the SW Monsoon (OR = 0.75).

Juvenile sharksucker remora (E. naucrates)

The highest ranking GLMM for juvenile E. naucrates contained all four predictors (site function, sex, maturity, and season). The model (Fig 8) suggests that juvenile E. naucrates were most likely to be present with M. alfredi at feeding areas (OR = 2.08), which was 108% more likely than at cleaning stations (reference category). Juvenile E. naucrates were also more likely to be present on juvenile M. alfredi (OR = 2.37), which were 137% more likely to have this hitchhiker group than adults (reference category). Male M. alfredi (OR = 1.59) were 59% more likely than females to have juvenile E. naucrates present, and juvenile E. naucrates were least likely to be present with M. alfredi during the SW Monsoon (OR = 0.63); 37% less likely than during the NE Monsoon (reference category).

Red snapper (L. bohar)

The highest ranking GLMM for L. bohar (Fig 8) contained one significant predictor (site function) and suggests that the species were most likely to be present with M. alfredi at cleaning stations (reference category), which was 100% more likely than at feeding areas (OR = 0). There was one model with ΔAICc <2 (S1 Table), which was the same as the highest-ranking model with the addition of season, but this predictor was non-significant (p>0.05).

Golden trevally (G. speciosus)

The highest ranking GLMM for G. speciosus contained two significant predictors (site function and maturity status). Gnathanodon speciosus were most likely to be present with M. alfredi at cleaning stations (reference category), which was 22% more likely than at feeding areas (OR = 0.78) (Fig 8). There were two models with ΔAICc <2 (S1 Table). One of these models contained the same predictors as the highest-ranking model with the addition of season, but this predictor was non-significant (p>0.05). The other model contained only the predictor maturity status, which suggested G. speciosus were more likely to be present on juvenile M. alfredi (OR = 1.5), which were 55% more likely to have this hitchhiker species than adults (reference category).

Oceanic manta ray (M. birostris) sightings and associated hitchhiker species

A total of 663 M. birostris were individually identified [male = 363 (55%), female = 300 (45%)] during a total of 726 sightings, of which 329 were females [adult = 237 (72%), subadult = 24 (7%), juvenile = 68 (21%)] and 397 were males [adult = 371 (93%), subadult = 24 (6%), juvenile = 2 (1%)]. All sightings occurred across 39 sites, of which, 642 (88%) occurred at Fuvahmulah Atoll, and 662 (91%) occurred during the months of March and April, straddling the transition between the NE and SW Monsoons. Mobula birostris were observed exhibiting cleaning [sightings = 8 (1%)], cruising [sightings = 681 (94%)], feeding [sightings = 10 (1%)], and courtship behaviour [sightings = 27 (4%)].

Five different hitchhiker species were identified associated with M. birostris (Table 1 and Fig 3). The most frequently observed hitchhiker species was R. remora, which was observed with M. birostris during 397 (55%) sightings.

Variations in hitchhiker associations with oceanic manta rays (M. birostris)

Due to the low number of recorded associations between M. birostris and most of the hitchhiker species, only R. remora was investigated further here.

When present, the number of R. remora associated with M. birostris ranged between one and three individuals per sighting. The highest daily mean number of R. remora occurred with female M. birostris, which was significantly higher than males (F_{1, 233} = 12.7, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences for M. birostris maturity status, or between seasons (Fig 9).

Fig 9 — Each category is coloured as per legend with group name below each bar. Letters above each bar correspond to those in brackets after the group name and indicate the groups with a significant difference (p < 0.001).

Oceanic manta ray (M. birostris) generalised linear mixed models

Remora remora were most likely to be present with female M. birostris (reference category); 41% (OR = 0.59) more likely than with males (Fig 8), and they were more likely to be present during the SW Monsoon which was 49% higher (OR = 1.49) than during the NE Monsoon (reference category) (Fig 8). There were two models with ΔAICc <2 (S1 Table). Both models contained the same predictors as the highest-ranking model (sex and season) with the addition of maturity status. This GLMM model suggests R. remora may also be most likely to be present with adult M. birostris (reference category); 47% (OR = 0.53) more likely than with juveniles.

Discussion

A variation in the species of hitchhiker associated with M. alfredi and M. birostris was identified, with E. naucrates and R. remora being the most common, respectively. Spatiotemporal variation in the presence of manta rays was identified as a driver for the occurrence of ephemeral hitchhiker associations, and for the first time, associations between M. alfredi and M. birostris with hitchhiker species other than those belonging to the family Echeneidae are described.

Reef manta ray (M. alfredi)

Twelve hitchhiker species were observed associating with M. alfredi, of these, E. naucrates was by far the most frequent. The Echeneidae family are well-known for their hitchhiking behaviour on large-bodied vertebrates [23, 39, 41]. The relationship with their hosts is generally considered mutualistically symbiotic, as most remora species spend all their post-larval life in close association with their hosts, eating their ectoparasites in return for a range of benefits [15, 39, 40, 58]. However, the degree of host specificity and the nature of the association has been shown to vary along the symbiotic continuum (mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism), and the importance of this host food source varies between remora species and at different life stages [1, 25, 38, 39]. Recent investigations into the echeneid-host association also suggest that there may be significant costs incurred by the host, such as persistent damage and scarring from the adhesive disc by which the remoras attach themselves to their hosts, as well as deforming injuries when smaller-sized remoras force themselves through the gill slits and other body openings of their mobulid host [15, 23, 59].

Echeneis naucrates is a neritic species that is presumed to be physiologically unable to remain attached to their host when they dive at depth [15, 22, 58]. Mobula alfredi in the Maldives and elsewhere throughout their range are known to undertake regular dives below 200 m, presumably to forage on prey within the deep-scattering layer [33, 60–63]. Consequently, we suggest E. naucrates associations with their M. alfredi hosts are often ephemeral, with adults spending significant periods of time free-swimming, re-associating with a host upon their return to the remora’s habitat [15, 58]. Given other hosts of adult E. naucrates are also known to make regular dives below the Neritic Zone [64, 65], it is likely associations with these hosts are also ephemeral. Indeed, it is unknown what percentage of their adult lives E. naucrates spend away from their hosts, but it is not uncommon for this species to be observed free-swimming, or resting on the seabed in groups, during reef dives in the Maldives (Stevens, pers. obs.).

Echeneis naucrates associations with M. alfredi varied significantly depending on host sex, pregnancy state, and maturity status. Associations also varied significantly depending on the function of the observation site and the season within which the sighting occurred. Echeneis naucrates were significantly more likely to be associated with female M. alfredi than males, and with M. alfredi at cleaning stations. Previous studies have demonstrated that female M. alfredi are significantly more likely to be sighted at cleaning stations than males [27, 66]. Cleaning stations are predominantly located on shallow reefs or in lagoons [27]; suitable habitat for the neritic E. naucrates [58]. Therefore, more frequent utilisation of cleaning stations by female M. alfredi provides greater opportunity for an association to occur, and the more time spent at these sites, the greater the opportunity for a higher total number of associations to occur. In contrast, many shallow M. alfredi feeding sites in the Maldives, and elsewhere, are situated in atoll channels which are adjacent to deep-water areas, where it is hypothesised M. alfredi forage prior to shallow-water feeding events [67]. As E. naucrates may be physiologically unable to remain associated with M. alfredi when they travel to these deep-water locations, the likelihood of association during subsequent shallow-water feeding is reduced [15, 67].

Near-term pregnant female M. alfredi had the highest likelihood of an association, and the highest mean number of E. naucrates associates per individual; consistent with a previous preliminary study in the region [68]. The study suggested these increased associations were a result of thermoregulatory advantages gained by pregnant M. alfredi occupying warm-water habitat for longer periods during late-term gestation to reduce gestation times [15, 68], a common behaviour documented in other elasmobranchs [69–71]. If this hypothesis is correct, it would explain, in part, why female M. alfredi generally are recorded more frequently at cleaning stations than males. And as stated above, the longer the continuous period an individual M. alfredi spends in suitable E. naucrates habitat, the greater the chance of an association/s occurring.

A seasonal reproductive strategy, something which has been observed in both captive [72] and wild-caught E. naucrates [22], is typically adopted by species whose access to resources, such as prey and host availability, is uncertain; aiming to maximise juvenile recruitment [22, 73]. Bachman et al. [22] highlighted that hitchhiker behaviour in terrestrial arthropods predicts that host association restricts mate selection, reproduction, and location. Therefore, echeneid population dynamics are likely to be strongly influenced by the ecology and availability of their hosts. For juvenile E. naucrates, host parasitic copepods comprise a more integral part of their diet than that of an adult [38], and juvenile remoras that are not attached to a host may be exposed to unsuitable environments and increased predation risk [58]. During the current study, juvenile E. naucrates were more likely to be associated with juvenile M. alfredi, most likely because juvenile manta rays spend most of their time in protected lagoons and other shallow water nursery habitats [27, 66], increasing the chance of long-term associations between the two species for reasons already discussed in this study. Thus, juvenile manta rays are likely to provide a more suitable host for the juvenile remoras that require continual host associations in shallow water to survive to adulthood [22, 27, 58]. The obligate symbiosis of juvenile E. naucrates with their hosts may then transition to a more facultative relationship in adult remoras [22, 58].

Associations between E. naucrates and M. alfredi were also significantly higher during the NE Monsoon; the first record of a seasonal trend in E. naucrates host association. The higher association rate during the NE Monsoon may potentially be associated with the suppression of primary productivity, which peaks during the Maldives’ SW Monsoon [33, 34]. As proposed sites of behavioural thermoregulation and predator avoidance [15, 27], cleaning stations may be utilised more during periods of lower primary productivity to conserve energy and reduce risk of predation. Thus, the greater period a manta ray spends within such habitat, the greater chance of an association occurring with a E. naucrates. However, greater abundances of large skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) have been observed in the Maldives in the less productive NE Monsoon [33]. This led Anderson et al. [33] to suggest that there may be an increase in primary productivity at this time associated with a deep chlorophyll maximum (DCM) that is not visible to the satellite technology (SeaWiFS) which records the high SW Monsoon productivity. Manta rays are poikilothermic, with an optimal thermal temperature of 20–26°C, but can endure colder temperatures for short periods due to a counter-current heat-exchange mechanisms [63, 74]. This physiological adaption enables manta rays to forage on zooplankton blooms within the deep-scattering layer, and down to depths of over 672 metres and temperatures of 7.6°C [63]. If Anderson et al. [33] hypothesis is correct, basking in warmer shallow waters during the NE Monsoon, at sites like cleaning stations, prior to and post deep forays may enable manta rays to physiologically prepare for, and recover from, the large metabolic costs incurred from such deep foraging bouts [63, 75]. This behavioural thermoregulation has also been used to explain why the spinetail devil ray (Mobula mobular) [76], the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) [75], and tuna species return to shallow habitats after deep dives [77]. To support this hypothesis, more data on the diving behaviour and habitat use of manta ray in the Maldives is required, utilising camera-mounted and satellite tracking technologies, along with chlorophyll-α measurements, to address this question.

Considering the ecology of both the host and the symbiont, the results of this study suggest that the patterns of association between E. naucrates and M. alfredi are most likely driven by the spatiotemporal variation in presence of manta rays in the sharksucker’s habitat. The overlap in species habitat-use at cleaning sites and within sheltered lagoons, particularly during the NE Monsoon, provides an explanation for why near-term pregnant female M. alfredi have the greatest likelihood of associating with adult E. naucrates, and why juvenile M. alfredi have the greatest likelihood of associating with juvenile E. naucrates.

Here, for the first time, associations between M. alfredi and hitchhiker species, other than those belonging to the family Echeneidae, are described. In reef fish systems, follower-feeding associations are influential on the structure of surrounding reef communities [11]. Competitive life in reef habitats brings about short-term associations to obtain food [11–13]. However, many ephemeral interactions between small teleost’s and megafauna species, such as the one described here in the introduction between R. canadum and R. bonasus [16], are yet to be investigated. Considering the carnivorous feeding ecology of many of the non-echeneid hitchhikers identified here, such as the black (Caranx lugubris), bluefin (C. melampygus) [78], and giant (C. ignobilis) trevallies [79], as well as the rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata) [80], cobia (Rachycentron canadum) [16], red snapper (Lutjanus bohar) [81], and Chinese trumpetfish (Aulostomus chinensis) [82], it is likely these associates also opportunistically utilise the body of the manta ray to get near their prey [11–13, 82]. An observation supported by the authors in the field during this study for all the aforementioned species.

Several of the other hitchhiker associations with M. alfredi, such as the golden trevally (Gnathanodon speciosus) and the pilot fish (Naucrates doctor), are likely to be driven primarily by the advantage of the shelter provided by the host [14, 15]. In the case of G. speciosus, these associations only last until the juveniles are large enough to survive by themselves [15, 83]. Aside from N. doctor (which was only sighted with M. alfredi on six occasions during the study), all the non-remora hitchhiker species identified are neritic reef-dwellers [17, 84]. Therefore, there are likely to be more opportunities for associations to form between these species and M. alfredi than with the predominantly oceanic M. birostris [37]. This hypothesis is supported by the results of the GLMM models, which predicted the greatest chance of association rates between M. alfredi, L. bohar and G. speciosus at cleaning stations. Furthermore, as with juvenile E. naucrates, juvenile G. speciosus were significantly more likely to be associated with juvenile M. alfredi. The models also suggest that maturity status might be more influential than site function as one model with ΔAICc <2 contained only the predictor maturity status. It is possible the juvenile manta rays are similarly providing a more suitable host for the juvenile trevallies, which may also require continual host associations in shallow water to survive to adulthood [15, 27]. All of the non-echeneid hitchhiker species identified are considered to engage in commensalism, as they obtain benefits whilst their mobulid host receives neither benefits or harm from the association [1, 15–18, 83]. Overall, the hitchhiker species which associated most with M. alfredi reflect the characteristic assemblage of species that occupy the habitat where the host spends time [21].

The lower number of associations of non-echeneid hitchhiker species with M. alfredi could be a result of the analysis techniques used in this study, as sightings images were primarily focused on the ventral surface of the ray (to get a suitable photo-ID), but species such as G. speciosus often reside around the head of their host, exhibiting ‘piloting’ behaviour [15, 83]. Similar sampling bias is also likely to explain the low number of sightings where little remora (Remora albescens) were present (n = 40) in this study [15]. This cryptic and poorly studied remora species was rarely observed outside the body of the manta rays. However, opportunistic visual inspection inside the buccal cavity of feeding adult M. alfredi by the authors during the study often revealed a pair of this species attached to the upper cavity. Therefore, most associations between these two species during this study were probably missed but were likely common.

Oceanic manta ray (M. birostris)

Five hitchhiker species were found to be associated with M. birostris. Of these, R. remora was by far the most frequently observed, unlike in M. alfredi, where only one association was recorded between these two species during this study. And unlike the M. alfredi and adult E. naucrates association, the symbiosis between M. birostris and R. remora appears long-term, with the remora rarely, if at all, leaving the protection of its host [15, 23, 38], even when feeding at 130–140 m depth [37]. Previous examination of the diet data revealed that parasitic copepods comprise a crucial part of the R. remora diet, but that the importance decreases as the remora increases in size [25, 38, 39]. Despite this, the obligate nature of R. remora, like that of juvenile E. naucrates [58], further suggests that echeneid population dynamics are influenced by the distribution patterns of its host [22, 58].

In Mexico’s Revillagigedo Archipelago’s National Park, where the only other peer-reviewed study of manta hitchhiker associations has been undertaken, Becerril-García et al. [23] found no association between the total number of R. remora, M. birostris sex, morphotype, and month of the year. As a result, it was suggested that the presence of remoras could be influenced by the level of host ectoparasites, population size, diving behaviour, and surrounding environmental conditions. In the present study, a mean number of 1.5 ± 0.5 R. remora were observed per M. birostris sighting. In Mexico, a mean number of 1.6 ± 0.6 R. remora attached to each manta were observed [23], in Peru there has been a sighting of eleven echeneids associated with a single M. birostris [85], and at Isla de la Plata in Ecuador, as many as 40 individual R. remora have been recorded associating with a singe M. birostris (Guerrero, pers. comm.; Harty pers. comm.). Indeed, at Isla de la Plata, large numbers of R. remora are frequently associated with their manta hosts. Regional ecological variations between M. birostris populations, as well as the surrounding environmental conditions, are likely to be influencing the presence of R. remora. The significant differences in R. remora association rates recorded between male and female M. birostris in this study may also be linked to either foraging or reproductive strategies [35], although much more knowledge of M. birostris habitat use and behavioural ecology is required to address this hypothesis satisfactorily. Therefore, research into the ecological variations within and between M. birostris populations is a topic worthy of future research and could reveal valuable insight into the ecology of both the host and the symbiont [23].

Due to logistical constraints, accurate size data on the sighted manta rays during this study was rarely collected. Therefore, variation in manta ray disc width (DW) and hitchhiker presence was not investigated here. However, future directed studies could investigate DW (i.e., the sexual dimorphism between male and female manta rays) as a potential further pattern of association. Furthermore, the potential hosts costs and benefits of different echeneid densities remains relatively unexplored [59]. Research into these factors could also provide further insight into the patterns of association identified within the current study.

Unlike E. naucrates, R. remora frequently attach themselves to the dorsal surface of a manta ray (Stevens, pers. obs.). However, despite their locality, these large remoras where often still visible in the images because their heads or tails protruded from the edge of the host’s body due to their favoured attachment positioning. Nonetheless, as the photo-ID images collected in this study were primarily focused on the ventral surface of the rays, the presence of some R. remora were likely to have been missed. Future studies into associations between these two species should attempt to collect both ventral and dorsal imagery to address this methodological weakness.

Despite biological associations often being one of the first components of biodiversity to be altered by abiotic change, the associations between interacting species are often overlooked in regard to our changing world [5, 43, 86]. Disconcertingly, the climatic crisis and other anthropogenic threats in the Maldives are becoming increasingly apparent, with weakening monsoon winds, rising sea surface temperatures and levels, reef degradation, overfishing and habitat destruction all effecting the resilience of the ecosystems and the life they support [45, 87–89]. Changes in the Maldives environment determines the spatial and temporal variation in the presence and behaviour of manta rays [33, 34], which in turn drives ephemeral hitchhiker associations. This is an important consideration because the fitness benefits, and the degree of dependency between hitchhikers and manta rays, remain unknown, while declines in host species may alter hitchhiker populations [22, 58]. Research has already identified the potential for a reduction in the stability and pervasiveness of cleaner-client interactions under environmental change [90]. Thus, it begs the question of how stable hitchhiker associations will be under increasingly unstable environmental conditions [44, 91]. Therefore, an enhanced effort to document and understand these symbiotic interactions is critical.

Conclusions

Manta rays provide a midwater habitat for a broad range of species that require the protection and sustenance these hosts afford [15, 22, 23, 68]. The current study identified a variation in the species of hitchhiker associated with M. alfredi and M. birostris, with E. naucrates and R. remora being the most common, respectively. Patterns of association in the presence of a range of hitchhiker species were identified, with spatiotemporal variation in the presence of manta rays acting as a driver for the occurrence of ephemeral hitchhiker associations. Of particular interest, near-term pregnant female M. alfredi, and M. alfredi at cleaning stations had the highest likelihood of an association with adult E. naucrates. Juvenile E. naucrates were more likely to be associated with juvenile M. alfredi, and a seasonal trend in E. naucrates host association was identified. Until now, these interactions have remained undocumented or briefly addressed in the literature.

Given the rapid pace at which anthropogenic activities are altering oceans worldwide, significant effort should be aimed at understanding these associations [5, 92]. The current study intends to serve as a basis for a deeper understanding of the symbiotic relationships and other associations which occur between manta rays and their hitchhikers, which in turn we hope will ultimately elucidate our knowledge of both the host and the hosted in a more ecologically meaningful way.

Further research of hitchhikers in different manta ray populations is warranted to evaluate whether the associations and structures found within the Maldives apply to other geographic locations, as well as understanding the drivers of the association more holistically. While it could be said that these hitchhikers are just along for the ride, they could also play a valuable role in the ecological understanding and conservation of such economically valuable and vulnerable species.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Summary of AICc relative goodness of fit metric values from the GLMM modelling procedure.

Includes all combinations of explanatory variales for each hitchhiker species identified with Mobula alfredi and M. birostris.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(95.2KB, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

We thank the Manta Trust’s resort and dive operator partners in the Maldives for their overall support with the study. We thank all Manta Trust staff, students and volunteers in the Maldives (past and present, especially Tam Sawers), as well as the marine biologists, water sports and dive teams throughout the country who contributed huge amounts of photo-ID data to this study. We also thank Peter McGregor. Finally, the authors would like to thank all the members of the public who submitted images to the Manta Trust for this study. We could not have undertaken this work without all your help.

Data Availability

All sightings data used in this study is available from http://idthemanta-intg.eu-west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/home#!/home.

Funding Statement

Author who received the award: G M W Stevens. Funder: Save Our Seas Foundation https://saveourseas.com/. Funding for open access publication fee if accepted. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Dimijian GG. Evolving Together: The Biology of Symbiosis, Part 1. Baylor Univ Med Cent Proc. 2000;13. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2000.11927678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Dougal AE. Symbiotic interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-67-800-813 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Paracer S, Ahmadjian V. Symbiosis: an introduction to biological associations. 2^nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
4.Castro P. Animal symbioses in coral reef communities: a review. Symbiosis. 1988;5: 161–184. [Google Scholar]
5.Auster PJ, Estes JA, Coleman FC. Species interactions in marine communities: the invisible fabric of nature. Bull Mar Sci. 2013;89(1): 3–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305853111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Sheppard C, Davy S, Pilling G, Graham N. The Biology of Coral Reefs. 2^nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2018. doi: 10.1007/s00338-018-01737-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7.Fautin D. The anemonefish symbiosis: what is known and what is not. Symbiosis. 1991;10: 23–46. [Google Scholar]
8.Losey GS. The Ecological Importance of Cleaning Symbiosis. Copeia. 1972; 44: 820–833. doi: 10.2307/1442741 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Grossman A, Sazima C, Bellini C, Sazima I. Cleaning symbiosis between Hawksbill turtles and reef fishes at Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, off Northeast Brazil. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2006;5(2). doi: 10.2744/1071-8443(2006)5[284:CSBHTA]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Côté I. Evolution and Ecology of Cleaning Symbioses in the Sea. In: Barnes M, Gibson N, editors. Oceanography and Marine Biology: Biology: An Annual Review. CRC Press; 2000. pp. 311–355. [Google Scholar]
11.Inagaki KY, Mendes TC, Quimbayo JP, Cantor M, Sazima I. The structure of fish follower-feeding associations at three oceanic islands in southwestern Atlantic. Environ Biol Fishes. 2020;103(12): 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10641-019-00924-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.Sabino J, Andrade LP, Sazima I, Teresa F, Floeter SR, Sazima C, et al. Following fish feeding associations in marine and freshwater habitats. Mar Freshw Res. 2017;68(2): 381–387. doi: 10.1071/MF15294 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Pereira PHC, Feitosa JLL, Chaves LCT, De Araújo ME. Reef fish foraging associations: “Nuclear-follower” behavior or an ephemeral interaction? Proc 12^th Int Coral Reef Symp. 2012. [Google Scholar]
14.Magnuson JJ, Gooding RM. Color Patterns of Pilotfish (Naucrates ductor) and Their Possible Significance. Copeia. 1971;2: 314. doi: 10.2307/1442834 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Stevens G, Fernando D, Dando M, di Sciara GN. Guide to the Manta and Devil Rays of the World. Princeton University Press; 2018. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvs32s7t [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Michael S. Reef sharks and rays of the world. A guide to their identification, behaviour, and ecology. Monterey, California: Sea Challengers.; 1993. doi: 10.1017/s0025315400034998 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Vassilopoulou V, Siapatis A, Christides G, Bekas P. The biology and ecology of juvenile pilotfish (Naucrates ductor) associated with Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) in eastern Mediterranean waters. 2004;5(1) doi: 10.12681/mms.211 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Rico-Gray V. Interspecific Interaction. Encyl Life Sci. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2001. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0003280 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19.Simmons BI, Wauchope HS, Amano T, Dicks L V., Sutherland WJ, Dakos V. Vulnerable species interactions are important for the stability of mutualistic networks. bioRxiv. 2019. doi: 10.1101/604868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Armstrong AO, Armstrong AJ, Bennett MB, Richardson AJ, Townsend KA, Everett JD, et al. Mutualism promotes site selection in a large marine planktivore. Ecol Evol. 2021; 1–18. doi: 10.1002/ece3.7464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Pfaller JB, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Balazs GH, Ishihara T, Kopitsky K, Mangel JC, et al. Hitchhikers reveal cryptic host behavior: New insights from the association between Planes major and sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean. Mar Biol. 2014;161: 2167–2178. doi: 10.1007/s00227-014-2498-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Bachman BA, Kraus R, Peterson CT, Grubbs RD, Peters EC. Growth and reproduction of Echeneis naucrates from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. J Fish Biol. 2018;93: 755–758. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13790 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Becerril-García EE, Gutiérrez-Ortiz MA, Preciado-González PA, Ayala-Bocos A. Presence of Remora remora on Mobula birostris in Revillagigedo National Park, Mexico. Mar Freshw Res. 2020;71: 414–417. doi: 10.1071/MF19089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Graham RT, Witt MJ, Castellanos DW, Remolina F, Maxwell S, Godley BJ, et al. Satellite tracking of manta rays highlights challenges to their conservation. PLoS One. 2012;7(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036834 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Norman BM, Reynolds SD, Morgan DL. Three-way symbiotic relationships in whale sharks. Pacific Conserv Biol. 2021. doi: 10.1071/pc20043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26.Marshall A. Biology and Population Ecology of Manta birostris in Southern Mozambique. PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland. 2008. Available from: https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:160974
27.Stevens G. Conservation and Population Ecology of Manta Rays in the Maldives. PhD Thesis, The University of York. 2016. Available from: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16981/
28.Lawson JM, Fordham S V., O’Malley MP, Davidson LNK, Walls RHL, Heupel MR, et al. Sympathy for the devil: a conservation strategy for devil and manta rays. PeerJ. 2017;5. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Marshall A, Kashiwagi T, Bennett M, Deakos M, Stevens G, McGregor F, et al. Mobula alfredi (amended version of 2011 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2018; e. T195459A126665723 [Google Scholar]
30.Marshall A, Barreto R, Carlson J, Fernando D, Fordham S, Francis MP, et al. Mobula birostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2020; e.T198921A68632946 [Google Scholar]
31.Croll DA, Dewar H, Dulvy NK, Fernando D, Francis MP, Galván‐Magaña F, et al. Vulnerabilities and fisheries impacts: the uncertain future of manta and devil rays. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2016;26. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2591 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Stewart JD, Jaine FRA, Armstrong AJ, Armstrong AO, Bennett MB, Burgess KB, et al. Research Priorities to Support Effective Manta and Devil Ray Conservation. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00314 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Anderson RC, Adam MS, Goes JI. From monsoons to mantas: Seasonal distribution of Manta alfredi in the Maldives. Fish Oceanogr. 2011;20: 104–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2419.2011.00571.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Harris JL, McGregor PK, Oates Y, Stevens GMW. Gone with the wind: Seasonal distribution and habitat use by the reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) in the Maldives, implications for conservation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2020;30: 1649–1664. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3350 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Maldvian Manta Ray Project (MMRP). Oceanic Manta Ray Summary report 2019. The Manta Trust 2019. [cited 2020 November 18]. Available from: https://www.mantatrust.org/resources
36.Kashiwagi T, Marshall AD, Bennett MB, Ovenden JR. Habitat segregation and mosaic sympatry of the two species of manta ray in the Indian and Pacific Oceans: Manta alfredi and M. birostris. Mar Biodivers Rec. 2011;4: 1–8 doi: 10.1017/S1755267211000479 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Stewart JD, Beale CS, Fernando D, Sianipar AB, Burton RS, Semmens BX, et al. Spatial ecology and conservation of Manta birostris in the Indo-Pacific. Biol Conserv. 2016;200: 178–183. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
38.Cressey RF, Lachner EA. The Parasitic Copepod Diet and Life History of Diskfishes (Echeneidae). Source: Copeia. 1970;310–318. [Google Scholar]
39.O’Toole B. Phylogeny of the species of the superfamily Echeneoidea (Perciformes: Carangoidei: Echeneidae, Rachycentridae, and Coryphaenidae), with an interpretation of echeneid hitchhiking behaviour. Can J Zool. 2002;80: 596–623. doi: 10.1139/z02-031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40.Kenaley CP, Stote A, Ludt WB, Chakrabarty P. Comparative Functional and Phylogenomic Analyses of Host Association in the Remoras (Echeneidae), a Family of Hitchhiking Fishes. Integr Org Biol. 2019;1. doi: 10.1093/iob/obz007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Flammang BE, Marras S, Anderson EJ, Lehmkuhl O, Mukherjee A, Cade DE, et al. Remoras pick where they stick on blue whales. J Exp Biol. 2020;223. doi: 10.1242/jeb.226654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Solleliet-Ferreira S, Macena BCL, Laglbauer BJL, Sobral AF, Afonso P, Fontes J. Sicklefin devilray and common remora prey jointly on baitfish. Environ Biol Fishes. 2020;103: 993–1000. doi: 10.1007/s10641-020-00990-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Kordas RL, Harley CDG, O’Connor MI. Community ecology in a warming world: The influence of temperature on interspecific interactions in marine systems. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2011;400: 218–226. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2011.02.029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.Kronfeld-Schor N, Visser ME, Salis L, van Gils JA. Chronobiology of interspecific interactions in a changing world. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2017;372(1734). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Stevens G, Froman N. The Maldives Archipelago. 2^nd ed. In: Sheppard C, editor. World seas: an environmental evaluation: volume II: the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press; 2018. pp. 211–236. [Google Scholar]
46.Marshall AD, Pierce SJ. The use and abuse of photographic identification in sharks and rays. J Fish Biol. 2012;80(5): 1361–1379. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03244.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Marshall AD, Compagno L, Bennet M. Redescription of the genus Manta with resurrection of Manta alfredi (Krefft, 1868) (Chondrichthyes; Myliobatoidei; Mobulidae). Zootaxa. 2009;2301(1): 1–28. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.2301.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48.Stevens GMW, Hawkins JP, Roberts CM. Courtship and mating behaviour of manta rays Mobula alfredi and M. birostris in the Maldives. J Fish Biol. 2018;93: 344–359. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13768 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Peel LR, Stevens GMW, Daly R, Keating Daly CA, Collin SP, Nogués J, et al. Regional Movements of Reef Manta Rays (Mobula alfredi) in Seychelles Waters. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7: 1–17. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00548 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Froese R, Pauly D. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. 2020. [cited 2021 March 28]. Available from: http://www.fishbase.org. [Google Scholar]
51.Cheney KL, Grutter AS, Blomberg SP, Marshall NJ. Blue and Yellow Signal Cleaning Behavior in Coral Reef Fishes. Curr Biol. 2009;19: 1283–1287. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.R Development Core Team. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. In: Vienna, Austria: R Foundation Statistical Computing; [Internet]. 2018. [cited 2 Dec 2020]. Available: https://www.r-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
53.Bates AD, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Haubo R, Christensen B, et al. Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4 Package ‘lme4.’ 2020. [Google Scholar]
54.Millar RB, Anderson MJ. Remedies for pseudoreplication. Fish Res. 2004;70: 397–407. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2004.08.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
55.Burnham K., Anderson D. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2^nd ed). Ecological Modelling. New York: Springer; 2002. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.11.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
56.Kamil Bartoń. Multi-Model Inference Package ‘ MuMIn.’ 2018.
57.Florian A. Package ‘ DHARMa ‘ Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. 2021.
58.Bachman B. Life History Ecology of the Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates, in the Gulf of Mexico. PhD Thesis, The George Mason University. 2015. Available from: http://mars.gmu.edu/handle/1920/9801.
59.Brunnschweiler JM, Vignaud TM, Côté IM, Maljković A. The costs of cohabiting: the case of sharksuckers (Echeneis naucrates) and their hosts at shark provisioning sites. Ecology. 2020;101: 1–4. doi: 10.1002/ecy.3160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Braun CD, Skomal GB, Thorrold SR, Berumen ML. Diving Behavior of the Reef Manta Ray Links Coral Reefs with Adjacent Deep Pelagic Habitats. PLoS One. 2014;9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Jaine FRA, Rohner CA, Weeks SJ, Couturier LIE, Bennett MB, Townsend KA, et al. Movements and habitat use of reef manta rays off eastern Australia: Offshore excursions, deep diving and eddy affinity revealed by satellite telemetry. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014. doi: 10.3354/meps10820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Stewart JD, Smith TR, Marshall G, Abernathy K, Fonseca-Ponce IA, Froman N, et al. Novel applications of animal-borne Crittercams reveal thermocline feeding in two species of manta ray. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2019;632: 145–158. doi: 10.3354/meps13148 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
63.Lassauce H, Chateau O, Erdmann M V., Wantiez L. Diving behavior of the reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) in New Caledonia: More frequent and deeper night-time diving to 672 meters. PLoS One. 2020;15(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Brunnschweiler JM, Baensch H, Pierce SJ, Sims DW. Deep-diving behaviour of a whale shark Rhincodon typus during long-distance movement in the western Indian Ocean. J Fish Biol. 2009;74: 706–714. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02155.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Tyminski JP, De La Parra-Venegas R, Cano JG, Hueter RE. Vertical movements and patterns in diving behavior of whale sharks as revealed by pop-up satellite tags in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. PLoS One. 2015;10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Germanov ES, Bejder L, Chabanne DB, Dharmadi D, Hendrawan IG, Marshall AD, et al. Contrasting habitat use and population dynamics of reef manta rays within the Nusa Penida Marine Protected Area, Indonesia. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6: 215. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00215 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
67.Harris JL, Hosegood P, E R, Embling C, Hilbourne S, Stevens G. The tide waits for no manta: Fine-scale oceanographic drivers of reef manta ray, Mobula alfredi, visitation patterns at a feeding aggregation site. Ecol Evol. 2021. (In Review). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Drapella Z. The hitchhiker’s guide to the Maldives: The echeneid-host association between remoras and manta mays. M.Sc Thesis, The University of Southampton. 2016. Available: https://www.mantatrust.org/resources
69.Wallman HL, Bennett WA. Effects of parturition and feeding on thermal preference of Atlantic stingray, Dasyatis sabina (Lesueur). Environ Biol Fishes. 2006; 259–267. doi: 10.1007/s10641-006-0025-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
70.Hight B V., Lowe CG. Elevated body temperatures of adult female leopard sharks, Triakis semifasciata, while aggregating in shallow nearshore embayments: Evidence for behavioral thermoregulation? J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2007;352: 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2007.07.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
71.Bernal D, Lowe CG. Field studies of elasmobranch physiology. 1st ed. In: Shadwick R, Farrell A, Brauner C, editors. Phsyiology of elasmobranch fishes: structure and interaction with environment. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd; 2016. [Google Scholar]
72.Nakajima H, Kawahara H, Takamatsu S. The breeding behavior and the behavior of larvae and juveniles of the sharksucker, Echeneis naucrates. Japanese J Ichthyol. 1987;34(1): 66–70. doi: 10.1007/BF02904145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
73.Winemiller KO. Life history strategies, population regulation, and implications for fisheries management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2005;62: 872–885. doi: 10.1139/f05-040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
74.Alexander RL. Evidence of brain-warming in the mobulid rays, Mobula tarapacana and Manta birostris (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii: Batoidea: Myliobatiformes). Zool J Linn Soc. 1996;118(2): 151–164. doi: 10.1006/zjls.1996.0054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
75.Thums M, Meekan M, Stevens J, Wilson S, Polovina J. Evidence for behavioural thermoregulation by the world’s largest fish. J R Soc Interface. 2013;10(78). doi: 10.1098/rsif.2012.0477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76.Croll D, Newton K, Weng K, Galván-Magaña F, O’Sullivan J, Dewar H. Movement and habitat use by the spine-tail devil ray in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2012;465: 193–200. doi: 10.3354/meps09900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
77.Hino H, Kitagawa T, Matsumoto T, Aoki Y, Kimura S. Changes to vertical thermoregulatory movements of juvenile bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the northwestern Pacific Ocean with time of day, seasonal ocean vertical thermal structure, and body size. Fish Oceanogr. 2019;28: 1–13. doi: 10.1111/fog.12417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
78.Sancho G. Predatory behaviors of Caranx melampygus (Carangidae) feeding on spawning reef fishes: A novel ambushing strategy. Bull Mar Sci. 2000;66(2): 487–496. [Google Scholar]
79.Lédée EJI, Heupel MR, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA. Movements and space use of giant trevally in coral reef habitats and the importance of environmental drivers. Anim Biotelemetry. 2015;3(1): 6. doi: 10.1186/s40317-015-0024-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
80.García Ramírez CB, Posada C. First approach to the trophic ecology and diet of the rainbow runner, Elagatis bipinnulata (Quoy & Gaimard) (Pisces: Caragidae), in the central Columbian Caribbean. Acta Biológica Colomb. 2014;19: 309. doi: 10.15446/abc.v19n2.41294 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
81.Wells RJD, Cowan JH, Fry B. Feeding ecology of red snapper Lutjanus campechanus in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2008;361: 213–225. doi: 10.3354/meps07425 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
82.Aronson R. Foraging behavior of the west Atlantic trumpetfish, Aulostomus maculatus: use of large, herbivorous reef fishes as camouflage. Bull Mar Sci. 1983;33(1). [Google Scholar]
83.Grandcourt EM, Al Abdessalaam TZ, Francis F, Al Shamsi A. Population biology and assessment of representatives of the family Carangidae: Carangoides bajad and Gnathanodon speciosus (Forsskål, 1775), in the Southern Arabian Gulf. Fish Res. 2004;69: 331–341. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2004.06.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
84.Kuiter R. Fishes of the Maldives: Indian Ocean. Cairns, Australia: Atoll Editions; 2019. [Google Scholar]
85.Moreno B, Gonzalez-Pestana A. Southernmost record of the giant manta ray mobula birostris (Walbaum, 1792) in the eastern pacific. Mar Biodivers Rec. 2017;10(1): 27. doi: 10.1186/s41200-017-0130-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
86.Harley CDG, Randall Hughes A, Hultgren KM, Miner BG, Sorte CJB, Thornber CS, et al. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecol Lett. 2006;9(2): 228–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00871.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87.Joseph P V., Simon A. Weakening trend of the southwest monsoon current through peninsular India from 1950 to the present. Curr Sci. 2005;89(4): 687–694. [Google Scholar]
88.Roxy MK, Modi A, Murtugudde R, Valsala V, Panickal S, Prasanna Kumar S, et al. A reduction in marine primary productivity driven by rapid warming over the tropical Indian Ocean. Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43: 826–833. doi: 10.1002/2015GL066979 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
89.Dhunya A, Huang Q, Aslam A. Coastal Habitats of Maldives: Status, Trends, Threats, and potential conservation Strategies. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2017;8: 47–62. [Google Scholar]
90.Dunkley K, Ward AJW, Perkins SE, Cable J. To clean or not to clean: Cleaning mutualism breakdown in a tidal environment. Ecol Evol. 2020;10: 3043–3054. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91.Montoya JM, Raffaelli D. Climate change, biotic interactions and ecosystem services. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92.Halpern BS, Frazier M, Afflerbach J, Lowndes JS, Micheli F, O’Hara C, et al. Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Sci Rep. 2019;9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253704.r001

Decision Letter 0

Johann Mourier

19 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-04827

A hitchhiker guide to manta rays: patterns of association between Mobula alfredi, M. birostris, their symbionts, and other fishes in the Maldives

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nicholson-Jack,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Dear Dr. Nicholson-Jack,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript “A hitchhiker guide to manta rays: patterns of association between Mobula alfredi, M. birostris, their symbionts, and other fishes in the Maldives” to PLOS ONE. I have now received feedback from two experts in the field. As you can see below, they both enjoyed the paper but had a few comments. They provided constructive comments that will help you to improve your paper.

As a result, I would consider a resubmission addressing the minor comments made by these referees.

With kind regards,

Johann Mourier

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Johann Mourier, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr. Nicholson-Jack,

As a result, I would consider a resubmission addressing the minor comments made by these referees.

With kind regards,

Johann Mourier

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I only have four minor comments/remarks and one more general comment:

Lines 66-68: Consider rewriting. It’s not only megafauna but also deep-sea species, cryptic species etc.

Lines 96-98: I don’t find this a logic statement and/or necessary. I suggest deleting this sentence and to simply continue with “Here, we …”

Line 127: Adults/juveniles needs a reference.

Line 143: (log10 + 1) Why is this here, what does this mean?

Lines 352-356: The interspecific relationship between echeneids and their hosts remains difficult to classify, is complex, and likely not a simplistic symbiotic relationship; see e.g. Brunnschweiler et al. 2020 “The costs of cohabiting: the case of sharksuckers and their hosts at shark provisioning sites”. I suggest the authors discuss their results a bit more in this context, i.e. how do their (interesting!) findings add to our knowledge/understanding of the costs and benefits of the association for both organisms. Another paper, Norman et al. 2021 “Three-way symbiotic relationships in whale sharks”, published just a few days ago, might also be of interest to the authors. Did they, e.g. observe Remora remora feeding on plankton like Norman et al. 2021 did for R. remora associated with feeding whale sharks in the Maldives?

Reviewer #2: This manuscript describes a novel and interesting study into associations between manta rays and hitchhiker species in the Maldives archipelago. It is generally well-written and the authors draw on a large and valuable dataset to assess patterns of hitchhiker presence/abundance with their hosts, presenting an interesting angle that is yet to be explored extensively for these species.

The authors use a combination of Welch’s ANOVA and post-hoc tests and GLMMs to assess patterns of hitchhiker fish association with their manta ray hosts. Given the overall findings of the two analyses are the same for M. alfredi and similar for M. birostris, I would like to see an explanation of why it was necessary to include both analyses in the manuscript. Alternatively, the authors may consider including only one of these, which would make the manuscript more concise and streamlined. Regarding the GLMMs, there is no mention of how the assumptions of normality were assessed, or whether the authors tested for correlation between predictor variables? These are important elements that should be included.

Consideration of the influence of host body size on the presence/abundance/life-stage of hitchhikers appears to be missing from the manuscript. Body size is an obvious potential factor that may influence these associations, as increased surface area theoretically provides more space/protection for hitchhikers. Please see my specific comments below regarding sexual dimorphism and adult vs juvenile associations. Ideally, it would be valuable to include estimated disc width of individual manta rays as a predictor variable in the GLMMs, if these data are available, otherwise discussion of the influence of host body size is warranted.

I believe this study would be a valuable addition to the literature. However, at this stage I recommend minor revision and would gladly review the revised manuscript given the above points are addressed, as well as the specific comments below.

Specific comments:

Title

I am a big fan of the title!

Abstract

Line 24. I suggest changing to “hitchhiker fish species” (or including ‘fish’ somewhere in this sentence) on initial mention here so it’s clear you’re not referring to parasites

Lines 30-31. I suggest including which statistical methods were used here eg. “using Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Models”.

Lines 37-40. Perhaps add a brief sentence outlining main findings for M. birostris here.

Introduction

Lines 59-60. “…rather than the species themselves” I see what you’re saying here but without the species themselves there would be no interaction. I suggest re-wording to something like “rather than each species in isolation” or even “Such inter-specific interactions determine…” (here and in abstract)

Line 70. M. birostris has a circumglobal distribution, while M. alfredi has a semi-circumglobal distribution

Line 77. Do you mean “supports globally significant populations”? A single population of both species suggests they interbreed with one-another.

Line 85. “and there only”, delete ‘there’?

Line 88-91. I suggest swapping the order of these sentences. First explain that re-sighting rates are low, which, combined with seasonality of sightings, suggests a transient population which may be visiting these atolls as part of a ‘migration’. Then go on to say that where they are travelling from/to remains unknown.

Line 92. It would be useful to define the term ‘hitchhiker’ in the context of this study here, upon first mention. This way the reader knows exactly what you mean.

Line 96-97. I suggest simplifying to “Considering the widespread effects of anthropogenic activities on marine habitats”

Line 99. I suggest changing “presence” to “associations” or “in the presence of hitchhikers with.”

Line 102. associations (change to plural)

Line 103. What is a generative process? Do you mean the drivers of the associations? Consider re-wording

Materials and Methods

Line 111-112. This is correct, but the basis for compiling photo-ID catalogues is that individuals can be distinguished from one-another, not just from an existing catalogue, as new individuals are added over time. I suggest re-wording here. Also include the term “photo-identification” in full here as it is the first mention, with the abbreviation in parentheses.

Line 119-120. Was species identification/sex/maturity status determined on the dive or from photos? Please include how you determined sex (presence/absence of claspers) and maturity status for each sex, or cite a study which includes more detail on this.

Line 122. What determined whether a fish was a hitchhiker? For example, compared to a cleaner fish or just another fish in the vicinity of the manta ray, it would be useful to outline this here.

Line 122-123. The presence/number/species of hitchhikers was recorded, was this done during the dive? This can be tricky when there are a lot of mantas in the water at the same time (>15), in these cases were hitchhiker number and species determined by the photos? Please clarify.

Line 126. Please clarify whether the photo-ID images were ventral images, dorsal images or both. If only ventral, how did you assess the number of hitchhikers on the dorsal surface (as some species tend to move around the body of the host)? Or did you only include individuals that had both dorsal and ventral images?

Line 126. If the count from the dive did not match the count from the photo, how was this resolved?

Line 128. How was size measured? Was it estimated? If so, was this based on comparison with other objects of known size (perhaps the manta ray). Was there a way to resolve discrepancy between different observers and size estimates? As this can be variable among different people, particularly when estimating measurements underwater.

Line 128-129. Was the entire photo/record of the individual manta ray removed from analysis, or just the unidentifiable hitchhiker?

Figure 2. If these were the images used for identification, how were the images themselves identified? I suggest including a citation for the reference material used (i.e. a fish ID book).

Line 143. Why were the data transformed (log10 +1)? Please outline briefly here.

Line 145. ‘mean daily number of hitchhikers’ - is this all species combined? Or seprated by species?

Line 146. Here and elsewhere (line 219), I suggest changing ‘manta sexual group’. You could say ‘compared among sex and pregnancy stage’ or similar.

Line 147. Add ‘season’ after Monsoon.

Line 153. Please add a citation for the R package here.

Line 155. Which were the most frequently observed species? Include them here.

Line 158. Change to ‘sightings’, plural.

Line 159-160. How many sites were removed, and which sites?

Line 168. How did you assess whether your variables fit the normality assumptions for a GLMM? Did you test for correlations between predictors? Please include this here.

Line 170-172. Is there a reason why estimated/measured disc width wasn’t assessed? Perhaps surface area may influence the number/size/species of hitchhikers.

Line 173. Outline which species were the most frequently observed with M. birostris.

Line 177. Do you mean pseudoreplication?

Line 178. Is there a reason why the results of this goodness-of-fit comparison are not reported?

Line 182-183. This sentence can be moved to the results section.

Results

Line 196-200 and 254-255. Given the large numbers of sightings and individuals, percentages would be useful to include here.

Line 203. Is this 10% of total sightings? Or sightings with hitchhikers? Please clarify.

Line 218, 237 and 335. What is meant by daily mean number? The total number of E. naucrates seen in a single day? Or is this by sighting/individual? Please clarify.

Line 217 and line 236. Consider re-wording the opening sentences of these paragraphs. “The number of E. naucrates recorded ranged from 1-24 individuals”, or similar.

Line 257: “The highest percentage of E. naucrates presence by atoll” Is this based on the total or mean per individual manta?

Line 261-262. “Echeneis naucrates were not observed with M. alfredi during any sightings which occurred at 25 sites” Please re-word this sentence, do you mean that there were 25 sites at which E. naucrates were not observed?

Line 276-277. This belongs in methods section.

Line 279-280. Reference Table S1 here. With regard to Table S1, it is useful to report delta AICc in model selection tables and I would advise doing so here.

The second highest ranking model has delta AICc of <2. According to Burnham and Anderson (2004), when the difference in AIC between two models (delta AICc) is < 2, then there is substantial support for the two models having approximately equal weight in the data, and this rule-of-thumb is commonly adopted in the model selection process. Please explain in the methods section how you treated models within delta AICc of <2.

Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Method Res 33:261-304

Line 306. According to Table S1 the highest-ranking model (AICc = 6192.70) contains site function and maturity status as predictors, is the text correct or the table?

Line 275-311. The findings for the GLMM are the same as those for the Welch’s ANOVA and post-hoc tests for M. alfredi. Please explain why it is necessary to use both analyses.

Line 344. See my comment above about delta AICc of <2 in Table S1.

Discussion

I suggest starting the discussion with a paragraph that clearly summarises your main findings. This will guide the structure of the rest of the discussion to follow.

Line 378. E. naucrates were more likely to be associated with females. Have you considered the influence of sexual dimorphism? i.e. females are typically larger in size than males.

It would be interesting to assess whether there was any relationship between body size (disc width; if these data are available) and hitchhiker presence/abundance? Given that adult E. naucrates were more likely to be associated with adult M. alfredi (and the same with juvenile hosts and hitchhikers), is there a chance this is related to surface area? i.e. Larger surface area = more protection for larger hitchhikers.

This theory could also be applied to smaller hitchhiker species being more commonly associated with the smaller of the manta ray species (M. alfredi/E. naucrates) and larger hitchhikers with the larger of the manta species (M. birostris/ R. remora).

Line 383. Have you considered the nature of manta ray behaviour at different sites? For example, cleaning is characterised by slow movements and hovering, while feeding is typically faster movements, more turns etc. Could this make it harder for the hitchhikers to catch up/stay attached to their host?

Line 417. How is predation risk reduced at cleaning stations?

Line 418-435. This paragraph jumps between a number of themes/hypotheses and it distracts from the major point. Please re-word, and potentially separate the themes, for clarity.

Line 475 & 516-519. The fact that sightings images were primarily focused on the ventral surface of rays should be made clearer in the results section. See my comments above.

Line 491. What do you mean by population structure here? Demographic structure i.e. the distribution of adults v juveniles? Please clarify.

Line 499. Avoid referring to tables and figures in the discussion section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 14;16(7):e0253704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253704.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

8 May 2021

Please see 'Response to Reviewers' document.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(53.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253704.r003

Decision Letter 1

Johann Mourier

3 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-04827R1

A hitchhiker guide to manta rays: patterns of association between Mobula alfredi, M. birostris, their symbionts, and other fishes in the Maldives

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nicholson-Jack,

==============================

Dear Aimee Erin Nicholson-Jack,

Thank you for addressing all comments from both reviewers. They found you did a great job and that your work can now be accepted for publication. However they just noted a few minor points that I invite you to address before I can officially accept the paper and pass it to the production process.

Kind regards

Johann

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Johann Mourier, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Aimee Erin Nicholson-Jack,

Kind regards

Johann

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing all my comments; I recommend to accept the ms for publication. However, there is one small thing I suggest to still consider: you have explained why you transformed data (log10+1). I would delete "(log10+1)" on lines 152 and 226. It's sufficient in my opinion to write "A (10 + 1) transformation was used for better visualisation of the data." (lines 227/228).

Reviewer #2: The authors have taken the time to carefully address the concerns raised by both reviewers and have done a thorough job revising the manuscript in response to the previous comments. The revised version is a much-improved paper and it is my opinion that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Please also see a few minor comments to be addressed below:

Fig 1 is missing.

Line 152. ‘(log10+1)’ please expand on this as you have done in other parts of the manuscript.

Line 294, 307, 318, 325: The highest ranked model will always have delta AICc of 0, so no need to report it. Reporting on the AICc weight would be more useful if you would like to include a stat here, otherwise leave out.

Line 305, 315. It isn’t necessary to state if there were no models with delta AICc < 2.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Juerg M. Brunnschweiler

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 14;16(7):e0253704. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253704.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

6 Jun 2021

Please find our responses to the reviewers final comments at the beginning of the 'Response to Reviewers' document.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(55.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253704.r005

Decision Letter 2

Johann Mourier

11 Jun 2021

A hitchhiker guide to manta rays: patterns of association between Mobula alfredi, M. birostris, their symbionts, and other fishes in the Maldives

PONE-D-21-04827R2

Dear Dr. Nicholson-Jack,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Johann Mourier, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253704.r006

Acceptance letter

Johann Mourier

21 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-04827R2

A hitchhiker guide to manta rays: patterns of association between Mobula alfredi, M. birostris, their symbionts, and other fishes in the Maldives

Dear Dr. Nicholson-Jack:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Johann Mourier

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Summary of AICc relative goodness of fit metric values from the GLMM modelling procedure.

Includes all combinations of explanatory variales for each hitchhiker species identified with Mobula alfredi and M. birostris.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(95.2KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(53.1KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(55.7KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All sightings data used in this study is available from http://idthemanta-intg.eu-west-2.elasticbeanstalk.com/home#!/home.

[pone.0253704.ref001] 1.Dimijian GG. Evolving Together: The Biology of Symbiosis, Part 1. Baylor Univ Med Cent Proc. 2000;13. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2000.11927678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref002] 2.Dougal AE. Symbiotic interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-67-800-813 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref003] 3.Paracer S, Ahmadjian V. Symbiosis: an introduction to biological associations. 2^nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref004] 4.Castro P. Animal symbioses in coral reef communities: a review. Symbiosis. 1988;5: 161–184. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref005] 5.Auster PJ, Estes JA, Coleman FC. Species interactions in marine communities: the invisible fabric of nature. Bull Mar Sci. 2013;89(1): 3–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305853111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref006] 6.Sheppard C, Davy S, Pilling G, Graham N. The Biology of Coral Reefs. 2^nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2018. doi: 10.1007/s00338-018-01737-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref007] 7.Fautin D. The anemonefish symbiosis: what is known and what is not. Symbiosis. 1991;10: 23–46. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref008] 8.Losey GS. The Ecological Importance of Cleaning Symbiosis. Copeia. 1972; 44: 820–833. doi: 10.2307/1442741 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref009] 9.Grossman A, Sazima C, Bellini C, Sazima I. Cleaning symbiosis between Hawksbill turtles and reef fishes at Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, off Northeast Brazil. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2006;5(2). doi: 10.2744/1071-8443(2006)5[284:CSBHTA]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref010] 10.Côté I. Evolution and Ecology of Cleaning Symbioses in the Sea. In: Barnes M, Gibson N, editors. Oceanography and Marine Biology: Biology: An Annual Review. CRC Press; 2000. pp. 311–355. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref011] 11.Inagaki KY, Mendes TC, Quimbayo JP, Cantor M, Sazima I. The structure of fish follower-feeding associations at three oceanic islands in southwestern Atlantic. Environ Biol Fishes. 2020;103(12): 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10641-019-00924-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref012] 12.Sabino J, Andrade LP, Sazima I, Teresa F, Floeter SR, Sazima C, et al. Following fish feeding associations in marine and freshwater habitats. Mar Freshw Res. 2017;68(2): 381–387. doi: 10.1071/MF15294 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref013] 13.Pereira PHC, Feitosa JLL, Chaves LCT, De Araújo ME. Reef fish foraging associations: “Nuclear-follower” behavior or an ephemeral interaction? Proc 12^th Int Coral Reef Symp. 2012. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref014] 14.Magnuson JJ, Gooding RM. Color Patterns of Pilotfish (Naucrates ductor) and Their Possible Significance. Copeia. 1971;2: 314. doi: 10.2307/1442834 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref015] 15.Stevens G, Fernando D, Dando M, di Sciara GN. Guide to the Manta and Devil Rays of the World. Princeton University Press; 2018. doi: 10.2307/j.ctvs32s7t [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref016] 16.Michael S. Reef sharks and rays of the world. A guide to their identification, behaviour, and ecology. Monterey, California: Sea Challengers.; 1993. doi: 10.1017/s0025315400034998 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref017] 17.Vassilopoulou V, Siapatis A, Christides G, Bekas P. The biology and ecology of juvenile pilotfish (Naucrates ductor) associated with Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) in eastern Mediterranean waters. 2004;5(1) doi: 10.12681/mms.211 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref018] 18.Rico-Gray V. Interspecific Interaction. Encyl Life Sci. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2001. doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0003280 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref019] 19.Simmons BI, Wauchope HS, Amano T, Dicks L V., Sutherland WJ, Dakos V. Vulnerable species interactions are important for the stability of mutualistic networks. bioRxiv. 2019. doi: 10.1101/604868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref020] 20.Armstrong AO, Armstrong AJ, Bennett MB, Richardson AJ, Townsend KA, Everett JD, et al. Mutualism promotes site selection in a large marine planktivore. Ecol Evol. 2021; 1–18. doi: 10.1002/ece3.7464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref021] 21.Pfaller JB, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Balazs GH, Ishihara T, Kopitsky K, Mangel JC, et al. Hitchhikers reveal cryptic host behavior: New insights from the association between Planes major and sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean. Mar Biol. 2014;161: 2167–2178. doi: 10.1007/s00227-014-2498-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref022] 22.Bachman BA, Kraus R, Peterson CT, Grubbs RD, Peters EC. Growth and reproduction of Echeneis naucrates from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. J Fish Biol. 2018;93: 755–758. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13790 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref023] 23.Becerril-García EE, Gutiérrez-Ortiz MA, Preciado-González PA, Ayala-Bocos A. Presence of Remora remora on Mobula birostris in Revillagigedo National Park, Mexico. Mar Freshw Res. 2020;71: 414–417. doi: 10.1071/MF19089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref024] 24.Graham RT, Witt MJ, Castellanos DW, Remolina F, Maxwell S, Godley BJ, et al. Satellite tracking of manta rays highlights challenges to their conservation. PLoS One. 2012;7(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036834 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref025] 25.Norman BM, Reynolds SD, Morgan DL. Three-way symbiotic relationships in whale sharks. Pacific Conserv Biol. 2021. doi: 10.1071/pc20043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref026] 26.Marshall A. Biology and Population Ecology of Manta birostris in Southern Mozambique. PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland. 2008. Available from: https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:160974

[pone.0253704.ref027] 27.Stevens G. Conservation and Population Ecology of Manta Rays in the Maldives. PhD Thesis, The University of York. 2016. Available from: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16981/

[pone.0253704.ref028] 28.Lawson JM, Fordham S V., O’Malley MP, Davidson LNK, Walls RHL, Heupel MR, et al. Sympathy for the devil: a conservation strategy for devil and manta rays. PeerJ. 2017;5. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref029] 29.Marshall A, Kashiwagi T, Bennett M, Deakos M, Stevens G, McGregor F, et al. Mobula alfredi (amended version of 2011 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2018; e. T195459A126665723 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref030] 30.Marshall A, Barreto R, Carlson J, Fernando D, Fordham S, Francis MP, et al. Mobula birostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2020; e.T198921A68632946 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref031] 31.Croll DA, Dewar H, Dulvy NK, Fernando D, Francis MP, Galván‐Magaña F, et al. Vulnerabilities and fisheries impacts: the uncertain future of manta and devil rays. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2016;26. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2591 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref032] 32.Stewart JD, Jaine FRA, Armstrong AJ, Armstrong AO, Bennett MB, Burgess KB, et al. Research Priorities to Support Effective Manta and Devil Ray Conservation. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00314 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref033] 33.Anderson RC, Adam MS, Goes JI. From monsoons to mantas: Seasonal distribution of Manta alfredi in the Maldives. Fish Oceanogr. 2011;20: 104–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2419.2011.00571.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref034] 34.Harris JL, McGregor PK, Oates Y, Stevens GMW. Gone with the wind: Seasonal distribution and habitat use by the reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) in the Maldives, implications for conservation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2020;30: 1649–1664. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3350 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref035] 35.Maldvian Manta Ray Project (MMRP). Oceanic Manta Ray Summary report 2019. The Manta Trust 2019. [cited 2020 November 18]. Available from: https://www.mantatrust.org/resources

[pone.0253704.ref036] 36.Kashiwagi T, Marshall AD, Bennett MB, Ovenden JR. Habitat segregation and mosaic sympatry of the two species of manta ray in the Indian and Pacific Oceans: Manta alfredi and M. birostris. Mar Biodivers Rec. 2011;4: 1–8 doi: 10.1017/S1755267211000479 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref037] 37.Stewart JD, Beale CS, Fernando D, Sianipar AB, Burton RS, Semmens BX, et al. Spatial ecology and conservation of Manta birostris in the Indo-Pacific. Biol Conserv. 2016;200: 178–183. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref038] 38.Cressey RF, Lachner EA. The Parasitic Copepod Diet and Life History of Diskfishes (Echeneidae). Source: Copeia. 1970;310–318. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref039] 39.O’Toole B. Phylogeny of the species of the superfamily Echeneoidea (Perciformes: Carangoidei: Echeneidae, Rachycentridae, and Coryphaenidae), with an interpretation of echeneid hitchhiking behaviour. Can J Zool. 2002;80: 596–623. doi: 10.1139/z02-031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref040] 40.Kenaley CP, Stote A, Ludt WB, Chakrabarty P. Comparative Functional and Phylogenomic Analyses of Host Association in the Remoras (Echeneidae), a Family of Hitchhiking Fishes. Integr Org Biol. 2019;1. doi: 10.1093/iob/obz007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref041] 41.Flammang BE, Marras S, Anderson EJ, Lehmkuhl O, Mukherjee A, Cade DE, et al. Remoras pick where they stick on blue whales. J Exp Biol. 2020;223. doi: 10.1242/jeb.226654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref042] 42.Solleliet-Ferreira S, Macena BCL, Laglbauer BJL, Sobral AF, Afonso P, Fontes J. Sicklefin devilray and common remora prey jointly on baitfish. Environ Biol Fishes. 2020;103: 993–1000. doi: 10.1007/s10641-020-00990-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref043] 43.Kordas RL, Harley CDG, O’Connor MI. Community ecology in a warming world: The influence of temperature on interspecific interactions in marine systems. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2011;400: 218–226. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2011.02.029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref044] 44.Kronfeld-Schor N, Visser ME, Salis L, van Gils JA. Chronobiology of interspecific interactions in a changing world. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2017;372(1734). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref045] 45.Stevens G, Froman N. The Maldives Archipelago. 2^nd ed. In: Sheppard C, editor. World seas: an environmental evaluation: volume II: the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press; 2018. pp. 211–236. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref046] 46.Marshall AD, Pierce SJ. The use and abuse of photographic identification in sharks and rays. J Fish Biol. 2012;80(5): 1361–1379. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03244.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref047] 47.Marshall AD, Compagno L, Bennet M. Redescription of the genus Manta with resurrection of Manta alfredi (Krefft, 1868) (Chondrichthyes; Myliobatoidei; Mobulidae). Zootaxa. 2009;2301(1): 1–28. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.2301.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref048] 48.Stevens GMW, Hawkins JP, Roberts CM. Courtship and mating behaviour of manta rays Mobula alfredi and M. birostris in the Maldives. J Fish Biol. 2018;93: 344–359. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13768 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref049] 49.Peel LR, Stevens GMW, Daly R, Keating Daly CA, Collin SP, Nogués J, et al. Regional Movements of Reef Manta Rays (Mobula alfredi) in Seychelles Waters. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7: 1–17. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00548 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref050] 50.Froese R, Pauly D. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. 2020. [cited 2021 March 28]. Available from: http://www.fishbase.org. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref051] 51.Cheney KL, Grutter AS, Blomberg SP, Marshall NJ. Blue and Yellow Signal Cleaning Behavior in Coral Reef Fishes. Curr Biol. 2009;19: 1283–1287. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref052] 52.R Development Core Team. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. In: Vienna, Austria: R Foundation Statistical Computing; [Internet]. 2018. [cited 2 Dec 2020]. Available: https://www.r-project.org/ [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref053] 53.Bates AD, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Haubo R, Christensen B, et al. Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4 Package ‘lme4.’ 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref054] 54.Millar RB, Anderson MJ. Remedies for pseudoreplication. Fish Res. 2004;70: 397–407. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2004.08.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref055] 55.Burnham K., Anderson D. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2^nd ed). Ecological Modelling. New York: Springer; 2002. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.11.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref056] 56.Kamil Bartoń. Multi-Model Inference Package ‘ MuMIn.’ 2018.

[pone.0253704.ref057] 57.Florian A. Package ‘ DHARMa ‘ Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. 2021.

[pone.0253704.ref058] 58.Bachman B. Life History Ecology of the Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates, in the Gulf of Mexico. PhD Thesis, The George Mason University. 2015. Available from: http://mars.gmu.edu/handle/1920/9801.

[pone.0253704.ref059] 59.Brunnschweiler JM, Vignaud TM, Côté IM, Maljković A. The costs of cohabiting: the case of sharksuckers (Echeneis naucrates) and their hosts at shark provisioning sites. Ecology. 2020;101: 1–4. doi: 10.1002/ecy.3160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref060] 60.Braun CD, Skomal GB, Thorrold SR, Berumen ML. Diving Behavior of the Reef Manta Ray Links Coral Reefs with Adjacent Deep Pelagic Habitats. PLoS One. 2014;9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref061] 61.Jaine FRA, Rohner CA, Weeks SJ, Couturier LIE, Bennett MB, Townsend KA, et al. Movements and habitat use of reef manta rays off eastern Australia: Offshore excursions, deep diving and eddy affinity revealed by satellite telemetry. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014. doi: 10.3354/meps10820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref062] 62.Stewart JD, Smith TR, Marshall G, Abernathy K, Fonseca-Ponce IA, Froman N, et al. Novel applications of animal-borne Crittercams reveal thermocline feeding in two species of manta ray. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2019;632: 145–158. doi: 10.3354/meps13148 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref063] 63.Lassauce H, Chateau O, Erdmann M V., Wantiez L. Diving behavior of the reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) in New Caledonia: More frequent and deeper night-time diving to 672 meters. PLoS One. 2020;15(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref064] 64.Brunnschweiler JM, Baensch H, Pierce SJ, Sims DW. Deep-diving behaviour of a whale shark Rhincodon typus during long-distance movement in the western Indian Ocean. J Fish Biol. 2009;74: 706–714. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02155.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref065] 65.Tyminski JP, De La Parra-Venegas R, Cano JG, Hueter RE. Vertical movements and patterns in diving behavior of whale sharks as revealed by pop-up satellite tags in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. PLoS One. 2015;10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref066] 66.Germanov ES, Bejder L, Chabanne DB, Dharmadi D, Hendrawan IG, Marshall AD, et al. Contrasting habitat use and population dynamics of reef manta rays within the Nusa Penida Marine Protected Area, Indonesia. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6: 215. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00215 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref067] 67.Harris JL, Hosegood P, E R, Embling C, Hilbourne S, Stevens G. The tide waits for no manta: Fine-scale oceanographic drivers of reef manta ray, Mobula alfredi, visitation patterns at a feeding aggregation site. Ecol Evol. 2021. (In Review). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref068] 68.Drapella Z. The hitchhiker’s guide to the Maldives: The echeneid-host association between remoras and manta mays. M.Sc Thesis, The University of Southampton. 2016. Available: https://www.mantatrust.org/resources

[pone.0253704.ref069] 69.Wallman HL, Bennett WA. Effects of parturition and feeding on thermal preference of Atlantic stingray, Dasyatis sabina (Lesueur). Environ Biol Fishes. 2006; 259–267. doi: 10.1007/s10641-006-0025-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref070] 70.Hight B V., Lowe CG. Elevated body temperatures of adult female leopard sharks, Triakis semifasciata, while aggregating in shallow nearshore embayments: Evidence for behavioral thermoregulation? J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2007;352: 114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2007.07.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref071] 71.Bernal D, Lowe CG. Field studies of elasmobranch physiology. 1st ed. In: Shadwick R, Farrell A, Brauner C, editors. Phsyiology of elasmobranch fishes: structure and interaction with environment. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd; 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref072] 72.Nakajima H, Kawahara H, Takamatsu S. The breeding behavior and the behavior of larvae and juveniles of the sharksucker, Echeneis naucrates. Japanese J Ichthyol. 1987;34(1): 66–70. doi: 10.1007/BF02904145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref073] 73.Winemiller KO. Life history strategies, population regulation, and implications for fisheries management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2005;62: 872–885. doi: 10.1139/f05-040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref074] 74.Alexander RL. Evidence of brain-warming in the mobulid rays, Mobula tarapacana and Manta birostris (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii: Batoidea: Myliobatiformes). Zool J Linn Soc. 1996;118(2): 151–164. doi: 10.1006/zjls.1996.0054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref075] 75.Thums M, Meekan M, Stevens J, Wilson S, Polovina J. Evidence for behavioural thermoregulation by the world’s largest fish. J R Soc Interface. 2013;10(78). doi: 10.1098/rsif.2012.0477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref076] 76.Croll D, Newton K, Weng K, Galván-Magaña F, O’Sullivan J, Dewar H. Movement and habitat use by the spine-tail devil ray in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2012;465: 193–200. doi: 10.3354/meps09900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref077] 77.Hino H, Kitagawa T, Matsumoto T, Aoki Y, Kimura S. Changes to vertical thermoregulatory movements of juvenile bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the northwestern Pacific Ocean with time of day, seasonal ocean vertical thermal structure, and body size. Fish Oceanogr. 2019;28: 1–13. doi: 10.1111/fog.12417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref078] 78.Sancho G. Predatory behaviors of Caranx melampygus (Carangidae) feeding on spawning reef fishes: A novel ambushing strategy. Bull Mar Sci. 2000;66(2): 487–496. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref079] 79.Lédée EJI, Heupel MR, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA. Movements and space use of giant trevally in coral reef habitats and the importance of environmental drivers. Anim Biotelemetry. 2015;3(1): 6. doi: 10.1186/s40317-015-0024-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref080] 80.García Ramírez CB, Posada C. First approach to the trophic ecology and diet of the rainbow runner, Elagatis bipinnulata (Quoy & Gaimard) (Pisces: Caragidae), in the central Columbian Caribbean. Acta Biológica Colomb. 2014;19: 309. doi: 10.15446/abc.v19n2.41294 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref081] 81.Wells RJD, Cowan JH, Fry B. Feeding ecology of red snapper Lutjanus campechanus in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2008;361: 213–225. doi: 10.3354/meps07425 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref082] 82.Aronson R. Foraging behavior of the west Atlantic trumpetfish, Aulostomus maculatus: use of large, herbivorous reef fishes as camouflage. Bull Mar Sci. 1983;33(1). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref083] 83.Grandcourt EM, Al Abdessalaam TZ, Francis F, Al Shamsi A. Population biology and assessment of representatives of the family Carangidae: Carangoides bajad and Gnathanodon speciosus (Forsskål, 1775), in the Southern Arabian Gulf. Fish Res. 2004;69: 331–341. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2004.06.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref084] 84.Kuiter R. Fishes of the Maldives: Indian Ocean. Cairns, Australia: Atoll Editions; 2019. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref085] 85.Moreno B, Gonzalez-Pestana A. Southernmost record of the giant manta ray mobula birostris (Walbaum, 1792) in the eastern pacific. Mar Biodivers Rec. 2017;10(1): 27. doi: 10.1186/s41200-017-0130-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref086] 86.Harley CDG, Randall Hughes A, Hultgren KM, Miner BG, Sorte CJB, Thornber CS, et al. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecol Lett. 2006;9(2): 228–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00871.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref087] 87.Joseph P V., Simon A. Weakening trend of the southwest monsoon current through peninsular India from 1950 to the present. Curr Sci. 2005;89(4): 687–694. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref088] 88.Roxy MK, Modi A, Murtugudde R, Valsala V, Panickal S, Prasanna Kumar S, et al. A reduction in marine primary productivity driven by rapid warming over the tropical Indian Ocean. Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43: 826–833. doi: 10.1002/2015GL066979 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref089] 89.Dhunya A, Huang Q, Aslam A. Coastal Habitats of Maldives: Status, Trends, Threats, and potential conservation Strategies. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2017;8: 47–62. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref090] 90.Dunkley K, Ward AJW, Perkins SE, Cable J. To clean or not to clean: Cleaning mutualism breakdown in a tidal environment. Ecol Evol. 2020;10: 3043–3054. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref091] 91.Montoya JM, Raffaelli D. Climate change, biotic interactions and ecosystem services. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010;365. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0253704.ref092] 92.Halpern BS, Frazier M, Afflerbach J, Lowndes JS, Micheli F, O’Hara C, et al. Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Sci Rep. 2019;9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

A hitchhiker guide to manta rays: Patterns of association between Mobula alfredi, M. birostris, their symbionts, and other fishes in the Maldives

Aimee E Nicholson-Jack

Joanna L Harris

Kirsty Ballard

Katy M E Turner

Guy M W Stevens

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study area

Fig 1. A map of the Maldives archipelago located to the southwest of India.

Manta ray sightings and hitchhiker species

Fig 2. Images of hitchhiker species used for identification.

Data analysis

Variations in hitchhiker observations

Spatial and temporal variation in hitchhiker presence

Generalised linear mixed models

Results

Reef manta ray (M. alfredi) sightings and associated hitchhiker species (1987–2019)

Table 1. Summary of hitchhiker species observed with manta rays.

Fig 3. Total presence of hitchhiker species observed with manta rays.

Variations in hitchhiker associations with reef manta rays (M. alfredi)

Adult sharksucker remora (E. naucrates)

Fig 4. Daily mean number of adult Echeneis naucrates (+SE) observed with Mobula alfredi between category groups.

Juvenile sharksucker remora (E. naucrates)

Fig 5. Daily mean number of juvenile Echeneis naucrates (+SE) observed with Mobula alfredi between category groups.

Spatial and temporal variation in hitchhiker presence

Fig 6. Heatmaps coloured by season and percentage of sightings where Echeneis naucrates were present.

Fig 7. Time series plot showing Mobula alfredi sightings and Echeneis naucrates presence.

Reef manta ray (M. alfredi) generalised linear mixed models

Adult sharksucker remora (E. naucrates)

Fig 8. Relationship between hitchhiker species presence and significant explanatory variables (p < 0.05) in terms of odds ratio (OR).

Juvenile sharksucker remora (E. naucrates)

Red snapper (L. bohar)

Golden trevally (G. speciosus)

Oceanic manta ray (M. birostris) sightings and associated hitchhiker species

Variations in hitchhiker associations with oceanic manta rays (M. birostris)

Fig 9. Daily mean number of Remora remora (+SE) observed with Mobula birostris between category groups.

Oceanic manta ray (M. birostris) generalised linear mixed models

Discussion

Reef manta ray (M. alfredi)

Oceanic manta ray (M. birostris)

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Johann Mourier

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Johann Mourier

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Johann Mourier

Roles

Acceptance letter

Johann Mourier

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases