Beta variety: habitat dissimilarity, environment overlap, and you may diet

Beta variety: habitat dissimilarity, environment overlap, and you may diet

Habitat dissimilarity and GuniFrac distances between the teams were not correlated (Mantel test: nproducts = 15, ngroups = 6, r = ? 0.149, p = 0.553; late dry 2016: nsamples = 15, ngroups = 6, r = 0.008, p = 0.972; early dry 2017: nsamples = 21, ngroups = 7, r = ? 0.154, p = 0.561; late dry 2017: nsamples = 21, ngroups = 7, r = 0.064, p = 0.776; Table S8). The model examining the effects of habitat overlap and diet dissimilarities on groups’ GuniFrac distances was also not significant (LMM II: ? 2 = 3.264, df = 2, p = 0.196, R 2 m/c = 0.08/0.98) (Table S9).

New 18S rRNA gene analysis of your land vegetation found in faecal samples indicated that no less than within down taxonomic levels, we.age. until the friends height, diet plan failed to seem to apply to ranging from-category variation when you look at the microbiome structure. Even after visible anywhere between-classification variation into the restaurants plant configurations, groups’ microbial microbiome arrangements don’t echo these types of differences when visually examining the brand new respective graphs (Fig. 2A, B). We receive, but not, seasonal weight loss patterns. During the early inactive year in study decades, faecal trials consisted of a large proportion from plants on the household Combretaceae and you will Salicaceae, while into the late dead year Fabaceae and you can Sapindaceae was indeed ate from inside the greater wide variety (Fig. 2B).

Beta range: maternal relatedness

We examined the effects of maternal relatedness coefficients on GuniFrac distances among all individuals, i.e. between both, group members and individuals from different groups. The interaction between the relatedness coefficient and group membership (same or different) was not significant (likelihood ratio test comparing the model with and without the interaction: ? 2 = 0.105, df = 1, p = 0.746), which is why we excluded it from the model. The model without the interaction was highly significant (LMM III:? 2 = , df = 1, p < 0.001, R 2 m/c = 0.51/0.92) (Table S10). Maternal relatives had a more similar microbiome than unrelated individuals, and this effect was independent of whether these relatives lived in the same group or not (Fig. 3).

GuniFrac distances of all study animals about its maternal relatedness coefficient and you may classification subscription. An enthusiastic Remote-controlled out-of 0.25–0.50 refers to dyads in which we can’t determine whether it was complete- or 1 / 2 of-sisters

Beta assortment: seasonality, sex, age, and you can association prices

The model examining correlations of dyadic GuniFrac dissimilarity with seasonality, sex, age classes, and the time two group members spent affiliating was significant (LMM IV: ? 2 = , df = 10, p < 0.001, R 2 m/c = 0.70/0.91) (Tables S11). Bacterial microbiomes of group members increased in similarity across the study period; they were least similar in the early and late dry season 2016 and most similar in the late dry season 2017. Samples of adults differed most from each other, whereas samples among juveniles and infants were more similar (Fig. 4A). Neither sex nor time spent affiliating significantly affected microbiome similarity.

Differences in gut similarity and association networks within groups per age category, female reproductive state, and male dominance. A, C GuniFrac distances between group members of different or same age categories or rank categories of adult group members only. As there is only one dominant male per group, we could not compare two dominant individuals. We did not have enough adult female group members to compare their GuniFrac distances https://www.datingranking.net/sexfinder-review during different reproductive stages. B, D, E ASVs associated with the different age categories, adult female reproductive stages, or rank categories within groups, respectively. The association network was calculated and visualised in the same way as described in Fig. 1. The network for age categories only contains data from the late dry seasons since animals were only considered infants, when they were < 9 months of age. Hence, during the early dry seasons, there were no infants in the population

Trả lời

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai.