Beta assortment: environment dissimilarity, habitat overlap, and you will 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 = https://datingranking.net/mousemingle-review/ 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).
The 18S rRNA gene investigation of the land herbs found in faecal examples revealed that no less than at down taxonomic levels, we.age. through to the household members peak, diet failed to appear to apply to between-class version inside the microbiome structure. Even after apparent anywhere between-group type from inside the dinner plant compositions, groups’ microbial microbiome configurations didn’t mirror such distinctions whenever aesthetically inspecting new particular graphs (Fig. 2A, B). I located, yet not, regular diet designs. During the early dead year both in data years, faecal products consisted of a large proportion of flowers regarding group Combretaceae and you will Salicaceae, whereas from inside the later deceased seasons Fabaceae and you can Sapindaceae have been consumed in greater quantity (Fig. 2B).
Beta variety: 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 analysis pets with regards to their maternal relatedness coefficient and you can classification subscription. An enthusiastic Remote-controlled regarding 0.25–0.50 relates to dyads wherein we can’t see whether it is actually complete- or half-sisters
Beta diversity: seasonality, sex, age, and you may association pricing
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 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