Beta range: environment dissimilarity, environment convergence, and you will diet plan

Habitat dissimilarity and GuniFrac distances between the communities were not correlated (Mantel test: n_examples = 15, n_groups = 6, r = ? 0.149, p = 0.553; late dry 2016: n_samples = 15, n_groups = 6, r = 0.008, p = 0.972; early dry 2017: n_samples = 21, n_groups = 7, r = ? 0.154, p = 0.561; late dry 2017: n_samples = 21, n_groups = 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 latest 18S rRNA gene data of your own residential property flowers utilized in faecal products indicated that no less than on straight down taxonomic profile, i.e. through to the members of the family level, eating plan didn’t appear to affect ranging from-classification adaptation within the microbiome composition. Even after apparent anywhere between-classification variation from inside the dining bush configurations, groups’ microbial microbiome configurations didn’t echo this type of variations when aesthetically inspecting the fresh particular graphs (Fig. 2A, B). We receive, yet not, regular weight reduction habits. During the early lifeless 12 months in investigation decades, faecal trials consisted of the vast majority off plant life throughout the family members Combretaceae and you may Salicaceae, whereas from inside the late lifeless season Fabaceae and you may Sapindaceae was ate when you look at the deeper amounts (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 ranges of all the studies animals with regards to their maternal relatedness coefficient and you may category membership. An enthusiastic Remote controlled out of 0.25–0.50 describes dyads whereby we cannot see whether they was full- or 50 % of-sisters

Beta range: seasonality, sex, many years, and you can affiliation costs

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