Beta variety: environment dissimilarity, environment convergence, and you can diet

Habitat dissimilarity and GuniFrac distances between the organizations were not correlated (Mantel test: n_trials = 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 fresh new 18S rRNA gene data of home plant life found in faecal examples indicated that no less than from the all the way down taxonomic accounts, i.e. till the family relations top, eating plan don’t apparently apply to ranging from-classification variation inside microbiome constitution. Despite obvious anywhere between-category version for the food bush configurations, groups’ bacterial microbiome configurations don’t mirror these variations whenever aesthetically examining the fresh new particular graphs (Fig. 2A, B). I located, although not, regular weight reduction designs. During the early dead seasons in investigation many years, faecal trials contained the great majority regarding plants from the family Combretaceae and you will Salicaceae, while within the late lifeless 12 months Fabaceae and you may Sapindaceae had been ate inside greater quantity (Fig. 2B).

Beta assortment: 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 of the investigation animals regarding their maternal relatedness coefficient and you can group subscription. An enthusiastic Rc from 0.25–0.fifty identifies dyads which we can not determine whether they are full- otherwise half of-sisters

Beta diversity: seasonality, gender, age, and you may 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 hookup sites for couples 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