Habitat dissimilarity and GuniFrac distances between the organizations were not correlated (Mantel test: ntrials = 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).
The latest 18S rRNA gene analysis of the home plant life used in faecal trials showed that at least at the straight down taxonomic levels, i.elizabeth. through to the relatives peak, diet didn’t appear to apply to anywhere between-group variation inside microbiome structure. Even after noticeable ranging from-class adaptation within the eating bush arrangements, groups’ bacterial microbiome arrangements failed to echo these differences when aesthetically inspecting the fresh respective graphs (Fig. 2A, B). We discover, yet not, seasonal diet models. At the beginning of deceased seasons in both studies years, faecal trials contains the vast majority from plants regarding families Combretaceae and you will Salicaceae, while in the later deceased seasons Fabaceae and you may Sapindaceae was consumed inside the better amounts (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 the many research pet when it comes to their maternal relatedness coefficient and you may group subscription. An enthusiastic Rc from 0.25–0.50 identifies dyads for which we can not determine whether they is actually complete- otherwise 1 / 2 of-siblings
Beta range: seasonality, gender 
, age, and you will affiliation 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 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