Habitat dissimilarity and GuniFrac distances between the communities 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).
The fresh 18S rRNA gene data of one’s belongings plants utilized in faecal samples showed that at least on straight down taxonomic levels, i.e. before the family top, eating plan did not seem to apply to ranging from-group type inside the microbiome composition. Even after obvious anywhere between-group version into the eating bush arrangements, groups’ microbial microbiome configurations don’t reflect this type of variations when aesthetically examining the latest particular graphs (Fig. 2A, B). Continue reading “Beta range: habitat dissimilarity, environment convergence, and you can diet plan”