Top predators affect the composition of naive protist communities, but only in their early-successional stage
8
0
0
Texte intégral
(2) ± which should be cited to refer to this work.. Oecologia Electronic Supplemental Material. Title: Top predators affect the composition of naive protist communities, but only in their early-successional stage. http://doc.rero.ch. Authors: Axel Zander, Dominique Gravel, Louis-Félix Bersier, Sarah M. Gray. Content: Supplemental Figure S1. Change in protist species number from the beginning to the end of the experiment.. Supplemental Figure S2. Effect of top predator on occurrence of the prey species in the three size classes.. Supplemental Figure S3. Protist Community composition at day 0 (start of experiment) according to presence/absence data.. Supplemental Figure S4. Results of community respiration.. Supplemental Table S1. Morpho-species (Msp.) list.. Supplemental Table S2. Results from the linear model for bacterial abundance. Supplemental Table S3. Results from the linear model for respiration. Supplemental Table S4. Results from the full linear model for respiration.
(3) Fig. S1. Change in protist species number from the beginning to the end. of the experiment. a) the predator is present or absent, and b) in naive and nonnaive communities (as shown as change in protist size classes). The top predator did not change the size distribution of the protists. Instead, community origin was significantly important, but only for the medium-size class species (p-value <<0.001). For communities originating from Switzerland (naive), there was a net loss of medium-sized species during the experiment, while communities originating from. change in species number through time 0 4. a). no top predator. with top predator. b) change in species number through time. http://doc.rero.ch. Québec (non naive) gained medium-sized species during the experiment. medium. large. small. 4. 0. . naive. non naive. naive. non naive. naive. non naive.
(4) Fig. S2. Effect of top predator on occurrence of the prey species in the three size classes. X-axis: First line = morpho-. species identity according to Msp. Nr in table S1; second line = gain or loss of occurrence on day 6 (in percentage points) when mosquitoes were present/absent. Most species were not affected (we considered gain/loss smaller than 5 percentage points as chance events). Morpho-species 20, 24, 29, and 33 were the most negatively affected by the presence of the top predator. In contrast,. from the predation on competing species (see also Kneitel 2012). Note that four of these benefitting species were medium-sized, while there is only one from the group of small-sized species. Additionally three (23%) small-sized species and only one (6%) medium-sized species were negatively affected, while the occurrence of large bodied species seemed not to be affected by the mosquitoes . . . . . .
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10) . http://doc.rero.ch. morpho-species 8, 10, 15, 19 and 28 were positively affected by mosquito presence. It is likely that these morpho-species profited. . . . . .
(11) . . . . ! ! " " ! ! " " ! " . " . . . . . . . " " . . " . " . .
(12) Fig. S3. Protist Community composition at day 0 (start of experiment). according to presence/absence data. Each triangle represents one community in a 2D NMDS plot (sites: VS, orange triangle; LT, green inverted triangle; LE, purple square; Lac R, blue diamond). Symbols for late succession are filled and early succession are unfilled. Similarity was measured with Jaccard index. Nearby triangles have similar species composition. Note that predators were not yet added. Note that there was generally an equal number of small and medium-sized protists, but not of large protists, within. http://doc.rero.ch. early and late succession communities (data pooled for naive and non-naive communities): 1) For small-sized protists: a total of 8 and 9 morpho-species with an average per tube of 1.85 and 1.50 morpho-species in early and late succession communities, respectively; 2) for medium-sized protists: a total of 10 and 10 morphospecies with an average per tube of 2.95 and 2.95 morpho-species in early and late succession communities, respectively; 3) for large-sized protists: a total of 1 and 5 morpho-species with an average per tube of 0.10 and 1.15 morpho-species in early and late succession communities, respectively; see Table S1 for details) 2D Stress: 0.16. Treatment VS late VS early LT late LT early LE late LE early Lac R late Lac R early.
(13) Fig. S4. Results of community respiration.. The Y-axis gives a measure of respiration during 6 hours at the end of the experiment. a) The respiration was significantly higher in naive than in non-naive communities (p = 0.038). b) Interaction plot of respiration with respect to succession stage and naivety status. Respiration was higher in late than in early succession for naive communities, and the opposite for non-naive communities (interaction term: p-value = 0.041). The top. a) 0.06. 0.10. b). 0.05 0.03. 0.04. respiration during 6h. 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00. 0.02. respiration during 6h. 0.08. naive non naive. -0.02. http://doc.rero.ch. predator had no statistically significant effect on community respiration. naive. non naive dt$naive. early. late.
(14) Table S1. Morpho-species (Msp) list. List of all protist detected in the Sarracenia samples of the four sites used in the. experiment (LT, LE, VS, Lac R) and the total percentage of occurrence in the various treatments (early = early succession; late = late succession), at the beginning (d0) and end of the experiment (d6), with and without top mosquitoes (mosq). The last column gives the mosquito effect on occurrence in percentage points [pp]measured on day 6. The list is organized by size classes: size class l (large. http://doc.rero.ch. species, 40µm-150µm); size class m (medium species, 8µm-40µm); size class s (small species < 8µm). Legend: LT = Les Tennasses; LE = Les Embreux; VS = Vallée des Sources; Lac R = Lac Rimouski. !& #. - - !&. - #. 3 %# " . 3 " . " # [ ] $!! .
(15) " ( !(. " ") . "'. "&"# #". # #. . . . " .. $ % #" (. . !. 2. 5. /. -. -. 1. .2. -. -. -. 3. 6. )0. " /. ( " (. . !. .0. -. /2. -. -. 2-. -. .0. -. /2. .0. .0. -. " 0. ( " (. . !. 04. /0. 2-. -. 56. 25. -. 0-. .-. 2-. 1.. 1.. -. " 1. ( . . !. 4. -. .1. -. -. -. /4. 0. -. 2. 6. 6. -. " 2. $ % #" (. . !. .-. -. .6. -. -. -. 06. .-. -. /-. 6. 6. -. " 3. ( " (. . !. 0. -. 3. ./. -. -. -. 5. -. .2. -. -. -. " 4.
(16) " (. . *#*. 4/. 5.. 31. 2-. 63. 2-. 6/. 52. 52. 52. 30. 33. )0. " 5.
(17) ( . . *#*. /2. /2. /2. 1. 2-. .6. /4. 05. /2. 2-. //. .0. 6. " 6. !&" " (. . *#*. 14. 40. /.. 25. 3/. /4. 1/. 4-. 62. 12. 0.. 01. )0. " .-.
(18) " (. . *#*. 05. 13. /6. 0.. 21. 0.. 02. 0. 2. -. 30. 23. 4. " ... " (. . *#*. ./. -. /0. -. -. 13. -. .0. -. /2. .0. 6. 1. " ./. !&" " (. . *#*. 1. 1. 1. 5. -. 5. -. .-. .-. .-. -. -. -. " .0. $ % #" (. . *#*. 7.. /. -. -. -. 1. -. 0. 2. -. -. -. -. " .1. !&" " (. . *#*. /2. /.. /6. 40. 5. 5. ./. /5. /2. 0-. //. /2. )0. " .2. !&" " (. . *#*. 0. -. 3. 1. -. 5. -. 0. -. 2. 3. -. 3. " .3. (
(19) " (. . *#*. .4. -. 02. -. 1/. .2. ./. 5. -. .2. /2. //. 0.
(20) http://doc.rero.ch. Table S1. continued.
(21) " ( !(. " ") . "'. "&"# #". # #. " .4. !& #. $ % #" (. . !. .0. -. - - !&. - #. 3 %# " . 3 " . " # [ ] $! . .0. .0. -. . . . /2. 2-. -. -. -. .0. -. /2. " .5.
(22) " (. . !. 2. .-. -. .6. -. -. -. .0. /2. -. -. -. -. " .6. $ % #" (. . *#*. 3. .-. /. -. .2. -. 5. -. -. -. .6. -. .6. " /-. " (. . *#*. .0. /2. -. -. -. .6. 0.. 2. .-. -. .0. //. )6. " /.. ( . . *#*. /. 1. -. -. -. -. 5. 2. .-. -. -. -. -. " //. $ " (. . *#*. 7.. -. /. -. -. -. 1. 0. -. 2. -. -. -. " /0. $ % #" (. . *#*. 7.. -. /. -. -. -. 1. -. -. -. .. -. .. " /1. " (. . *#*. ./. .1. .-. 5. 1. .2. .6. .2. /2. 2. -. .6. ).6. " /2. " (. . *#*. 13. 2-. 1/. .6. 25. /0. 52. 10. 1-. 12. 2-. 14. 0. " /3. " (. . *#*. 2. 3. 1. -. -. ./. 5. 5. 2. .-. 0. 0. -. " /4. ( " (. . *#*. 05. 21. /.. 13. 1. 13. 21. /2. 12. 2. 11. 14. )0. " /5. ( " (. . *#*. .5. /4. .-. /0. -. .2. 02. .-. -. /-. /5. .6. 6. " /6. " (. . *#*. .-. .2. 1. -. -. .6. .6. .-. /-. -. 3. .0. )4. " 0-. ( " (. . **. ... -. /.. -. -. 1/. 7.. 5. -. .2. .0. .0. -. " 0.. " (. . *#*. 6. .-. 5. -. ./. -. /0. .-. -. /-. 3. 6. )0. " 0/. " (. . *#*. 1. 5. -. -. -. -. .2. .-. /-. -. -. -. -. " 00. " (. . *#*. .2. /.. .-. -. -. ./. 2-. /0. /2. /-. 3. .3. ).-. " 01. " ( . . *#*. /. -. 1. -. -. -. 5. 2. -. .-. -. -. -. " 02. " ( . . *#*. 7.. /. -. -. -. -. 1. 0. 2. -. -. -. -. " 03. (. . . **. 2. -. .-. -. -. .6. -. -. -. -. 6. 3. 0.
(23) Table S2. Results from the linear model for bacterial abundance with respect. to mosquito presence, successional state (early; late) and naivety (naive; non naive)
(24) . . . . . #.
(25) . . . . ! " . . . ! . . . ! !!". .
(26)
(27) . http://doc.rero.ch. . '' &"%". $. %'$.
(28)
(29) . "%&# &"%" #$# #%". . ! . Table S3. Results from the linear model for respiration with respect to. successional state (early; late) and naivety (naive; non naive). See also Figure S4.This is the best model according to AIC, where the factor Mosquito was removed
(30) . .
(31) . . . . . . ! . #. . !. ". .
(32) . %. &. . !&. .
(33)
(34) . ". . '. " . Table S4. . Results from the full linear model for respiration with respect to. mosquito presence, successional state and naivety (note that the 3-way interaction was not included)
(35) . . . . .
(36) . . . " . #. . . . . ". . "! . . . . ". .
(37)
(38) . #'. . # ". $ .
(39)
(40) . $. . ''. ! . . . ". . .
(41)
Figure
+4
![Table S1 continued "(!( "") "' "&"##" ## !& # - -!& -# 3 %# " 3 " " #[]$! ".4 $%#"( ! .0 - /2 2- - - - .0 - /2 .0 .0 -".5 "( ! 2 .- - .6 - - - .0 /2 - - - -".6 $%#"(](https://thumb-eu.123doks.com/thumbv2/123doknet/14961903.669988/7.1263.96.1147.168.658/table-s-continued-amp-amp-amp.webp)
Documents relatifs
Energy communities—groups of citizens, social entrepreneurs and public authorities who jointly invest in producing, selling and managing renewable energy are expected to play a
The aim of this explorative study was (1) to characterize the oribatid mite communities (community structure, species richness, evenness and diversity) of various urban wastelands
Their result was in excellent agreement with Quantum Mechanics, and they found a violation, by 4 standard deviations, of the Bell’s inequalities (32) specific of single
Results of simple and partial Mantel tests using distance/dissimilarity matrices between species based on occurrence, compared with habitat preference, traits and taxonomy..
For Experiment 2, we also used GLM to test for the effects of microbiome inoculum, recipient genotype, community type, and their interactions on OTU richness.. Similar analyses,
The paper is organized as follow: our graphical model and the way to compute its parameters (the weights) are presented in section 2 ; the section 3 presents how the conditional
Furthermore, understanding the nested structure of plant-pollinator networks can ex- plain why the reproductive output of both spe- cialist and generalist plant species is
According to [5], the maximal transmit diversity can not be achieved because the Naive Lattice Decoder and its approximations (such as lattice- reduction aided linear decoders) do
