Kumordzi et al. 2015_dataF

Kumordzi et al. 2015_data

Chromosome constitution and flow cytometry profiles of haploid and diploid experimental males.

<p>(A–B) DAPI-stained chromosome preparations obtained by spreading from gonads of male descendants of mother–son crosses. Bar = 10 μm. (A) Haploid male metaphase with n = 20 chromosomes. (B) Diploid male metaphase with n = 40 chromosomes (arrow) and two anaphases (arrow heads). (C–D) Flow cytometry profiles from <i>D</i>. <i>longicaudata</i> experimental individuals. (C) Haploid male. (D) Diploid male. Asterisk indicates the differential peak.</p

Sex ratio analysis.

<p>Sex ratio values representation for the inbreeding and outbreeding treatments in each of the four generations that were analysed. Lower hinge = 25^th percentile, higher hinge = 75^th percentile, segment inside the box = median (50^th percentile), whiskers = maximum and minimum values, unfilled circle = outside value.</p

Flow cytometry profiles from <i>D</i>. <i>longicaudata</i> control individuals.

<p>(A) Diploid (virgin) female. (B) Haploid male (son of virgin female). Asterisk indicates the differential peak.</p

Spermatocytes and spermatozoa of haploid and diploid males.

<p>Phase-contrast images of chromosome preparations obtained by spreading of gonads from male descendants of mother–son crosses. (A) Haploid spermatocytes. (B) Diploid spermatocytes. (C) Haploid spermatozoa. (D) Diploid spermatozoa. Bar = 10 μm.</p

Effect of sampling scenario on FD index sensitivity.

<p>Barplots showing the results of linear mixed effects model, specifically the effect of the two sampling scenarios on the sensitivity of indices for three different types of organisms. The more negative the regression slope, the more sensitive the particular index is to missing trait information. The error bars denote the 95% confidence intervals. (A) plant community (n = 12 plots), (B) ant community (n = 58 plots), and (C) bird community (n = 8 plots).</p

Flow diagram of the consecutive methodological steps.

<p>Upper left corner—in each plot species are ordered by their relative abundance and FD index is calculated for each plot of a community. Upper right corner—0.5% of the species relative abundance is removed in consecutive steps, starting with the least abundant species and FD index is then calculated again for each plot at each reduction step. Upper middle columns—plots are ranked based on the values of the FD index and the ranks of original data and data at each reduction step are correlated. Figure in the middle—regression slopes from fitting the linear model represent the robustness of FD index to missing trait data; in this example FD index is (A) less robust and (B) more robust to missing trait data (example RaoQ on head length of ants).</p

Effect of sampling method and abundance transformation on FD index sensitivity.

<p>Barplot depicting the results of linear mixed effects models, specifically the interaction between abundance transformation and the different abundance measures used in plant ecology (all three abundance measures were used for the same plant dataset in order to make their effects comparable). The effect of down-weighting the dominant species by log-transformation of their abundance was most pronounced in the biomass abundance measure. When log transformed, all three sampling methods have a very similar effect on the sensitivity of indices to missing trait data. Error bars denote the 95% confidence intervals.</p

Effect of trait transformation on FD index sensitivity.

<p>The effect of trait transformation on the improvement in slope (transformed—untransformed trait data)—the bigger the improvement in slope, the more robust the index becomes to missing trait data (y axis). The right panels illustrate the different improvements in trait skewness, depicting examples of trait distribution before and after transformation, which correspond to the x axis of the main figure (matching colours).</p

Effect of abundance transformation on FD index sensitivity.

<p>Barplots showing the results of linear mixed effects models, specifically the effect of the abundance transformation on the slopes for the three different types of organisms. The more negative the regression slope, the more sensitive the particular index is to missing trait information. The error bars denote the 95% confidence intervals. (A) plant community (n = 12 plots), (B) ant community (n = 58 plots), and (C) bird community (n = 8 plots). The right panels depict dominance-diversity curves for the respective organism dataset before and after log-transformation.</p