Table 2. Differences in the composition between the oral and faecal microbiota of the great tit.
| composition | interindividual variation | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Df | Mean Sum Sq. | F | R2 | p | Mean Sum Sq. | F | p | ||
| Weighted UniFrac | GIT region | 1 | 0.47575 | 4.09496 | 0.10474 | 0.00781 | 0.24614 | 20.64496 | 0.00006 |
| Residuals | 35 | 0.11618 | 0.01192 | ||||||
| Unweighed UniFrac | GIT region | 1 | 0.78810 | 3.58368 | 0.09288 | 0.00781 | 0.00204 | 0.92960 | 0.34158 |
| Residuals1 | 35 | 0.21991 | 0.00220 | ||||||
| Bray Curtis | GIT region | 1 | 1.51171 | 4.31907 | 0.10985 | 0.00391 | 0.09235 | 14.12805 | 0.00062 |
| Residuals2 | 35 | 0.35001 | 0.00654 | ||||||
| Jaccard | GIT region | 1 | 0.92409 | 2.56352 | 0.06825 | 0.00391 | 0.00884 | 9.14144 | 0.00465 |
| Residuals3 | 35 | 0.36048 | 0.00097 | ||||||
Differences in composition were analysed using adonis, whereas differences in interindividual variation were assessed using betadisper. Both analyses were performed on four types of dissimilarity indexes.