microbiotas. (C) Jaccard distance. Once again, an unweighted distance metric also distinguishes the two gut microbiota treatment groups. Comparing the diversity within and between the S4 Fig. Jaccard index of beta diversity. two fruit fly treatment groups, indicating that the groups are cohesive and distinct from each other. Cohesive: there is no significant difference in gut microbiota similarity within each treatment group (p = 0.066). Distinct: there is a significant difference in the similarity within each group and the similarity between the groups (p-values of 0.001 and <0.001). S5 Fig. Shannon alpha diversity. Showing the difference in gut microbiota diversity between the untreated flies and the antibiotic treated flies. This difference between the treatment groups is significant, with a p-value of 0.0412, indicating the two treatment groups are distinct. S6 Fig. MCA analysis of and and various essential oils whose P. sylvestris W. nobilis Note that the MCA does separate the essential oils into antibacterial properties are known. those that do and do not inhibit the activity of However, the resins do not fall L. plantarum. clearly into either group. (A) MCA, assuming that coordinate 1 represents the antibacterial effectiveness of the compound against in which case resin seems L. plantarum, P. sylvestris to be more likely to effectively inhibit decay. (B) MCA assuming that antibacterial effectiveness corresponds to a vector intermediate between coordinates 1 and 2, in which case resin seems likely to be slightly more effective at inhibiting decay. W. nobilis S1 Table. Chemical composition of and resin. Pinus sylvestris Wollemia nobilis Compounds in bold are only present in one of the two resins. The compounds are ordered
microbiotas. (C) Jaccard distance. Once again, an unweighted distance metric also distinguishes the two gut microbiota treatment groups. S4 Fig. Jaccard index of beta diversity. Comparing the diversity within and between the two fruit fly treatment groups, indicating that the groups are cohesive and distinct from each other. Cohesive: there is no significant difference in gut microbiota similarity within each treatment group (p = 0.066). Distinct: there is a significant difference in the similarity within each group and the similarity between the groups (p-values of 0.001 and <0.001). S5 Fig. Shannon alpha diversity. Showing the difference in gut microbiota diversity between the untreated flies and the antibiotic treated flies. This difference between the treatment groups is significant, with a p-value of 0.0412, indicating the two treatment groups are distinct. S6 Fig. MCA analysis of P. sylvestris and W. nobilis and various essential oils whose antibacterial properties are known. Note that the MCA does separate the essential oils into those that do and do not inhibit the activity of L. plantarum. However, the resins do not fall clearly into either group. (A) MCA, assuming that coordinate 1 represents the antibacterial effectiveness of the compound against L. plantarum, in which case P. sylvestris resin seems to be more likely to effectively inhibit decay. (B) MCA assuming that antibacterial effectiveness corresponds to a vector intermediate between coordinates 1 and 2, in which case W. nobilis resin seems likely to be slightly more effective at inhibiting decay. S1 Table. Chemical composition of Pinus sylvestris and Wollemia nobilis resin. Compounds in bold are only present in one of the two resins. The compounds are ordered