Table 1.
Set of Detected Lipids and Their Indications.
Fig 1.
Average abundance of the most common lipids within honey bee colonies.
Bar graph representing the average biomass of the most common lipids on a whole hive basis, generated by combining the individual hive components. Presented are those lipids that represent more than 1%. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Abbreviations: Gram-negative (Gm-); Gram-positive (Gm+); γ-Proteobacteria (γ-proteo EV = Enterobacter/Vibrio); Bacillus-Clostridium group (BC); Saprotrophic Fungi (SP); Ectomycorrhizal fungi (Ecto).
Fig 2.
Lipid richness for honey bees and their hive components.
Average number of individual lipids detected from each hive component. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Letters represent Tukey-Kramer HSD pairwise comparisons, with those groups not possessing overlap in letters being significantly different. Those groups sharing letters do not significantly differ.
Fig 3.
Rarefaction and lipid accumulation curves for honey bees and their hive components.
A.) Observed and estimated curves resulting from community analyses of adults, honey, and pollen using Mao Tau and Chao2 methods. B.) Observed and estimated curves from comb, pupae, and propolis community analyses. Dashed lines represent corresponding confidence intervals.
Table 2.
P-values from Tukey-Kramer HSD Pairwise Comparisons of Total Number of Lipids Detected in Each Component.
Fig 4.
Lipid-based microbial community profile for honey bees and their hive components.
Relative abundance of Actinobacteria, Gram-positive, Gram-negative, general bacteria, and fungi associated with honey bees and the different components of honey bee colonies.
Table 3.
P-Values from Tukey-Kramer HSD Pairwise Comparisons of Lipid Profiles by Year.
Table 4.
P-Values from Significant Tukey-Kramer HSD Pairwise Comparisons of Lipid Profiles By Component.
Fig 5.
Principal component analysis of lipid profile for honey bees and their hive components.
Score plot shows variation in PLFA-FAME profiles by hive components. Lines drawn delineate sample aggregates. Inlay displays one propolis sample that skewed the plot. Main plot is redrawn without that data point. When produced by sample year, individual hive or location, no clustering is readily apparent.
Fig 6.
Heat map, dendrograms and dot plot representing both lipid and component clustering.
Heatmap represents a two-way clustering analysis derived from lipid profiles. Vertical dendrogram represents clustering of profiles by components. This dendrogram shows components clustering together at various points in the tree. The dot plot immediately to the right of the vertical diagram represents each of the eleven hives sampled and indicates that communities are not clustering by hive as dots are not found in groups on the same row. Each of the sample labels are color coded to represent sampling year. Similar to component-wise consideration, there appear to be clusters by year, although to a lesser extent. The horizontal dendrogram at the top of the figure represents individual lipids. Clustering can also be observed when considering general lipid division, e.g. the monounsaturated fatty acids group together. Fatty acid coloring: hydroxyl, green; cyclic, orange; branched, purple; monounsaturated, red; saturated, blue; methylated, yellow; polyunsaturated, pink; unclassified, black.