No abstract

Bacteria frequently engage in obligate metabolic mutualisms with other microorganisms. However, it remains generally unclear how the resulting metabolic dependencies affect the ecological niche space accessible to the whole consortium relative to the niche space available to its constituent individuals. Here we address this issue by systematically cultivating metabolically dependent strains of different bacterial species either individually or as pairwise coculture in a wide range of carbon sources.Our results show that obligate cross-feeding is significantly more likely to expand the metabolic niche space of interacting bacterial populations than to contract it. Moreover, niche expansion occurred predominantly between two specialist taxa and correlated positively with the phylogenetic distance between interaction partners. Together, our results demonstrate that obligate cross-feeding can significantly expand the ecological niche space of interacting bacterial genotypes, thus explaining the widespread occurrence of this type of ecological interaction in natural microbiomes.

No abstract

Little is known about facial communication of lesser apes (family Hylobatidae) and how their facial expressions (and use of) relate to social organization. We investigated facial expressions (defined as combinations of facial movements) in social interactions of mated pairs in five different hylobatid species belonging to three different genera using a recently developed objective coding system, the Facial Action Coding System for hylobatid species (GibbonFACS). We described three important properties of their facial expressions and compared them between genera. First, we compared the rate of facial expressions, which was defined as the number of facial expressions per units of time. Second, we compared their repertoire size, defined as the number of different types of facial expressions used, independent of their frequency. Third, we compared the diversity of expression, defined as the repertoire weighted by the rate of use for each type of facial expression. We observed a higher rate and diversity of facial expression, but no larger repertoire, in Symphalangus (siamangs) compared to Hylobates and Nomascus species. In line with previous research, these results suggest siamangs differ from other hylobatids in certain aspects of their social behavior. To investigate whether differences in facial expressions are linked to hylobatid socio-ecology, we used a Phylogenetic General Least Square (PGLS) regression analysis to correlate those properties with two social factors: group-size and level of monogamy. No relationship between the properties of facial expressions and these socio-ecological factors was found. One explanation could be that facial expressions in hylobatid species are subject to phylogenetic inertia and do not differ sufficiently between species to reveal correlations with factors such as group size and monogamy level.

Non-human primates use various communicative means in interactions with others. While primate gestures are commonly considered to be intentionally and flexibly used signals, facial expressions are often referred to as inflexible, automatic expressions of affective internal states. To explore whether and how non-human primates use facial expressions in specific communicative interactions, we studied five species of small apes (gibbons) by employing a newly established Facial Action Coding System for hylobatid species (GibbonFACS). We found that, despite individuals often being in close proximity to each other, in social (as opposed to non-social contexts) the duration of facial expressions was significantly longer when gibbons were facing another individual compared to non-facing situations. Social contexts included grooming, agonistic interactions and play, whereas non-social contexts included resting and self-grooming. Additionally, gibbons used facial expressions while facing another individual more often in social contexts than non-social contexts where facial expressions were produced regardless of the attentional state of the partner. Also, facial expressions were more likely ‘responded to’ by the partner’s facial expressions when facing another individual than non-facing. Taken together, our results indicate that gibbons use their facial expressions differentially depending on the social context and are able to use them in a directed way in communicative interactions with other conspecifics.