it is not known whether the strains of yeast species that are characteristic of fly-processed banana have undergone changes in their physiology or morphology that enhance their ability to be vectored or to grow in fruits used by flies, or that enhance their value as dietary items for those flies. Hence, although the current study emphasizes the effects of Drosophila on yeast communities, it also opens the door to additional studies into the nature and evolution of potentially beneficial mutualistic interactions between Drosophila and the yeasts that adult flies and their offspring consume on natural substrates. Supporting Information Figure S1 Larval processing decreased the variability of yeast communities on banana fruits. Multivariate disper- sion was measured as the mean distance to the centroid of a treatment group in principal component space. Both the larvae and the larvae and adult treatments were significantly different from the control group (p,0.001). (TIF) Figure S2 Ordination of yeast community composition on the first two principal coordinates (PCoA1 and PCoA2). Each open symbol or cross represents a yeast community. The colored polygons represent the ordination hull encompassing each of the four treatment groups: green = adults, blue = no flies, violet = larvae, and orange = adults and larvae. References 1. Ganter PF (2006) Yeast and Invertebrate Associations. In: Rosa CA, Szabo PG, editors. Biodiversity and Ecophysiology of Yeasts. New York: Springer. 303–370. 2. Starmer WT, LaChance MA (2011) Yeast Ecology. In: Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T, editors. The Yeasts: A Taxonomic Study, 5th ed. Waltham, MA: Elsevier. 65–83. 3. Carroll GC (1992) Fungal mutalism. In: Carroll GC, Wicklow DT, editors. The Fungal Community. New York: Marcel Denker, Inc. 327–354. 4. Laland KN, Sterelny K (2006) Seven reasons (not) to neglect niche construction. Evolution 60: 1751–1762. 5. OdlingSmee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (2003) Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 6. Murakami T, Higashi S (1997) Social organization in two primitive attine ants,Cyphomyrmex rimosus and Myrmicocrypta ednaella, with reference to their fungus substrates and food sources. Journal of Ethology 15: 17–25. 7. Vo TL, Mueller UG, Mikheyev AS (2009) Free-living fungal symbionts (Lepiotaceae) of fungus-growing ants (Attini: Formicidae). Mycologia 101: 206–210. 8. Begon M (1982) Yeasts and Drosophila. In: Ashburner M, Carson HL, Thompson J, editors. The genetics and biology of Drosophila. New York: Academic Press. 345–384. 9. Anagnostou C, Dorsch M, Rohlfs M (2010) Influence of dietary yeasts on Drosophila melanogaster life-history traits. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 136: 1–11. 10. Starmer WT, Aberdeen V (1990) The nutritional importance of pure and mixed cultures of yeasts in the development of Drosophila mulleri larvae in Opuntia tissues and its relationship to host plant shifts. In: Barker JSF, Starmer WT, MacIntyre RJ, editors. Ecological and Evolutionary Genetics of Drosophila. New York: Plenum Press. 11. Rohlfs M, Kurschner L (2010) Saprophagous insect larvae, Drosophila melanogaster, profit from increased species richness in beneficial microbes. Journal of Applied Entomology 134: 667–671. 12. Starmer WT, Fogleman JC (1986) Coadaptation of Drosophila and yeasts in their natural habitat. Journal of Chemical Ecology 12: 1037–1055. 13. Anagnostou C, LeGrand EA, Rohlfs M (2010) Friendly food for fitter flies? - Influence of dietary microbial species on food choice and parasitoid resistance in Drosophila. Oikos 119: 533–541. 14. Gilbert DG (1980) Dispersal of yeasts and bacteria by Drosophila in a temperate forest. Oecologia 46: 135–137. 15. Ganter PF (1988) The vectoring of cactophilic yeasts by Drosophila. Oecologia 75: 400–404. 16. Lachance MA, Starmer WT, Rosa CA, Bowles JM, Barker JSF, et al. (2001) Biogeography of the yeasts of ephemeral flowers and their insects. Fems Yeast Research 1: 1–8. 17. Morais PB, Rosa CA, Hagler AN, Mendoncahagler LC (1994) Yeast communities of the cactus Philoscocereus arrabidae as resources for larval and Drosophila Effects on Yeast Communities Appendix S1 (DOCX) The centroids of each group are represented with filled symbols: circle = no flies, triangle = adults, diamond = larvae, square = adults and larvae. (TIF) Figure S3 Yeast species richness for four treatment groups. Flies tended to reduce variability in the species richness of yeast communities. With adult and larvae present, the majority of yeast communities contained three yeast species. (TIF) Additional information on isolines. Appendix S2 Larval fecal pool size and size at emer- gence as a function of fruit diet. (DOCX) Appendix S3 Evidence that Candida californica, C. zemplinina and Pichia kluyveri are ‘‘substrate-general- ists’’. (DOCX) Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: JAS KLBM VMM. Performed the experiments: JAS VMM. Analyzed the data: JAS VMM LHY KLBM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JAS KLBM LHY. Wrote the paper: JAS LHY KLBM VMM. adult stages of Drosophila serido. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology 66: 313–317. 18. Lachance MA, Starmer WT, Bowles JM (1989) The yeast community of morning glory and associated drosophilids in a Hawaiian kipuka. Yeast 5: S501– 504. 19. Budnik M, Gajardo G (1981) Mechanical facilitation on preadult viability of Drosophila pavani. Revista Brasileira De Genetica 4: 513–524. 20. Sewell D, Burnet B, Connolly K (1975) Genetic analysis of larval feeding behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res Camb 24: 163–173. 21. Stamps J, Blozis S (2006) Effects of natal experience on habitat selection when individuals make choices in groups: a multilevel analysis. Animal Behaviour 71: 663–672. 22. Davis J (2007) Preference or desperation? Distinguishing between the natal habitat’s effects on habitat choice. Animal Behaviour 74: 111–119. 23. Jett B (1997) Simplified agar plate method for quantifying viable bacteria. Biotechniques 23: 648–650. 24. Kurtzman CP, Robnett CJ (1997) Identification of clinically important ascomycetous yeasts based on nucleotide divergence in the 5’ end of the large- subunit (26S) ribosomal DNA gene. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 35: 1216– 1223. 25. O’Donnell K (1993) Fusarium and its near relatives. In: Reynolds D, Taylor J, editors. The fungal holomorph: mitotic, meiotic and pleomorphic speciation in fungal systematics. Wallingford, Conn.: CAB International. 225–233. 26. Green CH, Burnet B, Connolly KJ (1983) Organization and patterns of interspecific and intraspecific variation in the behavior of Drosophila larvae. Animal Behaviour 31: 282–291. 27. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26: 32–46. 28. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara RB, et al. (2010) vegan: Community Ecology Package. Available: http://cran.r-project.org/web/ packages/vegan/index.html. Accessed 2012 Jul 11. 29. Anderson MJ, Ellingsen KE, McArdle BH (2006) Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecology Letters 9: 683–693. 30. Verhoeven KJF, Simonsen KL, McIntyre LM (2005) Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108: 643–647. 31. Sharma RR, Singh D, Singh R (2009) Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables by microbial antagonists: A review. Biological Control 50: 205–221. 32. Wertheim B, Marchais J, Vet LEM, Dicke M (2002) Allee effect in larval resource exploitation in Drosophila: an interaction among density of adults, larvae, and micro-organisms. Ecological Entomology 27: 608–617. 33. Rohlfs M (2005) Density-dependent insect-mold interactions: effects on fungal growth and spore production. Mycologia 97: 996–1001. 34. Coluccio AE, Rodriguez RK, Kernan MJ, Neiman AM (2008) The yeast spore wall enables spores to survive passage through the digestive tract of Drosophila. Plos One 3. PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 10 July 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 7 | e42238