## 3 Results
### Relative Abundance  
Although there is considerable overlap in the most abundant genera present across these six caves and between Hawaiian and New Mexican caves, there are several genera that showed differences in abundance across sites. Of particular note is the genus _Blackocatella_, which was much higher in the New Mexican caves, and only present in a much lower amount in the three Hawaiian caves (Figure 5). Other genera present in higher amounts in the New Mexican caves were _Bryobacter_, _Rubobacter_, _Micrococaceae_, _Crossiella_, unclassified 67-14, and _Candidatus Udaebacter_. Hawaiian samples have considerably more _Candidatus Omnitrophus_, _Genmataceae_, _Vicinamibacteraceae_, CCM11a, and PLTA13.  
Additionally, there are some differences among speleothems depending on where they come from (Figure 6). Coralloid microbial composition differs between Hawai'i and New Mexico, in that Hawaiian samples contained _Candidatus Omnitrophus_, CCM11a, and _NB1-j_. Additionally, the bacterial analysis of Hawaiian coralloids had more abundant _Nitrospira_, unclassified Alphaproteobacteria, Gemmataceae, and Longimicrobiaceae than  
Figure 5: Bacterial relative abundance by cave and location. The top nine bacterial genera by cave, with the three Hawaiian caves on the left and the three New Mexican caves on the right.  
New Mexican coralloids. Meanwhile, New Mexican coralloids were more abundant in _Rubrobacter_, 67-14, and JG30-KF-CM45 than Hawaiian coralloids.  
Microbial mats also differ between New Mexico and Hawai' i in that Hawaiian samples contained _Candidatus_ Omnitrophus, AKYG1722, NB1-j, and Zixibacteria--all of which are not found in New Mexican microbial mats. Additionally, Hawaiian samples were more abundant than New Mexican samples in MND1, _Nitrospira_, and unclassified Alphaproteobacteria. New Mexican samples had more _Bryobacter_, _Crossiella_, _Rubrobacter_, _Solirubrobacter_, and 67-14.  
Mineral crusts differ between our two locations in a few ways. Hawaiian samples contained Longimicrobiaceae, Nitriliruptoraceae, and PLTA13, all of which were not found  
Figure 6: Bacterial relative abundance by cave and location. Top 6 genera from each location, organized by speleothem and location.  
in New Mexican samples. More abundant in Hawai' i than in New Mexico were _Candidatus_ Omnitrophus, unclassified Alphaproteobacteria, and NB1-j; whereas New Mexican samples were more abundant in _Bryobacter_, _Rubrobacter_, _Solirubrobacter_, and 67-14.  
Moonmilk, on the other hand, was very different in terms of microbial composition, as the Hawaiian moonmilk had lower numbers of bacteria that had been found more within New Mexican samples. We found _Candidatus_ Omnitrophus, Gemmataceae, CCM11a, and NB1-j to be present exclusively within Hawaiian moonmilk. In comparison with the New Mexico samples, we found MND1, _Solirubrobacter_, unclassified Acidimicrobia, unclassified Alphaproteobacteria, Gemmatimonadaceae, Longimicrobiaceae, IMCC26256, PLTA13, and wb1-P19 to be more abundant in Hawai' i. In addition, _Rubrobacter_, AKYG1722, unclassified Euzebyaceae [49], Micrococcaceae, and Nitriliruptoraceae were more abundant in New Mexico.  
Ooze was also slightly different in that _Solirubrobacter_ and Longimicrobiaceae were only found in Hawai' i, whereas _Candidatus_ Omnitrophus, Acidimicrobia, unclassified Alphaproteabacteria, and Gemmataceae were more abundant in Hawai' i than New Mexico. More abundant in New Mexico were MND1, AKYG1722, BSV26, Micrococcaceae, and Zixibacteria.