Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Cue rarefaction analysis

Rarefaction analysis of sequence coverage. Average number of OTUs identified in each cue sample at various coverage depths (number of reads).

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.264v1/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

There are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Sarah W Davies conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Eli Meyer conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Sarah M Guermond performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Mikhail V Matz conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: FGBNMS-2009-005-A2, A3

Orpheus Island Research Station: G10/33943.1

Grant Disclosures

The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:

National Science Foundation grant: DEB-1054766 to MVM

DNA Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:

All sequence data for this study will be made publicly available prior to publication on Genbank.

Funding

Research was funded by the National Science Foundation grant DEB-1054766 to MVM, a departmental start-up grant from the Section of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas at Austin to SWD and the PADI Foundation Award to SWD. We also acknowledge the FGBNMS for boat time. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies