Data for: Nectar bacteria, but not yeast, weaken a plant-pollinator mutualism Authors: Vannette, R.L., Gauthier M-P., Fukami T 1. Stigma_Data.csv a. Summary: Dataset includes effects of microbial inoculation on stigma status for each of 7 trials through the summer of 2011. Number of seeds set per flower are included for five final trials. Data collected at Stanford University Stock Farm Growth Facility. b. Data collected by: Marie-Pierre Gauthier (mpg_mtl@hotmail.com) and Rachel L. Vannette (raleva@stanford.edu) c. Columns included i. ÒTrialÓ indicates the trial number, and associated dates are indicated in the ms. ii. ÒTreatmentÓ indicates the microbial taxa used to inoculate flowers iii. ÒStigma4Ó indicates the status of a floral stigma 4 days following inoculations and anthesis. (0=open, 1=closed) iv. ÒNet.StatusÓ indicates the presence of a 2 cm net covering flowers. 2. Seed_Set.csv a. Summary: Dataset includes the effects of microbial inoculation on the presence and number of seeds set per flower. b. Data collected by: Marie-Pierre Gauthier (mpg_mtl@hotmail.com) c. Columns included i. ÒTrialÓ indicates the trial number, and associated dates are indicated in the ms. ii. ÒTreatmentÓ indicates the microbial taxa used to inoculate flowers iii. ÒseedpresÓ indicates the presence (1) or absence (0) of seeds iv. ÒNet.StatusÓ indicates the presence of a 2 cm net covering flowers. v. ÒSeed.No.Ó indicates the total number of seeds contained within the pod. 3. Nectar_Removal.csv a. Summary: Dataset includes the mass of nectar (conditioned by either Metschnikowia reukaufii or Gluconobacter) remaining in fake flowers after 24 hours. Data collected at Stanford University Stock Farm Growth Facility. b. Data collected by: Marie-Pierre Gauthier (mpg_mtl@hotmail.com) c. Columns included i. ÒTrialÓ indicates the trial number, and associated dates are indicated in the ms. ii. ÒTreatmentÓ indicates the microbial taxa used to inoculate synthetic flowers iii. ÒremovedÓ indicates the mg of nectar removed by pollinators, calculated by subtracting the amount evaporated from the total amount of nectar added to tubes (calculated separately for each trial). iv. ÒnectartypeÓ indicates the plant species of the nectar used for each trial. 4. Nectar_Chem_Analysis.csv a. Summary: Dataset includes the effects of Metschnikowia reukaufii and Gluconobacter on nectar chemistry of Mimulus aurantiacus, including Sucrose, Fructose, and Glucose concentration, pH, and H2O2 concentration. Sugar concentrations were quantified using UPLC-ELSD, pH quantified using pH strips, and H2O2 concentration quantified using a peroxide detection assay (Thermo). b. Data collected by: Rachel L. Vannette (raleva@stanford.edu) c. Columns: i. ÒMicrobeÓ indicates which species conditioned nectar ii. ÒStrainÓ indicates which strain of Gluconobacter was used iii. ÒReplicateÓ iv. ÒpHÓ v. ÒH2O2Ó (?Mol) vi. ÒFructoseÓ (mg/mL) vii. ÒGlucoseÓ (mg/mL) viii. ÒSucroseÓ (mg/mL) ix. ÒInitialÓ indicates the initial concentration of cells added to nectar x. ÒFinal.ConcÓ indicates the final concentration of cells, quantified using CFUs on YMA. For all datasets, missing values are indicated by ÒNAÓ.