Table S1.xlsx

	A	B	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	P
1	Ref.	Authors	DOI/LINK	Type of system	System details	Type of species	Type of interaction	Obligate interaction?	Species richness	Number of replicates per treatment	Community-level properties	Do authors make claims about community-level repeatability	Notes

2	18	Meyer 2012	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1214449	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	102	Infection mechanism	No		Infection mechanism
3	20	Williams 2016	https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00370	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	No	2	5	Community yield	Yes		Community yield
4	30	Losos et al 1998	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5359.2115	Natural	Anole lizard diversification	Lizard	Ecomorph diversification	No	6	NA	Parallel diversification	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
5	55	Rainey and Travisano 1998	https://doi.org/10.1038/27900	Experimental	Liquid culture, static	Pseudomonas diversification	Competition	No	3	24	Competitiveness	Yes		Ecotype distribution
6	64	Petren et al 2005	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02632.x	Natural	Darwin's Finch diversification	Darwin's Finch	Ecomorph Diversification	No	NA	NA	Ecomorph diversification	No		Ecomorph distribution
7	66	Lamichhaney et al 2015	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14181	Natural	Darwin's Finch diversification	Darwin's Finch	Competition	No	2-4	NA	Ecomorph distribution	No		Ecomorph distribution
8	67	Kocher et al 1993	https://doi.org/10.1006/mpev.1993.1016	Natural	Cichlid fish diversification	Fish	Ecomorph diversification	No	6	NA	Parallel diversification	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
9	68	Young et al 2009	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004740	Natural	Cichlid fish diversification	Fish	Ecomorph diversification	No	NA	NA	Parallel diversification of morphology	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
10	69	Muschick et al 2012	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.10.048	Natural	Cichlid fish diversification	Fish	Ecomorph diversification	No	14	NA	Parallel diversification of morphology	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
11	71	Miller et al 2019	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.12.044	Natural	Stickleback diversification	Fish	Ecomorph diversification	No	2	NA	Parallel diversification	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
12	72	Rundle et al 2000	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5451.306	Natural	Stickleback diversification	Fish	Ecomorph diversification	No	2	NA	Reproductive isolation	No		Ecomorph distribution
13	73	Frederich et al 2013	https://doi.org/10.1086/668599	Natural	Damselfish diversification	Fish	Ecomorph diversification	No	2	NA	Parallel diversification	No		Ecomorph distribution
14	74	Losos et al 2003	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01814	Natural	Anole lizard diversification	Lizard	Ecomorph diversification	No	NA	NA	Niche occupancy	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
15	75	Gillespie 2004	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091875	Natural	Hawaiian spider diversification	Spiders	Ecomorph diversification	No	4	NA	Parallel diversification	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
16	76	Gillespie et al 2018	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.083	Natural	Hawaiian spider diversification	Spiders	Ecomorph diversification	No	4	NA	Parallel diversification	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
17	78	Mahler et al 2013	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232392	Natural	Anole lizard diversification	Lizard	Ecomorph diversification	No	NA	NA	Parallel diversification	Yes		Ecomorph distribution
18	84	Brodie and Brodie 2015	https://doi.org/10.1159/000435905	Natural	Evolution of resistance to tetrodotoxin	Diverse Taxa	Antagonism	No	2	NA	Toxin resistance	Yes		Toxin resistance
19	85	Herre et al 1996	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.1996.tb00014.x	Natural	Fig, Fig Wasp species pairs	Insect, Plant	Mutualism	Yes	2	NA	Codiversification	No		Species interaction
20	86	Weiblen and Bush 2002	https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01529.x	Natural	Fig, Fig Wasp species pairs	Insect, Plant	Mutualism	Yes	2	NA	Interaction specificity	No		Species interaction
21	87	Jousselin et al 2003	https://doi.org/10.1554/02-445	Natural	Fig, Fig Wasp species pairs	Insect, Plant	Mutualism	Yes	2	NA	Codiversification	Yes		Species interaction
22	88	Ronsted et al 2005	https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.2005.3249	Natural	Fig, Fig Wasp species pairs	Insect, Plant	Mutualism	Yes	2	NA	Codiversification	Yes		Species interaction
23	89	Cruaud et al 2012	https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys068	Natural	Fig, Fig Wasp species pairs	Insect, Plant	Mutualism	Yes	2	NA	Codiversification	No		Species interaction
24	90	Segar et al 2013	https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12183	Natural	Fig, Fig Wasp species pairs	Insect, Plant	Mutualism	Yes	2	NA	Niche occupancy	No		Relative abundances of guilds
25	91	Maherali et al 2016	https://doi.org/10.1086/688675	Natural	Plant-fungi mutualism	Plants, Fungi	Mutualism	No	2	NA	Mutualism persistance and abandonment	Yes		Species interaction
26	97	Hafner et al 2003	https://phthiraptera.myspecies.info/content/cophylogeny-between-pocket-gophers-and-chewing-lice	Natural	Gopher and Lice codiversification	Animal, Insect	Species codiversification	Yes	2	NA	Codiversification	Yes		Species interaction
27	98	Jousselin et al 2008	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00406.x	Natural	Fig, Fig Wasp species pairs	Insect, Plant	Species codiversification	Yes	2	NA	Codiversification	Yes		Species interaction
28	100	Buckling et al 2000	https://doi.org/10.1038/35050080	Experimental	Liquid culture, static and well-mixed	Pseudomonas diversification	Competition	No	3	2	Community diversity	No		Community diversity
29	101	Fukami et al 2007	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05629	Experimental	Liquid culture, static	Pseudomonas diversification	Competition	No	2	3	Community structure, yield, diversity	No		Community structure, yield, diversity
30	102	Chao 1977	https://doi.org/10.2307/1935611	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	2	community structure, fitness as a function of ecosystem context	No		community structure, fitness as a function of ecosystem context
31	103	Lenski and Levin 1985	https://doi.org/10.1086/284364	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	2	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulance)
32	104	Yoshida et al 2003	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01767	Experimental	Chemostat	Algae, rotifer	Antagonism	Yes	2	4-5	community structure over time	No		Community structure
33	105	Brockhurst 2004	https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.2003.2556	Experimental	Liquid batch, static and well-mixed	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	6	Communtiy structure	No		Communtiy structure
34	106	Koskella and Lively 2009	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00711.x	Experimental	Large Tank, no transfer	Snail, Trematode	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	8	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
35	108	Hall 2011	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01624.x	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	6	Virulence, Fitness as a function of ecosystem context	No		Species interaction (virulence)
36	109	Morran 2011	https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1206360	Experimental	Petri Dish	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	5	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
37	110	Auld and Brand 2017	https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.27	Experimental	Outdoor Pond Mesocosm	Zooplankdon, Microbe	Antagonism	Yes (for microbe)	2	10	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
38	111	Papkou 2019	https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810402116	Experimental	Petri Dish	Microbe, Nematode	Antagonism	Yes (for microbe)	2	16	Virulence	Yes		Species interaction (virulence)
39	112	Castledine 2022	https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73679	Experimental; Patient	Experimental: Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	6	Virulence	Yes		Species interaction (virulence)
40	114	Barnet 1981	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1981.tb01273.x	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	2	Virulence, Community structure	No		Species interaction (virulence), Community structure
41	115	Brockhurst 2006	https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1472-6785-6-19	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	4	24	Community yield, community structure	No		Community yield, community structure
42	116	Buckling and Rainey 2002	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01164	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	24	Virulence, Community structure	No		Species interaction (virulence), Community structure
43	117	Cannon 1976	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1976.tb02865.x	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	Community Structure	No		Community Structure
44	118	Cowlishaw and Mrsa 1975	https://doi.org/10.1128%2Fam.29.2.234-239.1975	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	1	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
45	119	Forde 2004	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02906	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
46	120	Forde 2008	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00411.x	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
47	121	Frickel 2016	https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12580	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	community structure, virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence), Community structure
48	122	Gupta 2022	https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76162	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	12	Fitness as a function of ecosystem context	No		Species interaction
49	123	Hall 2011	https://doi.org/10.1086/657441	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
50	124	Horne 1970	https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.168.3934.992.b	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	Unknown	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
51	125	Lopez Pascua et al (2012)	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02416.x	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	6	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
52	126	Marston 2012	https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1120310109	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	4	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
53	127	Middelboe 2009	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01920.x	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	2	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
54	128	Mizoguchi 2003	https://doi.org/10.1128%2FAEM.69.1.170-176.2003	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	Virulence, Community structure	No		Species interaction (virulence), Community structure
55	129	Morgan 2005	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03913	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	6	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
56	130	Buckling 2006	https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.2005.3279	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
57	131	Papkou 2021	https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2269	Experimental	Petri Dish	Microbe, Nematode	Antagonism	Yes (for microbe)	2	16	Virulence	No	Same system as Papkou 2018	Species interaction (virulence)
58	132	Schrag and Mittler 1996	https://doi.org/10.1086/285929	Experimental	Chemostats and liquid batch culture	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	6	Virulence, Community structure	No		Species interaction (virulence), Community structure
59	133	Spanakis and Horne 1987	https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-133-2-353	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	2	Virulence, Community structure	No		Species interaction (virulence), Community structure
60	134	Wei 2010	https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.0651	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	Virulence, Community structure	No		Species interaction (virulence), Community structure
61	135	Hansen et al 2007	https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05514	Experimental	Liquid culture, static; chemostat	Microbe	Host-commensal	Yes (for one species)	2	3	Community productivity	No		Community productivity
62	136	Hillesland and Stahl 2010	https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908456107	Experimental	Liquid batch, static and well-mixed	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	12	Community growth, community yield	No		Community growth, community yield
63	137	Harcombe 2010	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00959.x	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	10	Community yield	No		Community yield
64	138	Douglas 2016	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161837	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	3	Community structure, Community growth	Yes	Same system as Harcombe 2010	Community structure, Community growth
65	139	Marchal 2017	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0950-y	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	16	Community yield, spatial structure	Yes		Community yield, Species interaction
66	140	Harcombe 2018	https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810949115	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	6	Community structure, community yield	No	Same system as Harcombe 2010	Community structure, community yield
67	141	Lloyd 2019	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006213	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	4	Community structure, community growth, community genotype	No		Community structure, community growth, community genotype
68	144	Hart 2021	https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57838	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	3	Community genotype	No		Species interaction
69	145	Turkarslan 2021	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00919-9	Experimental	Liquid batch, static and well-mixed	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	9	Community genotype	Yes		Species interaction
70	146	Preussger 2020	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.100	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	12	Spatial structure	No		Spatial structure
71	147	Cooper 2014	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2014.09.007	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Commensalism	No	2	6	Community structure	No		Species interaction
72	148	Hillesland 2014	https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407986111	Experimental	Liquid batch, static and well-mixed	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	22	Community growth, community yield, community genotype	No	Same system as Hillesland and Stahl 2010	Community growth, community yield, species interaction
73	149	Preussger 2021	https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.19.444833	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	10	Community genotype	Yes		Species interaction
74	150	Summers 2010	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196526	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe	Mutualism	Yes	2	9	Community growth	No		Community growth
75	151	Lawrence 2012	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001330	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Unknown	No	5	15	Resource use, community productivity	No		Species interaction, community productivity
76	152	Celiker and Gore (2014	https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5643	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe	Unknown	No	6	96	Community structure	Yes		Community structure
77	153	Pantel 2015	https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12480	Experimental	Artificial pond mesocolsm	Zooplankton	Predation, Competition, Mutualism?	No	Unknown	3	Community structure	Yes		Community structure
78	154	Fiegna 2015	https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.215	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Unknown	No	2-12	3	Community growth	No	Same system as Lawrence et al 2012	Community growth
79	155	Gomez et al 2016	https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12453	Experimental	Compost	Pseudomonas w/ natural community	Unknown	No	Unknown	6	Community yield, composition	Yes		Community yield, composition
80	156	Castledine 2020	https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13599	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe	Unknown	No	5	12	Invasion tolerance, community productivity, community structure	No		Invasion tolerance, community productivity, community structure
81	157	Cairns 2020	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1272-9	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Unknown	No	34	8	Community structure	Yes		Community structure
82	158	Meroz 2021	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23247-0	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Unknown	No	2-3	3-18	Community structure	Yes		Community structure
83	160	Goyal 2022	https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74987	Experimental	Liquid Batch, static	Microbe	Unknown	No	10	10	Community structure	No		Community structure
84	161	Tyerman et al 2005	https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3068	Experimental	Liquid culture, batch, well-mixed	E. coli diversification	Frequency-dependent selection	No	2	2	community structure	Yes		Community structure
85	162	Meyer and Kassen 2007	https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05599	Experimental	Liquid culture, static	Pseudomonas diversification	Competition	No	2	3	community diversity	No		Community diversity
86	163	Spencer et al 2008	https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708504105	Experimental	Liquid culture, batch, well-mixed	E. coli diversification	Competition	No	2	10	Community structure	Yes		Community structure
87	164	Kinnersley et al 2009	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000713	Experimental	Chemostat	E. coli diversification	Mutualism	No	2	3	Community gene expression	No		Community transcriptome
88	165	Saxer et al 2010	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014184	Experimental	Liquid culture, batch, well-mixed	E. coli diversification	Competition	No	Unknown	10	Colony size diversity	Yes		Ecotype distribution
89	167	Traverse et al 2013	https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207025110	Experimental	Liquid culture, plastic bead biofilm	Burkholderia diversification	competition	No	2	6	Community diversification dynamics	Yes		Ecotype distribution
90	168	Fritts 2020	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-00737-5	Experimental	Liquid batch, static and well-mixed	Microbe	Commensalism	No	2	6	Community structure, community yield	No		Community structure, community yield
91	169	Masri 2015	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002169	Experimental	Petri Dish	Microbe, Nematode	Antagonism	Yes (for microbe)	2	10	Virulence	No		Species interaction (virulence)
92	170	Frickel 2018	https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03990-7	Experimental	Chemostat	Microbe, Virus	Antagonism	Yes (for virus)	2	3	community structure, virulence	Yes	Same system as Frickel 2016	Species interaction (virulence), Community structure
93	171	Venkataram 2022	https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.07.451547v4.abstract	Experimental	Liquid Batch, well-mixed	Microbe	Commensalism	No	2	~30	Community structure, Community yield	Yes		Community structure, Community yield
94	174	Batstone et al 2020	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb7222	Experimental	Legume host plants	Legume - microbe interaction	Mutualism	No	2	55	Host biomass after bacterial evolution	No		Species interaction
95
96
97
98
99
100