SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Disclaimer: Supplementary materials have been peer-reviewed but not copyedited.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
evo12388-sup-0001-SupMat.doc1769K

Table S1. The nested statistical models fit for each trait and the hypotheses they tested.

Table S2. Summary of the statistical models fit to evaluate egg hatching rates.

Table S3. Summary of the statistical models fit to evaluate copepod infection rates.

Table S4. Summary of the statistical models evaluating the presence or absence of the cercomer in vivo 9 days after infection of copepods.

Table S5. Summary of the statistical models fit to evaluate larval (procercoid) size in copepods 13 days post exposure.

Table S6. Summary of the statistical models evaluating the proportion of worms with developmental defects in copepods 13 days post exposure (i.e., no corpuscles or no cercomer).

Table S7. Summary of the statistical models evaluating infection success in sticklebacks.

Table S8. Summary of the statistical models evaluating the weight of plerocercoids (mg) in sticklebacks.

Table S9. Summary of the statistical models evaluating the number of eggs produced by outcrossed and selfed worms that were forced to self in the G1 generation.

Figure S1. Average procercoid area (um2) for the 14 parasite families used in the experiment.

Figure S2. Comparison of the mean hatching rates for the inbred groups estimated by the different statistical models.

Figure S3. Comparison of the mean infection rates in copepods for the inbred groups estimated by the different statistical models.

Figure S4. Comparison of the proportion of worms with a cercomer 9 days post exposure (DPE) for the inbred groups estimated by the different statistical models. Bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Figure S5. Comparison of procercoid sizes 13 days post exposure (DPE) estimated for the inbred groups by the different statistical models.

Figure S6. Comparison of the proportion of worms with developmental defects 13 days post exposure (DPE) in the inbred groups estimated by the different statistical models.

Figure S7. Comparison of the infection rates in sticklebacks for the inbred groups estimated by the different statistical models.

Figure S8. The asymptotic plerocercoid size in fish for the inbred groups, as estimated by the different statistical models.

Figure S9. Comparison of egg production in the inbred groups as estimated by the different statistical models.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.