ESM, Figure 1. Correlation between microsatellite-based heterozygosity indices, IR and MLH

Transcription

1 ESM, Figure 1. Correlation between microsatellite-based heterozygosity indices, IR and MLH (β = -1.2 ± 0.01; t(373) = ; p < 0.001). ESM, Figure 2. Correlation between nestling body condition index and IR (β ± SE = ± 9.1; t(373) = -4.3, p < ; r 2 = 0.05). ), using the complete dataset (n = 375 offspring), including offspring measured from day 1-33 after hatching. ESM, Table 1. Parameters estimates from a linear mixed model with nestling body condition as the response, using the complete dataset (n = 375 offspring), including offspring measured from day 1-33 after hatching.. Model results shown separately for each heterozygosity index (MLH and IR). ESM, Figure 3. Correlation between nestling body condition index with (a) IR (β ± SE = ± 9.4; t(337) = -4.3, p < ; r 2 = 0.05) and (b) MLH (β ± SE = ± 11.19; t(337) = 4.5, p < ; r 2 = 0.05). Sample limited to 339 offspring measured between days after hatching. ESM, Table 2. Parameters estimates from a linear mixed model with nestling body condition as the response. Sample limited to 339 offspring measured between days after hatching. Model results shown separately for each heterozygosity index (MLH and IR).

2 ESM, Table 3. Parameter estimates from a generalized linear model with the probability of dying with signs of disease as the response (1 = diseased; 0 = other fates). ESM, Figure 4. Boxplots showing the relationship between individual fates and nestling body condition index. Fates were defined as birds that died with signs of disease (n = 21) and birds with other fates (n = 270). The horizontal line indicates the median, the bottom and top of the box indicate the 25 th and 75 th percentiles, respectively, and the whiskers indicate the smaller of the maximum value or 1.5 times the interquartile range. Non-overlapping notches in boxes suggest significant differences between medians. ESM, Figure 5. Correlation between IR and bactericidal activity against E. coli 8739 by diluted whole blood of crow nestlings (r 2 = 0.14; β ± SE = ± 0.13; t(50) = -2.86, p = 0.006). ESM, Table 4. Parameters of generalized linear models with hemolysis score as the response. Model results shown separately for each heterozygosity index (MLH and IR). ESM, Table 5. Parameter estimates from linear mixed models a with size as the response. Models presented with (a) bactericidal killing score (% colonies killed; n = 52 offspring), or (b) hemolysis score (n = 112 offspring) as predictors.

3 ESM, Figure 1. Correlation between microsatellite-based heterozygosity indices, IR and MLH (β = -1.2 ± 0.01; t(373) = ; p < 0.001).

4 ESM, Figure 2. Correlation between nestling body condition index and IR (β ± SE = ± 9.1; t(373) = -4.3, p < ; r 2 = 0.05). ), using the complete dataset (n = 375 offspring), including offspring measured from day 1-33 after hatching.

5 ESM, Table 1. Parameters estimates from a linear mixed model a with nestling body condition as the response, using the complete dataset (n = 375 offspring), including offspring measured from day 1-33 after hatching. Model results shown separately for each heterozygosity index (MLH and IR). β ± SE t(328) P MLH ± Year 3.29 ± Sex ( ) 8.57 ± IR ± Year 3.26 ± Sex ( ) 8.60 ± a Family group specified as a random effect

6 ESM, Figure 3. Correlation between nestling body condition index with (a) IR (β ± SE = ± 9.4; t(337) = -4.3, p < ; r 2 = 0.05) and (b) MLH (β ± SE = ± 11.19; t(337) = 4.5, p < ; r 2 = 0.05). Sample limited to 339 offspring measured between days after hatching.

7 ESM, Table 2. Parameters estimates from a linear mixed model a with nestling body condition as the response. Sample limited to 339 offspring measured between days after hatching. Model results shown separately for each heterozygosity index (MLH and IR). β ± SE t(295) P MLH ± Year 3.29 ± Sex ( ) 7.72 ± IR ± Year 3.27 ± Sex ( ) 7.74 ± a Family group specified as a random effect

8 ESM, Table 3. Parameter estimates from a generalized linear model with the probability of dying with signs of disease as the response (1 = diseased; 0 = other fates). β ± SE a Z(288) P Nestling body condition index ± IR b 4.38 ± a Parameter estimates given on the logit scale b IR = Internal Relatedness.

9 ESM, Figure 4. Boxplots showing the relationship between individual fates and nestling body condition index. Fates were defined as birds that died with signs of disease (n = 21) and birds with other fates (n = 270). The horizontal line indicates the median, the bottom and top of the box indicate the 25 th and 75 th percentiles, respectively, and the whiskers indicate the smaller of the maximum value or 1.5 times the interquartile range. Non-overlapping notches in boxes suggest significant differences between medians.

10 ESM, Figure 5. Correlation between IR and bactericidal activity against E. coli 8739 by diluted whole blood of crow nestlings (β ± SE = ± 0.13; t(50) = -2.86, p = 0.006; r 2 = 0.14).

11 ESM, Table 4. Parameter estimates from generalized linear models with hemolysis score as the response. Model results shown separately for MLH and IR. β ± SE a t (108) p MLH ± Year (2007 vs. 2005) 6.10 ± <0.001 Age (days) 6.28 ± IR 3.11 ± Year (2007 vs. 2005) 6.20 ± <0.001 Age (days) 6.51 ± a Parameter estimates given on the log scale

12 ESM, Table 5. Parameter estimates from linear mixed models a with size as the response. Models presented with a) bactericidal killing score (% colonies killed; n = 52 offspring), or b) hemolysis score ( n = 112 offspring) as predictors. (a) β ± SE a t (32) P % killed ± Sex (male vs. female) 2.34 ± Age (days) 1.57 ± < (b) β ± SE t (86) P Hemolysis score 0.38 ± Sex (M vs. F) 2.48 ± < Age (days) 0.92 ± < a Family group specified as a random effect