# Examining the Effects of Induced Plant Defenses on _Spodoptera frugiperda_ Performance
## 3 Results  
The model that included interactive effects for 7-day post-hatching survival fit the data reasonably well (Table S1A,B). However, the best fit and most parsimonious model included only the main effects of cultivar and JA treatment (Figure 1; Tables 1 and S1B). In general, neonates feeding on Gasoy increased their probability of survival by 15.4% compared to neonates feeding upon Braxton (Figure 1). Treating plants with JA to induce plant defenses reduced the probability of neonate survival regardless of cultivar by 9.6% (Figure 1; Table 1). For comparison, larvae reared on the artificial diet had a survival probability of 0.878 (\(\pm\)0.019 S.E.). Figure 1: Probability of _S. frugiperda_ 7-day survival (\(y\)-axis) on different plant cultivars crossed with induction treatments (\(x\)-axis). Cultivar affected insect survival with JA induction increasing larval mortality. Estimates in the figure are displayed as violin plots, represented as a traditional boxplot overlayed on a kernel density plot of the distribution of the Bayesian posterior estimates. For development time to pupation, the main effects model that included plant cultivar, pupal sex, and JA induction best fit the data (Figure 2; Tables 2 and S2C). Development time to pupa was influenced by plant cultivar and JA induction but not gender (Table 2). Larvae feeding on JA-induced plants took about 3 days longer to develop (a \(\sim\)16% increase) than on control plants, while larvae on Gasoy took about half a day longer to develop than larvae on Braxton, both regardless of gender (Figure 2; Table 2). For comparison, female larvae reared on the artificial diet pupated in 13.795 (\(\pm\)0.094 S.E.) days, while male larvae reared on the artificial diet pupated in 13.858 (\(\pm\)0.148 S.E.). In terms of pupal mass, the main effects model, which included cultivar, pupal gender, and JA induction best fit the data (Figure 3; Tables 3 and S3B). Given the credible intervals, pupal mass was only influenced by plant cultivar and not gender or induction, with individuals on Gasoy being on average 1 mg heavier than individuals on Braxton (Figure 3). However, there did seem to be a trend for gender and interaction between \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment Group** & **Mean** & **S.D.** & **2.5\% C.I.** & **25\% C.I.** & **50\% C.I.** & **75\% C.I.** & **97.5\% C.I.** & \(\hat{\mathbf{R}}\) & **N. eff** \\ \hline Braxton Innate & 1.034 & 0.107 & 0.827 & 0.962 & 1.032 & 1.105 & 1.249 & 1.001 & 27,000 \\ Gasoy Innate & 2.117 & 0.175 & 1.783 & 1.997 & 2.114 & 2.233 & 2.471 & 1.001 & 27,000 \\ Braxton + JA & 0.581 & 0.102 & 0.383 & 0.512 & 0.581 & 0.650 & 0.782 & 1.001 & 13,000 \\ Gasoy & 1.358 & 0.119 & 1.127 & 1.276 & 1.356 & 1.437 & 1.598 & 1.002 & 3200 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Bayesian GLM with group means parameterization of _S. frugiperda_ mortality at 7 days across different _G. max_ cultivars crossed for innate and induced jasmonic acid plant defenses. Differences between treatment group means inferred by non-overlapping 95% Credible Intervals (C.I. ). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment Group** & **Mean** & **S.D.** & **2.5\% C.I.** & **25\% C.I.** & **50\% C.I.** & **75\% C.I.** & **97.5\% C.I.** & \(\hat{\mathbf{R}}\) & **N. eff** \\ \hline Intercept & 17.827 & 0.157 & 17.519 & 17.722 & 17.826 & 17.932 & 18.136 & 1.001 & 45,000 \\ Cultivar & 0.580 & 0.164 & 0.261 & 0.467 & 0.579 & 0.691 & 0.901 & 1.001 & 45,000 \\ +JA & 2.824 & 0.164 & 2.503 & 2.714 & 2.823 & 2.935 & 3.144 & 1.001 & 45,000 \\ Sex & \(-\)0.030 & 0.166 & \(-\)0.355 & \(-\)0.143 & \(-\)0.030 & 0.082 & 0.294 & 1.001 & 45,000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Bayesian GLM with main effects parameterization of _S. frugiperda_ development time to pupation across different _G. max_ cultivars, innate/induced jasmonic acid plant defenses, and individuals’ sex. Note that the 95% Credible Intervals (C.I.) for sex overlap zero. Figure 2: Estimate of _S.