1
Supplementary Materials:
2
Materials and Methods:
3
Natural history of focal host-parasite species pair
4
The Galápagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis) is endemic to the Galápagos Islands where
5
the only known breeding populations occur on eight of the major islands [1]. The hawks are
6
long-lived and maintain year-round breeding territories; only one inter-island dispersal event has
7
been recorded through the re-sighting of a banded individual off its natal island [2]. Levels of
8
neutral genetic diversity within island populations at minisatellite and microsatellite loci for
9
Galápagos hawks are among the lowest of any natural bird population in the world [3, 4], but the
10
island populations are highly differentiated genetically. Each Galápagos hawk population is
11
infested by at least three ectoparasite species, including the ischnoceran louse, Degeeriella
12
regalis (Phthiraptera) [5, 6]. Degeeriela regalis is an obligate ectoparasite species that spends its
13
entire life cycle on the body and feathers of its hosts and is found exclusively on Galápagos
14
hawks [6] within the archipelago. As with other ischnoceran lice, D. regalis consume the downy
15
portions of feathers, which can reduce host fitness [7, 8]. D. regalis are primarily transmitted
16
from parent to offspring and their transmission rate is not related to the size of the host social
17
group, unlike an amblyceran louse, which also infests Galápagos hawks [5, 9].
18
Host and parasite sampling for genetics studies
19
Galápagos hawks were trapped on eight major islands using baited bal-chatri traps [10]
20
and rope nooses on poles. Within the largest island, Isla Isabela, hawks were sampled only from
21
Volcan Alcedo, although they included non-territorial birds that likely range widely across the
22
island. Hawks were sampled from multiple locales on all of the smaller islands. Once captured,
23
hawks were banded and two 50 μl blood samples were collected into heparinized capillary tubes
1
24
using brachial venipuncture. Blood samples were preserved in lysis buffer at ambient
25
temperature, and at 4C until DNA was extracted using chloroform-phenol-isoamyl alcohol
26
procedure, followed by dialysis. Complete methods for sample collection and DNA extraction
27
are described elsewhere [3].
28
Lice were collected from hawks using a dust-ruffling procedure. Dry pyrethrin/piperonyl
29
butoxide flea and tick powder designed for dogs was placed onto all feather tracts of the bird,
30
with special care taken to avoid the eyes and mouth [5]. Hawk feathers were then ruffled over a
31
collection surface until reaching the point of diminishing returns [11]. Dislodged ectoparasites
32
were collected into vials and preserved in 100% ethanol and later were stored at -20°C. All lice
33
from an individual hawk (termed a louse infrapopulation) were kept in a single vial. DNA was
34
extracted using Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue kits and was eluted off columns in a final step
35
using 40 μL of elution buffer.
36
Microsatellite genotyping
37
Hawks were genotyped at 20 variable nuclear microsatellite loci following methods
38
described in Hull et al. [12]. Loci included: A110, D122, D330, A204, A317, D210, D220,
39
D312old, D123, D234, B111a2, D310, D313, B220, D223, A302, A312, D107, D127, D324 [4,
40
12]. Individual lice were genotyped at six variable nuclear microsatellite loci that were
41
developed for D. regalis [13]. Loci included: Dre12, Dre23, Dre202, Dre204, Dre211, and
42
Dre223. Development of variable microsatellite loci from D. regalis was complicated by the
43
large number of monomorphic loci obtained. DNA concentration was very low for most of the
44
samples, and multiple PCRs were often required to achieve sufficient amplification. Given the
45
low DNA yields, genotyping was limited to six loci for each individual louse. For all PCR
46
amplifications, template DNA was diluted 1:1 with TLE buffer (5ml 1M Tris, 100μl 0.5M
2
47
EDTA, 494.9ml of dH20). Amplifications were performed on a MyCycler Thermal Cycler
48
System (Bio-Rad). Fragment sizes were determined in an ABI 3100 Genetic Analyzer (Applied
49
Biosystems) and scored against a GS500(-250) LIZ molecular size standard (Applied
50
Biosystems) using GeneMapper 4.01 (Applied Biosystems).
51
For genotyping at the Dre12 locus, we used the original amplification conditions
52
described in Peters et al. [13]. Amplifications were performed in 12.5L volumes with 1L
53
diluted template DNA, 1X PCR buffer (Sigma), 0.08M tag-labeled primer (CAG tag:
54
CAGTCGGGCGTCATCA at 5’ end), 0.4M unlabeled primer (GTTT at 5’ end), 0.36M
55
universal dye-labeled primer (VIC), 0.15mM each dNTP, 2.0mM MgCl2, 25g/ml BSA, and
56
0.5U JumpStart Taq DNA polymerase (Sigma). A touchdown PCR program was used and
57
cycling parameters were 95°C for 3min; 5 cycles of 95°C for 30s, 55°C for 30s, and 72°C for
58
30s; 21 cycles of 95°C for 30s, 55°C (decreased 0.5°C per cycle) for 30s, and 72°C for 30s; 15
59
cycles of 95°C for 30s, 45°C for 30s, and 72°C for 30s; and a final extension time of 72°C for
60
10min. Individually fluorescently-labeled primers were used with Dre23 (6-FAM), Dre202
61
(VIC), Dre204 (PET), Dre211 (6-FAM), and Dre223 (NED). Amplifications were performed in
62
12.5L volumes with 1L diluted template DNA, 1X PCR buffer (Sigma), 0.04M fluorescently
63
labeled forward primer, 0.4M reverse primer, 0.15mM each dNTP, 25g/ml BSA, and 0.5U
64
JumpStart Taq DNA polymerase (Sigma). In addition, 2.0mM MgCl2 was added, with the
65
exception of Dre211, where 2.4mM MgCl2 was used. A standard PCR program was used and
66
cycling parameters were 95°C for 3 min; 35 cycles of 95°C for 30s, primer-specific annealing
67
temperature for 30s, and 72°C for 30s; and a final extension time of 72°C for 10 min. Annealing
68
temperatures were 60°C (Dre23, Dre211, and Dre223) or 65°C (Dre202 and Dre204).
69
Population structure at the biogeographic scale
3
70
Variation across all microsatellite loci for each species was tested for departures from
71
Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) and linkage disequilibrium using ARLEQUIN 3.5 [14].
72
Loci showing significant linkage disequilibrium were discarded from the analyses described
73
below. Given the naturally small population sizes of hawks on many of the islands, deviations
74
from HWE were expected. Within the hawk dataset, two loci showed consistent deviations on
75
four of the eight island populations. However, even when these two loci were excluded from
76
analyses, we still found significant levels of genetic divergence between populations of hawks on
77
all eight islands.
78
Within the louse dataset, multiple loci were found to have an excess of homozygotes
79
(Wahlund effect) across the island populations. To avoid pseudoreplication from using genotypes
80
of multiple lice per hawk, a single louse genotype was randomly chosen from each hawk on an
81
island for use in the island-level analysis. As a consequence, the number of hawks limited the
82
sample size of lice and so it is perhaps not surprising that we also found deviations from HWE
83
for some loci. However, due to the additional limitation in the total number of loci available
84
within the louse dataset, it was not possible to reliably test the effect of removing deviating loci
85
from the analyses. Thus, we have included all six microsatellite loci markers in the analyses of
86
louse population structure among islands.
87
Hierarchical analyses of molecular variance (AMOVA), inferred with ARLEQUIN 3.5
88
[15] were used to estimate pairwise F-statistics based on microsatellite data. To compare hawk
89
populations at the biogeographic scale, each island was treated as an a priori defined population.
90
Significance of pairwise F-statistics was tested using 10,000 permutations and one-stage
91
estimates of false discovery rates were used to correct for multiple comparisons [16, 17]. Table
92
S2 shows the estimates of pairwise FST values among island populations of hawks and lice.
4
93
Sample sizes for hawks on each island are described in Table S1. A single louse genotype from
94
each hawk on an island was randomly chosen as a representative sample of an a priori defined
95
population. Sample sizes for lice are described in Table S1. Numbers of hawks and lice do not
96
match exactly because some hawk and lice individuals were not successfully genotyped and not
97
every hawk was infested with lice.
98
99
The most likely number of genetically distinct population clusters of hawks and lice
across the archipelago was estimated using STRUCTURE 2.3.4 [18]. The analyses were run
100
under the following parameters: 10,000 length burn-in, 100,000 replicates, admixture allowed,
101
and allele frequencies assumed to be correlated (the default recommendation for smaller
102
datasets). Five independent runs were conducted for each K value (K = 6 to 10) to obtain a mean
103
estimate of P(X|K). Parameters and protocols were identical for both hawk and louse analyses.
104
The point at which the K value posterior probabilities plateau was used to determine the optimal
105
number of estimated genetic clusters.
106
Mantel and partial-Mantel tests were used to test for isolation by distance across the
107
archipelago for both hawk and louse populations. Partial-Mantel tests allowed for statistical
108
control of a third variable (Table S3). Interisland distances were calculated using Google Earth to
109
measure the shortest distance (km) between any two islands (Table S4). Distances were log
110
transformed for all analyses to achieve a normal distribution. Island size (measured as island
111
area) may act as a confounding variable in analyses of isolation by distance. Island area can
112
serve as a proxy for population size, especially for hawks [3, 19], and larger populations are
113
expected to have higher levels of genetic diversity. Within the Galápagos Islands, there is a
114
negative correlation between the combined size of any two islands and the distance between
115
them (R2 = 0.22, p = 0.01), such that larger islands tend to be closer to one another than smaller
5
116
islands are to one another. Therefore, island area has the potential to confound tests for isolation
117
by distance. To test the relative importance of island size versus geographic distance in
118
predicting pairwise inter-island population FST, a matrix of combined island area was created and
119
used in the partial-Mantel tests (Table S4). Island areas are based on values in Bollmer et al. [3].
120
Estimates of louse infrapopulation structure
121
To investigate the genetic population structure of lice among individual hosts (i.e., among
122
louse infrapopulations), all of the lice on a given hawk were treated as an a priori defined
123
population. Thus, a louse infrapopulation refers to all of the lice that were sampled and
124
genotyped from a single hawk host. Louse infrapopulations were collected and genotyped from
125
two distinct populations of hawks, those on Fernandina and Santiago. These two populations of
126
hawks serve as independent replicates to investigate louse infrapopulation genetic structure.
127
Multiple lice from each hawk individual were genotyped at the same six polymorphic
128
microsatellite loci used in the analyses above. Only louse infrapopulations with more than six
129
genotyped individuals were included in the following analyses. Sample sizes are described in
130
Table S5.
131
Field observations of hawk parentage were used to estimate potential relatedness among
132
hawk individuals on an island. Because D. regalis are typically transmitted from parents to
133
offspring, inclusion of louse infrapopulations from related hawks could confound estimates of
134
relatedness. However, there were no cases where lice were collected from a known parent-
135
offspring pair. There was a single instance of two louse infrapopulations being collected from
136
fledglings assumed to be siblings still in their natal territory. Subsequently, infrapopulation data
137
from one randomly selected sibling were discarded from the following analyses. Analyses of
138
molecular variance, inferred with ARLEQUIN 3.5 were used to estimate pairwise F-statistics
6
139
based on microsatellite data. Statistical significance of pairwise F-statistics was tested using
140
10,000 permutations and one-stage estimates of false discovery rates to correct for multiple
141
comparisons [16, 17]. Estimates of pairwise FST among louse infrapopulations from individual
142
hawks sampled on Fernandina and Santiago are shown in Table S6.
143
We found different degrees of louse infrapopulation structure among birds on Fernandina
144
versus Santiago. On Fernandina, 93% of pairwise Fst values for louse infrapopulations differed
145
significantly from zero whereas on Santiago, 67% of pairwise Fst values for louse
146
infrapopulations differed significantly from zero (Figure S2, Table S7). The number of lice
147
sampled from each infrapopulation was not significantly correlated with various measures of
148
genetic diversity (Fernandina: FIS, R2 = 0.08, P = 0.54; average gene diversity over all loci, R2 =
149
0.12, P = 0.58; observed heterozygosity, R2 = 0.09, P =0.23) (Santiago: FIS, R2 = 0.01, P = 0.80;
150
average gene diversity over all loci, R2 = 0.08, P = 0.57). However, we did find a negative
151
correlation between the number of lice sampled from each infrapopulation and the observed
152
infrapopulation heterozygosity on Santiago (R2 = 0.07, P = 0.04), although the relationship was
153
largely driven by a single data point in which the largest number of lice (n = 15) was sampled
154
and the infrapopulation was fixed for one of the six loci.
155
Interestingly, degrees of hawk polyandry are known to differ among the islands [20].
156
Within this study, each female hawk on Fernandina was in a breeding group with an average 1.5
157
 0.2 (mean  S.E.) male hawks. On Santiago, each female hawk was in a breeding group with
158
an average of 4.2  0.4 male hawks. Although D. regalis primarily transmits from parent to
159
offspring, it is reasonable to hypothesize that there is some degree of louse transmission among
160
adult birds in breeding groups. Under this assumption, there is greater potential for migration
161
between louse infrapopulations when hawk group size is large [5]. We predicted that louse
7
162
infrapopulations sampled from hawks in larger breeding groups would show higher genetic
163
diversity than louse infrapopulations sampled from hawks in small breeding groups. However,
164
we did not find evidence to support this hypothesis; hawk group size was not significantly
165
correlated with louse infrapopulation genetic diversity (FIS, R2 = 0.08, P = 0.24; gene diversity
166
over all loci, R2 = 0.001, P = 0.91, observed heterozygosity, R2 = 0.16, P = 0.09).
167
Mantel and partial-Mantel tests were used to test for significant patterns of isolation by
168
distance within an island for louse infrapopulations. The assigned geographic location of each
169
louse infrapopulation corresponded to the nest location of the host hawk. Distances between nest
170
sites were calculated using GPS coordinates for each nest and Geographic Distance Matrix
171
Generator (v.1.2.3) [21]. Distances were log transformed for all analyses to achieve normal
172
distributions.
173
174
References:
175
176
1.
177
Phylogeography of the Galápagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis): a recent arrival to the Galápagos
178
islands. Mol Phylogen Evol 39, 237-247.
179
2.
180
Gerfaut 65, 29-57.
181
3.
182
2005 Population genetics of the Galápagos Hawk (Buteo galapagoensis): Genetic
183
monomorphism within isolated populations. Auk 122(4), 1210-1224.
184
4.
185
neutral variation in the Galápagos hawk, an island endemic. BMC Evol Biol 11.
Bollmer J.L., Kimball R.T., Whiteman N.K., Sarasola J.H., Parker P.G. 2006
de Vries T. 1975 The breeding biology of the Galapagos hawk, Buteo galapagoensis. Le
Bollmer J.L., Whiteman N.K., Cannon M.D., Bednarz J.C., De Vries T., Parker P.G.
Bollmer J.L., Hull J.M., Ernest H.B., Sarasola J.H., Parker P.G. 2011 Reduced MHC and
8
186
5.
Whiteman N.K., Parker P.G. 2004 Effects of host sociality on ectoparasite population
187
biology. J Parasitol 90(5), 939-947.
188
6.
189
population genetics of the threatened Galápagos hawk and three ectoparasite species: ecology
190
shapes population histories within parasite communities. Mol Ecol 16(22), 4759-4773.
191
7.
192
lose. American Zoology 30, 251-262.
193
8.
194
energetic cost of parasitism in free-ranging hosts. Proceedings of The Royal Society 253, 125-
195
129.
196
9.
197
transmission. Proc R Soc Lond, Ser B: Biol Sci 256, 211-217.
198
10.
199
30, 18-26.
200
11.
201
chewing lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera). J Parasitol 87(6), 1291-1300.
202
12.
203
microsatellite loci for Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsoni) and other buteos. Mol Ecol Notes 7,
204
346-349.
205
13.
206
of 10 microsatellite loci in an avian louse, Degeeriella regalis (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera:
207
Philopteridae). Molecular Ecology Resources 9(3), 882-884.
Whiteman N.K., Kimball R.T., Parker P.G. 2007 Co-phylogeography and comparative
Clayton D.H. 1990 Mate choice in experimentally parasitized rock doves: lousy males
Booth D.T., Clayton, D. H., Block, B.A. 1993 Experimental demonstration of the
Clayton D.H., Tompkins D.M. 1994 Ectoparasite virulence is linked to mode of
Berger D.D., Mueller H.C. 1959 The bal-chatri: a trap for the birds of prey. Bird Banding
Clayton D.H., Drown D.M. 2001 Critical evaluation of five methods for quantifying
Hull J.M., Tufts D., Topinka J.R., May B., Ernest H.B. 2007 Development of 19
Peters M.B., Hagen C., Whiteman N.K., Parker P.G., Glenn T.C. 2009 Characterization
9
208
14.
Excoffier L., Laval G., Schneider S. 2005 Arlequin (version 3.0): An integrated software
209
package for population genetics data analysis. Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 1, 47-50.
210
15.
211
perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Molecular Ecology Resources
212
10(3), 564-567.
213
16.
214
powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal fo the Royal Statistical Society: Series B
215
(Statistical Methodology) 57(1), 289-300.
216
17.
217
evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2, 278-282.
218
18.
219
multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945-959.
220
19.
221
Galápagos Hawk (Buteo galapagoensis): host genetic diversity, parasite load and natural
222
antibodies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 273(1588), 797-804.
223
20.
224
T., Struve M.S., Parker P.G. 2003 Variation in morphology and mating system among island
225
populations of Galápagos Hawks. Condor 105(3), 428-438.
226
21.
227
History, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation.
Excoffier L., Lischer H.E.L. 2010 Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to
Benjamini Y., Hochberg Y. 1995 Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and
Pike N. 2011 Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and
Pritchard J.K., Stephens M., Donnelly P. 2000 Inference of population structure using
Whiteman N.K., Matson K.D., Bollmer J.L., Parker P.G. 2006 Disease ecology in the
Bollmer J.L., Sanchez T., Cannon M.D., Sanchez D., Cannon B., Bednarz J.C., De Vries
Ersts P.J. Geographic Distance Matrix Generator v.1.2.3. (American Museum of Natural
228
229
10
K=6
K= 7
K=8
K=9
K = 10
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
Figure S1. Population structure of hawks (left) and lice (right) sampled from islands across the
Galápagos archipelago. Each individual is represented by a thin vertical line and island
populations are separated by thicker black lines. Genetic clusters ranging from K = 6 to K = 10
are shown as separate plots. Genetic clusters are indicated by different colors. As estimated by
the program STRUCTURE, posterior probability values plateau for hawks at K=8 and for lice at
K=7 and K=8 (nearly identical values).
11
238
239
240
241
242
243
Figure S2. Louse infrapopulation genetic structure. (A) Map of islands on which louse
infrapopulations were sampled; Fernandina shown in blue and Santiago shown in red. Graphical
matrices of pairwise FST comparisons among infrapopulations of lice sampled from hawks on (B)
Fernandina and (C) Santiago.
12
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
Island
Fernandina
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
Pinta
Santa Fe
Espanola
TOTAL
Hawks
24
25
54
7
22
26
18
17
193
Lice
25
13
47
9
21
24
12
7
158
Table S1. Sample sizes for estimates of pairwise FST among islands for hawks (Buteo
galapagoensis) and lice (Degeeriella regalis).
13
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
a. Hawks
Fernandina
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
Pinta
Santa Fe
Espanola
Fernandina
0.03868
0.13454
0.22876
0.48468
0.25440
0.43365
0.38859
b. Lice
Fernandina
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
Pinta
Santa Fe
Espanola
Fernandina
0.05353
0.24065
0.31472
0.46294
0.53177
0.41808
0.42580
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
0.11936
0.15875
0.42197
0.22248
0.37009
0.38026
0.10436
0.47092
0.20109
0.37775
0.36126
0.61537
0.30962
0.50888
0.53082
0.54719
0.76221
0.68555
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
0.20520
0.29910
0.48233
0.57152
0.41035
0.45058
(0.04276)
0.45723
0.45848
0.35573
0.35842
0.62321
0.74296
0.51552
0.60584
0.78852
0.65263
0.47785
Pinta
0.59640
0.56248
Pinta
0.74471
0.89198
Santa Fe
0.75062
Santa Fe
0.70166
Espanola
-
Espanola
-
Table S2. Estimates of pairwise FST among island populations of (a) hawks and (b) lice derived
from microsatellite markers. FST values for populations of hawks were estimated from 20
microsatellite markers. FST values for louse populations were estimated from 6 microsatellite
markers. After correcting for false discovery rate, all inter-island population comparisons were
statistically significant for hawks. For lice, all inter-island population comparisons were
statistically significant, except for the comparison between Santiago and Pinzon (noted in
parentheses).
14
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
Inter-island comparisons
B. galapagoensis FST - geographic distance
B. galapagoensis FST - geographic distance (combined island area)
B. galapagoensis FST - combined island area (geographic distance)
D. regalis FST - geographic distance
D. regalis FST - geographic distance (combined island area)
D. regalis FST - combined island area (geographic distance)
D. regalis FST - geographic distance (B. galapagoensis FST)
D. regalis FST -B. galapagoensis FST (geographic distance)
Intra-island comparisons
Santiago: D. regalis FST - geographic distance
Fernandina: D. regalis FST - geographic distance
r
0.59
0.42
-0.56
P value
0.003
0.01
0.97
0.60
0.44
-0.51
0.31
0.59
0.004
0.01
0.96
0.09
0.03
0.24
0.14
0.06
0.33
Table S3. Results of Mantel and partial Mantel tests for correlations between hawk (Buteo
galapagoensis) inter-island and intra-island FST, louse (Degeeriella regalis) inter-island and
intra-island FST, and geographic distance. For inter-island comparisons, geographic distance is
the distance between two island populations. For intra-island comparisons, geographic distance
is the distance between hawk nesting sites among territories. Combined island area is the sum of
the land area of each pairwise grouping of islands. For partial Mantel tests, parentheses indicate
the controlled variable in the analysis. FST data generated from nuclear microsatellite data for
hawks and lice.
15
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
a. Distance (km)
Fernandina
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
Pinta
Santa Fe
Espanola
Fernandina
4
55
80
118
120
148
209
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
Pinta
Santa Fe
Espanola
16
18
82
75
77
133
24
55
76
72
145
98
124
64
129
29
126
200
164
237
67
-
b. Combined area (km2)
Fernandina
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
Pinta
Santa Fe
Espanola
Fernandina
5358.3
1225.1
665.7
776.4
707.0
672.4
708.7
Isabela
Santiago
Pinzon
Marchena
Pinta
Santa Fe
Espanola
5288.2
4728.8
4839.5
4770.1
4735.5
2771.8
595.6
706.3
616.9
582.3
618.6
146.9
77.5
42.9
79 .2
188.2
153.6
189.9
84.2
120.5
85.9
-
Table S4. Matrices of estimated inter-island distance and combined island area. Distances were
estimated by measuring the shortest linear path between any two islands, measured to the nearest
kilometer. Areas represent the sum of the pairwise grouping of islands and are based on values
presented in Bollmer et al. 2005.
16
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
a. Fernandina
Infrapopulation1
Infrapopulation2
Infrapopulation3
Infrapopulation4
Infrapopulation5
Infrapopulation6
Infrapopulation7
Infrapopulation8
TOTAL
Number of lice sampled
11
9
14
7
15
7
12
11
86
b. Santiago
Infrapopulation1
Infrapopulation2
Infrapopulation3
Infrapopulation4
Infrapopulation5
Infrapopulation6
Infrapopulation7
Infrapopulation8
Infrapopulation9
Infrapopulation10
Infrapopulation11
TOTAL
Number of lice sampled
7
8
11
6
15
8
11
12
7
6
10
101
Table S5. Sample sizes for estimates of pairwise FST among louse infrapopulations on (a)
Fernandina and (b) Santiago. Each infrapopulation refers to all of the lice sampled and
genotyped from an individual hawk.
17
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
a. Fernandina
Infrapop1
Infrapop2
Infrapop3
Infrapop4
Infrapop5
Infrapop6
Infrapop7
Infrapop8
Infrapop1
0.24066*
0.08571*
0.14016*
0.31216*
0.17609*
0.27591*
0.21329*
Infrapop2
Infrapop3 Infrapop4 Infrapop5 Infrapop6
0.04556 *
0.14767*
0.33414*
0.25624*
0.25367*
0.19596*
0.05141
0.20654*
0.06737*
0.12169*
0.00324
0.23957*
0.12084*
0.17105*
0.13224*
0.18216*
0.24508*
0.12309*
0.25031*
0.22728*
Infrapop7
Infrapop8
0.21946*
-
b.Santiago Infrapop1 Infrapop2 Infrapop3 Infrapop4 Infrapop5 Infrapop6 Infrapop7 Infrapop8 Infrapop9 Infrapop10 Infrapop11
Infrapop1
Infapop2
0.10463
Infrapop3
0.13746* 0.15957*
Infrapop4
0.09255 0.07664 0.12228
Infrapop5
0.12877* 0.09089 0.22135* 0.14351*
Infrapop6
0.09315* 0.08207 0.13260* -0.02410 0.10989*
Infrapop7
0.14578* 0.06656 0.18834* 0.07806 0.25420* 0.12205*
Infrapop8
0.20461* 0.23135* 0.18081* 0.30722* 0.19650* 0.30302* 0.32556*
Infrapop9
0.14576 0.06786 0.11295* 0.19555* 0.19943* 0.23902* 0.15862* 0.07831*
Infrapop10 0.07202 0.17616* 0.11041* 0.18919* 0.21757* 0.23464* 0.22044* 0.07483* 0.11746*
Infrapop11 0.03065 0.05617 -0.02460 0.06016 0.04698 0.08268* 0.14642* 0.09336* 0.02515 0.12369*
-
Table S6. Estimates of louse infrapopulation pairwise FST derived from microsatellite markers
on (a) Fernandina and (b) Santiago. Each infrapopulation refers to all of the lice sampled and
genotyped from an individual hawk. All P-values were corrected by estimating false discovery
rates; statistically significant pairwise comparisons are indicated with an asterisk.
18
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
a. Fernandina
Infrapop1
Infrapop2
Infrapop3
Infrapop4
Infrapop5
Infrapop6
Infrapop7
Infrapop8
Infrapop1
8.58
18.46
19.79
25.02
27.30
27.98
28.78
Infrapop2
Infrapop3 Infrapop4 Infrapop5 Infrapop6
Infrapop7
12.41
14.52
18.91
21.18
21.97
22.91
2.63
6.63
8.92
9.66
10.56
10.56
Infrapop8
5.48
7.66
8.26
9.01
2.29
3.06
4.01
0.88
1.91
-
b.Santiago Infrapop1 Infrapop2 Infrapop3 Infrapop4 Infrapop5 Infrapop6 Infrapop7 Infrapop8 Infrapop9 Infrapop10 Infrapop11
Infrapop1
Infapop2
0
Infrapop3
0
0
Infrapop4
0
0
0
Infrapop5
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
Infrapop6
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
1.82
Infrapop7
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
1.82
0
Infrapop8
28.75
28.75
28.75
28.75
28.28
27.57
27.57
Infrapop9
29.35
29.35
29.35
29.35
28.70
27.85
27.85 2.39
Infrapop10 30.39
30.39
30.39
30.39
30.14
29.61
29.61 3.57
5.67
Infrapop11 20.95
30.95
30.95
30.95
30.66
30.08
30.08 3.34
5.19
0.91
-
Table S7. Matrices of estimated distances between louse infrapopulations (all lice on a single
hawk host) on Fernandina and Santiago. Each infrapopulation refers to all of the lice sampled
and genotyped from an individual hawk. Distances were estimated by measuring the shortest
linear path (km) between host hawk nest sites. All nests were marked by GPS.
19