Fig 1.
Sampling grid system established in two Nebraska counties.
(A) County map of the state of Nebraska showing location of Keith County (+) and Buffalo County (*). (B) Areas of Keith County (left) and Buffalo County (right) where sampling grids were established. (C) Spatial distribution of sampling sites in Keith County (left) and Buffalo County (right).
Table 1.
Yearly trait history and cumulative index value of Keith County populations.
Table 2.
Field history index values and criteria used to assign values to individual fields.
Table 3.
Yearly trait history and cumulative index value of Buffalo County populations.
Fig 2.
Mean WCR larval survival (± SE) of Keith County populations on Cry3Bb1 and its isoline.
(A) 2016 bioassays. (B) 2017 bioassays. C = composite lab control; FC = field control. * indicates significantly higher survival on isoline compared to Cry3Bb1. Within years, Cry3Bb1 means with the same letter were not significantly different (generalized linear model, P > 0.05; LSMEANS option).
Fig 3.
Mean WCR larval survival (± SE) of Keith County populations on mCry3A and its isoline.
(A) 2016 bioassays. (B) 2017 bioassays. C = composite lab control; FC = field control. * indicates significantly higher survival on isoline compared to mCry3A. + indicates significantly higher survival on mCry3A compared to the isoline. Within years, mCry3A means with the same letter were not significantly different (generalized linear model, P > 0.05; LSMEANS option).
Fig 4.
Mean WCR larval survival (± SE) of Buffalo County populations on Cry3Bb1 and its isoline.
(A) 2016 bioassays. (B) 2017 bioassays. C = composite laboratory control; FC = field control. * indicates significantly higher survival on isoline compared to Cry3Bb1. Within years, Cry3Bb1 means with the same letter were not significantly different (generalized linear model, P > 0.05; LSMEANS option).
Fig 5.
Mean WCR larval survival (± SE) of Buffalo County populations on mCry3A and its isoline.
((A) 2016 bioassays. (B) 2017 bioassays. C = composite laboratory control; FC = field control. * indicates significantly higher survival on isoline compared to mCry3A. Within years, mCry3A means with the same letter were not significantly different (generalized linear model, P > 0.05; LSMEANS option).
Fig 6.
Spatial variation in mean Cry3Bb1 survival of WCR larvae among sampling sites in Keith County.
Mean proportional survival ranged from 0.04 ± 0.01 to 0.66 ± 0.06. Circles containing the same color(s) are not significantly different (generalized linear model, P > 0.05; LSMEANS option).
Fig 7.
Spatial variation in mean mCry3A survival of WCR larvae among sampling sites in Keith County.
Mean proportional survival ranged from 0.05 ± 0.01 to 0.69 ± 0.05. Circles containing the same color(s) are not significantly different (generalized linear model, P > 0.05; LSMEANS option).
Fig 8.
Spatial variation in mean Cry3Bb1 survival of WCR larvae among sampling sites in Buffalo County.
Mean proportional survival ranged from 0.07 ± 0.02 to 0.40 ± 0.05. Circles containing the same color(s) are not significantly different (generalized linear model, P > 0.05; LSMEANS option).
Fig 9.
Spatial variation in mean mCry3A survival of WCR larvae among sampling sites in Buffalo County.
Mean proportional survival ranged from 0.11 ± 0.03 to 0.46 ± 0.05. Circles containing the same color(s) are not significantly different (generalized linear model, P > 0.05; LSMEANS option).
Fig 10.
Prediction of 2017 larval survivorship data from field history index values.
(A) 2016 regression model used in scoring analysis to predict 2017 survivorship data based on known field history index values. (B) Linear regression analysis of predicted versus actual 2017 survivorship values. Values presented are back-transformed using the ILINK option.