Table 2.

Model fitting and selection results for models 1 to 5^a

Model	NLLb	AIC	ΔAICc	AWd	Parameter estimate (CI)
					α	β	ψ	α1	α2	α3	β1	β2	β3	ω	α1,WT	α1,P2	α3,WT	α3,P2	α3,P12
1	152.742	311.483	237.805	0	2.95 (2.19–4.17) × 10−9	1 (0.209–1)	0.775 (0.775–0.948)
2	29.839	73.678		0.667			0.981 (0.901–0.998)	2.34 (0.11–8.51) × 10−11	3.24 (0.11–8.91) × 10−11	1.86 (0.10–9.77) × 10−8	0.182 (0.032–0.295)	6.17 (3.16–100) × 10−2	1 (0.324–1)
3	150.903	309.806	236.128	0	2.82 (2.29–28.84) × 10−9	0.525 (0.209–0.776)	0.845 (0.777–0.953)
4	29.768	75.768	1.858	0.264			0.980 (0.902–0.998)	2.45 (1.07–8.91) × 10−11	3.24 (1.07–9.55) × 10−11	2.00 (1.12–9.12) × 10−8	0.182 (0.34–0.302)	6.46 (3.47–100) × 10−2	1 (0.123–1)	0.949 (0.949–1.047)
5	28.105	78.210	4.532	0.069			0.980 (0.943–1)		1.51 (0.19–2.88) × 10−10		0.102 (0.043–0.234)	1.45 (0.81–16.60) × 10−2	1 (0.295–1)	0.976 (0.952–1.048)	2.51 (0.81–11.48) × 10−11	4.57 (2.23–16.57) × 10−11	1.41 (0.79–14.79) × 10−9	3.72 (0.45–6.31) × 10−9	1.78 (0.36–3.63) × 10−8

^aData for all three plant types were analyzed jointly to determine whether the general infection model, incorporating differences in the frequencies of different types, could adequately explain the dose-response data.

^bNLL, negative log likelihood, a measure of model fit.

^cΔAIC, difference between a given model and the best-fitting model.

^dAW, Akaike weight, a measure of the relative support for the model.