Table 5. Qualitative rate of detection of maternal transmission leakage of Wolbachia.

	During invasion phase				Post invasion (successful)a				Post release (noninvasion)
	Method 1b		Method 2b		Method 1b		Method 2b		Method 1b		Method 2b
Screenedc	100	200	100	200	100	200	100	200	NA	NA	100	200
μ=0.05, H=0.5	0.994	0.999	0.989	0.999	0.994	0.999	0.998	0.999	0	0	1.000	1.000
μ=0.05, H=0.1	0.994	0.999	0.681	0.899	0.994	0.999	0.479	0.500	0	0	1.000	1.000
μ=0.05, H=0	0.994	0.999	0.601	0.843	0.994	0.999	~0	~0	0	0	1.000	1.000
μ=0.01, H=0.5	0.633	0.867	0.582	0.825	0.633	0.867	0.687	0.783	0	0	0.957	0.969
μ=0.01, H=0.1	0.633	0.867	0.199	0.359	0.633	0.867	0.117	0.150	0	0	0.976	0.976
μ=0.01, H=0	0.633	0.867	0.164	0.302	0.633	0.867	~0	~0	0	0	0.969	0.969
μ=0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Abbreviation: NA, not available.

^aSuccessful post invasion implies infection persisting and/or reaching high infection frequencies. Otherwise the infection fails to establish.

^bMethod 1 involves sampling females and rearing them to obtain offspring. Females are then screened for Wolbachia and their offspring subsequently screened. The probabilities reported here are based on 100 000 simulated sampled females; only infected females are included in estimating the rate of imperfect transmission. Method 2 involves sampling and screening field individuals for infection. Those that are uninfected are screened for haplotype β (the haplotype not initially found in uninfected individuals). A total of 100 000 individuals were simulated and the proportion of replicates that had haplotype β at a frequency >0 are given.

^cThe number of infection offspring screened (method 1) or the number of uninfected individuals screened (method 2). The actual number of individuals screened in method 1 is far greater than under method 2 as the female parents are caught from the field and reared to obtain offspring before only retaining offspring of infected females. The actual number to screen for method 2 depends on the frequency of uninfected individuals.