Table 2.

Results of multiple comparisons (with Bonferroni correction) between hazard ratios obtained for the naturally Wolbachia‐uninfected populations (a) AlRo, and (b) DEF, and for the naturally Wolbachia‐infected populations (c) AMP, and (d) TOM sprayed or not with fungi (BB: Beauveria bassiana; MB: Metarhizium brunneum; Control: Tween 20 only) and treated or not with antibiotics (rif: rifampicin‐treated; nt: untreated)

(a) Naturally Wolbachia‐uninfected population AlRo
Treatments compared			Estimate	Std. Error	z value	p‐value
Control_rif	versus	Control_nt	0.272	0.146	1.869	.554
BB_rif	versus	BB_nt	−0.110	0.092	−1.200	1.000
MB_ rif	versus	MB_nt	0.259	0.093	2.802	.046a
BB_ nt	versus	Control_nt	2.578	0.144	17.931	<2e‐16a
MB_nt	versus	Control_nt	2.840	0.144	19.718	<2e‐16a
MB_ nt	versus	BB_nt	0.262	0.093	2.810	.045a
BB_ rif	versus	Control_rif	2.195	0.134	16.345	<2e‐16a
MB_rif	versus	Control_rif	2.827	0.139	20.410	<2e‐16a
MB_ rif	versus	BB_rif	0.632	0.094	6.718	1.66E‐10a

(b) Naturally Wolbachia‐uninfected population DEF
Treatments compared			Estimate	Std. Error	z value	p‐value
Control_rif	versus	Control_nt	0.091	0.141	0.648	1.000
BB_rif	versus	BB_nt	−0.001	0.092	−0.015	1.000
MB_ rif	versus	MB_nt	−0.044	0.091	−0.487	1.000
BB_ nt	versus	Control_nt	2.238	0.136	16.435	<2e‐16a
MB_nt	versus	Control_nt	2.647	0.138	19.240	<2e‐16a
MB_ nt	versus	BB_nt	0.410	0.096	4.246	1.96E‐04a
BB_ rif	versus	Control_rif	2.145	0.132	16.220	<2e‐16a
MB_rif	versus	Control_rif	2.512	0.134	18.685	<2e‐16a
MB_ rif	versus	BB_rif	0.367	0.095	3.845	.001a

(c) Naturally Wolbachia‐infected population AMP
Treatments compared			Estimate	Std. Error	z value	p‐value
Control_rif	versus	Control_nt	−0.756	0.154	−4.916	7.93E‐06a
BB_rif	versus	BB_nt	−0.024	0.091	−0.258	1.000
MB_ rif	versus	MB_nt	0.172	0.092	1.875	.547
BB_ nt	versus	Control_nt	2.151	0.136	15.819	<2e‐16a
MB_nt	versus	Control_nt	2.581	0.136	18.921	<2e‐16a
MB_ nt	versus	BB_nt	0.430	0.093	4.599	3.81E‐05a
BB_ rif	versus	Control_rif	2.883	0.150	19.195	<2e‐16a
MB_rif	versus	Control_rif	3.508	0.154	22.828	<2e‐16a
MB_ rif	versus	BB_rif	0.625	0.093	6.702	1.85E‐10a

(d) Naturally Wolbachia‐infected population TOM
Treatments compared			Estimate	Std. Error	z value	p‐value
Control_rif	versus	Control_nt	−0.050	0.130	−0.385	1.000
BB_rif	versus	BB_nt	−0.510	0.092	−5.539	2.74E‐07a
MB_ rif	versus	MB_nt	0.145	0.092	1.579	1.000
BB_ nt	versus	Control_nt	1.711	0.120	14.237	<2e‐16a
MB_nt	versus	Control_nt	1.715	0.120	14.302	<2e‐16a
MB_ nt	versus	BB_nt	0.004	0.093	0.045	1.000
BB_ rif	versus	Control_rif	1.250	0.118	10.603	<2e‐16a
MB_rif	versus	Control_rif	1.909	0.121	15.839	<2e‐1a
MB_ rif	versus	BB_rif	0.659	0.096	6.878	5.48E‐11a

^a * p‐value < .05,

** p‐value < .01,

*** p‐value < .001.