Explanation of Supplemental Data Title: Experimental insect suppression causes loss of induced, but not constitutive, resistance in Solanum carolinense Authors: Tyler C. Coverdale1,2,* and Anurag A. Agrawal1,3 1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA 2. Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA 3. Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA *Address for correspondence: tc684@cornell.edu ÒSupplemental Data 1.csvÓ: time-series data of horsenettle abundance in experimental insect suppression and control plots (data underlying Figure 1). See section ÒStudy species and insect-suppression experimentÓ in Main Text for full explanation of methods and analysis. A) Plot #: numerical identifier for experimental insect suppression plots B) Insect suppression treatment: designations for experimental insect suppression using insecticide (ÒInsect SuppressionÓ) or unmanipulated control (ÒControlÓ) C) Year: survey year D) # horsenettle: total number of horsenettle ramets present in each plot at the time of the survey ÒSupplemental Data 2.csvÓ: phenotypic data on individual horsenettle within experimental insect suppression and control plots measured in 2020. See section ÒStudy species and insect-suppression experimentÓ in Main Text for full explanation of methods and analysis. A) Plot #: numerical identifier for experimental insect suppression plots B) Insect suppression treatment: designations for experimental insect suppression using insecticide (ÒInsect SuppressionÓ) or unmanipulated control (ÒControlÓ) C) # horsenettle surveyed: total number of horsenettle ramets surveyed in each plot (maximum of 8) D) Prop. flowering: proportion of ramets surveyed with flowers or buds at the time of survey E) Mean height (cm): average height of all surveyed horsenettle ramets in centimeters F) Mean # leaves: average number of leaves on all surveyed horsenettle ramets G) Epitrix damage: average % of leaves with flea beetle (Epitrix spp.) damage present across all horsenettle ramets surveyed H) L. juncta damage: average % of leaves with false Colorado potato beetle (L. juncta) damage present across all horsenettle ramets surveyed I) Mean # prickles: average number of prickles/leaf across three haphazardly selected leaves/ramet ÒSupplemental Data 3.csvÓ: trypsin inhibitor concentration from radial diffusion assay (data underlying Figure 4). See section Ò(i) Chemical defense assaysÓ in Main Text for full description of methods and analysis. A) Family ID: numerical designator for half-sibling family. For each family, TI concentration has been averaged for all induced and control replicates. Note that Family ID in Supplemental Data 3.csv does not correspond to Family ID in other Supplemental Data tables. B) Induction treatment: designations for experimental defense induction with jasmonic acid (ÒInducedÓ) or non-induced control (ÒControlÓ) C) Insect suppression treatment: designations for experimental insect suppression using insecticide (ÒInsect SuppressionÓ) or unmanipulated control (ÒControlÓ) D) # replicates: number of individuals/family/treatment included in the assay E) Mean TI concentration (ug TI/mg tissue): average TI concentration as measured using radial diffusion assay ÒSupplemental Data 4.csvÓ: defense and performance data for greenhouse-grown plants. See section Ò(ii) Performance and physical defense assayÓ for full description of methods and analysis. A) Family ID: numerical designator for half-sibling family. For each family, TI concentration has been averaged for all induced and control replicates. Note that Family ID in Supplemental Data 4.csv does not correspond to Family ID in other Supplemental Data tables. B) Induction treatment: designations for experimental defense induction with jasmonic acid (ÒInducedÓ) or non-induced control (ÒControlÓ) C) Insect suppression treatment: designations for experimental insect suppression using insecticide (ÒInsect SuppressionÓ) or unmanipulated control (ÒControlÓ) D) # replicates: number of individuals/family/treatment included in the assay E) Mean # prickles: mean number of prickles on the youngest fully expanded leaf F) Mean biomass (g; dry): mean aboveground biomass after drying ÒSupplemental Data 5.csvÓ: plant resistance data from false Colorado potato beetle feeding trial (data underlying Figure 2). See section Ò(iii) Beetle bioassaysÓ in Main Text for full explanation of methods and analysis. A) Family ID: numerical designator for half-sibling family. For each family, TI concentration has been averaged for all induced and control replicates. Note that Family ID in Supplemental Data 5.csv does not correspond to Family ID in other Supplemental Data tables. B) Induction treatment: designations for experimental defense induction with jasmonic acid (ÒInducedÓ) or non-induced control (ÒControlÓ) C) Insect suppression treatment: designations for experimental insect suppression using insecticide (ÒInsect SuppressionÓ) or unmanipulated control (ÒControlÓ) D) # replicates: number of individuals/family/treatment included in the assay E) Mean area consumed (sq. mm): average leaf area consumed by false Colorado potato beetle in field mesocosm feeding trial ÒSupplemental Data 6.csvÓ: plant resistance data from flea beetle feeding trial. See section Ò(iii) Beetle bioassaysÓ in Main Text for full explanation of methods and analysis. A) Family ID: numerical designator for half-sibling family. For each family, TI concentration has been averaged for all induced and control replicates. Note that Family ID in Supplemental Data 6.csv does not correspond to Family ID in other Supplemental Data tables. B) Induction treatment: designations for experimental defense induction with jasmonic acid (ÒInducedÓ) or non-induced control (ÒControlÓ) C) Insect suppression treatment: designations for experimental insect suppression using insecticide (ÒInsect SuppressionÓ) or unmanipulated control (ÒControlÓ) D) # Epitrix holes: total number of holes/plant caused by flea beetles (Epitrix spp.)