An intragenotype LES in Chardonnay driven by soil compaction
The four leaf traits included in the original interspecific LES (I. J.
Wright et al., 2004) including A mass,R mass, leaf N, and LMA, were correlated with one
another in patterns that were consistent with an intragenotype LES in
‘Chardonnay’ (Figure 3, see also Table S5 for complete trait correlation
matrix). Specifically, A mass,R mass, and leaf N all covaried positively across
leaves (SMA r 2 range=0.332-0.354,p <0.001 in all three relationships; Figure 3D-F), while
LMA traded-off negatively against all three of these traits (SMAr 2 range=0.146-0.397, p ≤0.01 in all
three relationships; Figure 3A-C). Largely consistent with relationships
found between these four traits and bulk density (Figure 1), as well as
our PCA (Figure 2), ‘Chardonnay’ leaves generally differentiated from
one along the intragenotype LES in relation to soil bulk density.
Although this differentiation was imperfect and entailed some overlap,
generally A) leaves from vines grown in the lowest bulk density
(sampling row 1) defined the resource acquiring end of the Chardonnay
LES; B) those in the highest bulk density rows (sampling row 5) defined
the resource conserving end of the Chardonnay LES; and C) those in
intermediary sampling rows were interspersed between these endpoints
along the intragenotype LES bivariate trait space (Figure 3). In all
cases, LES trait relationships across the intragenotype LES in
‘Chardonnay’ were statistically different from those observed among wild
plants in the GLOPNET dataset (test for differences in SMA slopes in
‘Chardonnay’ vs. wild plants p ≤0.03 in all six bivariate
relationships; Figure 3, Table 2).