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).