Survival and traits according to the different species and treatments

Excel sheet composed of 5 tables. Table 1: descriptors used. Table 2: Survival data. Table 3: Growth data. Table 4. Phenological data. Table 5. Leaf traits dat

Isoprene emission rate as percentage of carbon re-emitted.

<p>Seasonal course of the percentage of photosynthetically assimilated carbon re-emitted as isoprene under control (–⧫–), mild () and severe (···⋄···) water stress. Differences are tested using a two-way ANOVA (F) repeated measurements followed by Tukey tests. Since interaction between seasonality and treatment is not significant according to the two-way ANOVA, results of water stress impact are shown in the small embedded graph where data of all months are pooled together and differences between treatments are denoted by capital letters (A>B) while seasonality impact is shown in the main graph (in lower case letters: a>b). Values are mean ± SE of n = 5 saplings.</p

Biomass growth.

<p>Shoot, foliar and root biomass (g_DM ind⁻¹) during leaf senescence (in November) for control, mild and severe water stress. Differences are tested with one-way ANOVA (F). Capital black lower case black and white lower case letters denote statistical differences for shoot, foliar and root biomasses respectively with a>b or A>B given by Tukey tests. Values are mean ± SE. n = 5.</p

Leaf mass per area ratio.

<p>Seasonal course of the leaf mass per area ratio (LMA) under control (–⧫–), mild () and severe (···⋄···) water stress. Differences are tested using a two-way ANOVA (F) repeated measurements followed by Tukey tests. Since interaction between seasonality and treatment is not significant according to the two-way ANOVA, results of water stress impact are shown in the small embedded graph where data of all months are pooled together and differences between treatments are denoted by capital letters (A>B) while seasonality impact is shown in the main graph (in lower case letters: a>b). Values are mean ± SE of n = 5 saplings.</p

Indicators of water stress degree.

<p>T: mean temperature recorded inside the greenhouses every month; ⁽²⁾ RH: air relative humidity recorded inside the greenhouses every month.</p><p>Soil relative water content (SRWC), leaf relative water content (LRWC) and midday water potential (ψ_mid) under control, mild and severe water stress (C, MS and SS) all over the growing season. Climatic conditions under the greenhouse are also shown. Variability of these parameters due to water stress, month and their interaction are tested using two-way ANOVA (F) followed by Tukey test. Lower case letters (a>b) represent differences between treatments month by month. Capital letters (A>B) represent differences between treatments all months averaged (Annual mean column). Values are mean ± SE of n = 5; N.S.: not significant. Lower case or capital letters under brackets denote Tukey test differences at 90% confidence level; df: degrees of freedom.</p><p>Indicators of water stress degree.</p

Gas exchanges (photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and isoprene).

<p>Seasonal course of the net photosynthesis (P_n, graph a), stomatal conductance to water vapor (G_w, graph b) and isoprene emissions (graph c) under control (–⧫–), mild () and severe (···⋄···) water stressed. Note that 70% of isoprene emissions were mostly measured under standard conditions (refer to materials and method for details). Differences are tested using a two-way ANOVA repeated measures (F) followed by Tukey tests. Since interaction between seasonality and treatment is not significant according to the two-way ANOVA, results of water stress impact are shown in the small graph where data of all months are pooled together and differences between treatments are denoted by capital letters (A>B) while seasonality impact is shown in the main graph (in lower case letters: a>b>c). Values are mean ± SE of n = 5.</p

Mapping control, mild stress and severe stress.

<p>Two-dimensional mapping of the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) performed for all plant traits measured at the end of the experiment (plant growth, emission or concentration of secondary metabolites, gas exchange and water status). This analysis was performed on n = 5 trees per treatment. Traits shown at the end of some arrows correspond to the most explanatory traits.</p

Experimental and calculated isoprene emission factors.

<p>Comparison between the isoprene emission factor calculated with Guenther et al. (1993) algorithm () and the experimental isoprene emission factor (▪) obtained under standard conditions (30±1°C and 1000±50 µmol m⁻²s⁻¹ of PPFD) for control, mild and severely water stressed sapling. t: value of the paired sample comparison tests. N.S.: not significant, *0.01<<i>P</i><0.05. Values are mean ± SE of n = 6–7 saplings.</p

Leaf total phenolic concentration.

<p>Seasonal course of leaf total phenolic concentration under control (–⧫–), mild () and severe (···⋄···) water stress. Differences are tested using a two-way ANOVA (F) followed by Tukey tests. Since interaction between seasonality and treatment was not significant, the impact of water stress is shown in the small embedded graph where data of all months are pooled together and differences between treatments are denoted by capital letters (similar capital letters indicate the absence of water stress influence) while seasonality impact is shown in the main graph (in lower case letters: a>b>c). Values are mean ± SE of n = 5.</p

Dynamics of water phosphorus in winter.

<p>Dynamics of water phosphorus (in μg.l⁻¹.g⁻¹ of plant initial dry mass) and results of a linear model regression analyses under eutrophic and hypertrophic conditions, for all the possible combinations of water and subpopulation, during the winter experiment. In the legend, AA, AV, VA, VV include the information on the treatment, the first letter refers to the type of water and the second one to the subpopulation (e.g. AV means <i>Alsatian</i> water and <i>Vosgian</i> subpopulation).</p