Figure 1.
Schematic diagram of the experimental design for a genotype in each block.
OY indicates that the ramet pair was transplanted in such a way that the developmentally older ramet was in the nutrient-rich pot, while the younger one was in the nutrient-poor pot. YO indicates that the ramet pair was transplanted in the reverse direction. Null, Medium and High indicate the three patch-contrast treatments. The numbers shown inside the pots indicate the relative nutrient availability.
Figure 2.
Dependence of root-foraging intensity of the ramet pairs on the contrast in nutrient availability.
OY indicates that the ramet pair was transplanted in such a way that the developmentally older ramet was in the nutrient-rich pot, while the younger one was in the nutrient-poor pot. YO indicates that the ramet pair was transplanted in the reverse direction. Each dot represents a ramet pair.
Table 1.
Results of three-way ANOVAs for effects of patch contrast, direction of nutrient gradient, genotype and their interactions on root-foraging intensity (RFI), total biomass, number of offspring ramets and number of flowers produced by the ramet pairs during the experiment.
Figure 3.
Comparison of fitness-related traits among ramet pairs under Null, Medium and High patch contrasts in nutrient availability.
OY indicates that the ramet pair was transplanted in such a way that the developmentally older ramet was in the nutrient-rich pot, while the younger one was in the nutrient-poor pot. YO indicates that the ramet pair was transplanted in the reverse direction. For significance of the results, see Table 1.
Figure 4.
The contribution of root-foraging intensity to the fitness (A: total biomass; B: total number of offspring ramets; C: total number of flowers) of genotypes in the High patch-contrast treatment.
The solid line in panel (A) and the dashed line in panel (B) show the significant and marginally significant regression lines, respectively. R2 and P values for the regression lines are given in the upper-right corners of each panel.
Table 2.
Standardized regression coefficients ± standard errors and P-values for regression of genotypic values of fitness measures (total biomass, number of offspring ramets, number of flowers) on root-foraging intensity in treatments with different patch contrasts (Null, Medium, High).
Figure 5.
Tests for costs of root-foraging ability (defined as the slope of the regression of root-foraging intensity against contrast in nutrient level between the paired ramets).
Fitness was measured as total biomass (A), total number of offspring ramets (B) and total number of flowers (C) in the uniform environment (i.e. the Null patch-contrast treatment).