Fig 1.
Relationship between leaf N, P and N:P.
H: herb species, W: woody species with non-succulent leaves, WS: woody species with succulent leaves. Lines are shown if the linear regressions were significant at P < 0.05, n: number of samples, ns: no significant correlation. The N and P content are mass-based (mg g–1).
Table 1.
Leaf traits and leaf C, N, P stoichiometry for all observation and within functional groups.
Table 2.
Comparison between the Leaf C, N, and P and C:N, C:P, and N:P in this study and other datasets.
Fig 2.
Relationships between the SLA and the LDMC in three functional groups.
H: herb species, W: woody species with non-succulent leaves, WS: woody species with succulent leaves. Lines are shown if the linear regressions were significant at P < 0.05, n: number of samples, ns: no significant correlation.
Fig 3.
Relationships between the leaf morphological traits and leaf nutrient stoichiometry.
H: herb species, W: woody species with non-succulent leaves, WS: woody species with succulent leaves. Lines are shown if the linear regressions were significant at P < 0.05, n: number of samples, ns: no significant correlation. The C, N, and P contents are mass-based (mg g–1).
Fig 4.
Relationships between SLA and leaf area-based leaf C, N, and P contents.
H: herb species, W: woody species with non-succulent leaves, WS: woody species with succulent leaves. Lines are shown if the linear regressions were significant at P < 0.05, n: number of samples. The C, N, P contents are area-based (m2 kg–1).
Table 3.
Summary of regression analyses for the three functional groups along salinity gradients.
Table 4.
Summary of regression analyses for three widely distributed species along salinity gradients.
Fig 5.
GLM analysis for the partitioning of the total variance of leaf morphological traits (SLA and LDMC) to the species and soil salinity.
Table 5.
Effects of soil nutrient, functional groups, and salinity on the variations in leaf C, N, and P.