Table 1.
Physiognomic variables and definitions.
Fig 1.
Sensitivity of tooth abundance variables to temperature.
(A-C) Comparisons of the species grown in the growth cabinet experiment for tooth abundance variables. Values are means ± 1 s.e.m. * indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) based on estimated marginal means (see Materials and Methods). Global site-based patterns [6] would predict higher values in the cool treatment for all variables. (D) Representative leaves from species in this experiment that show significant differences in tooth abundance between the two treatments. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig 2.
Sensitivity of tooth size variables to temperature.
(A-D) Comparisons of the species grown in the growth cabinet experiment for tooth size variables. Values are means ± 1 s.e.m. * indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) based on estimated marginal means (see Materials and Methods). Global site-based patterns [6] would predict higher values in the cool treatment for all variables. (E) Representative leaves from species in this experiment that show significant differences in tooth size between the two treatments. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig 3.
Sensitivity of leaf dissection variables to temperature.
(A-D) Comparisons of the species grown in the growth cabinet experiment for leaf dissection variables. Values are means ± 1 s.e.m. * indicates a significant difference (P < 0.05) based on estimated marginal means (see Materials and Methods). Global site-based patterns [6] would predict higher values in the cool treatment for perimeter ratio, feret diameter ratio, and fractal dimension; and lower values for circularity. (E) Representative leaves from species in this experiment that show significant differences in leaf dissection between the two treatments. Scale bar = 1 cm.