Common garden measurements for the oaks of the Americas by Matthew A. Kaproth1,2^; Brett W. Fredericksen1; Antonio González-Rodríguez3; Andrew L. Hipp; and Jeannine Cavender-Bares1+ 1) Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA 2) Department of Biological Sciences, Minnesota State University Mankato, Mankato, MN 56001, USA 3) Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701, Col. Ex Hacienda de San José de la Huerta, Morelia, Michoacán 58190, México 4) Center for Tree Science and Herbarium, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, 60532, USA 5) The Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, USA ^matthew.kaproth@mnsu.edu; +cavender@umn.edu (corresponding authors) To assess growth and functional traits of second-year seedlings in response to three experimental water treatments [Low (L), Medium (M), High (H)], under controlled glasshouse conditions, this dataset includes measuresments from 35 oak (Quercus) species. "tr.singletons.GlobalOaks2019_Quercus_NotIdentified_sistertoQcastanea.tre" is a modified phylogeny from Hipp, Manos, et al. 2019 Genomic landscape of the global oak phylogeny. The tree has 35 species, including grafting to have 1 new species (NotIdentified, from MX) as sister to Q. castanea based on similar morphology. The dataset is presented as species means, in one file: "Drought tolerance common garden summary (Treatment, Species) removed low replicates.csv". Comments and unit details preceeded by a pound symbol (#), but are also provided as Table 2 in the 2023 New Phytologist publication. Std Err (standard error) uses the same units as the measured trait. Plasticity is a contrast of trait variation. As specified in the New Phytologist publication "plasticity indexes of species responses to water treatment conditions were assessed using the following formula: (H − L)/(H + L). Plasticity is a dimensionless index for the effect of controlled soil moisture on treatment means (differences in species responses among water treatments)." Traits, by column: Species Treatment #water treatment Low (L), Medium (M), High (H) epithet Section Leaf Habit Leaf Habit E/D #evergreen or deciduous, binning brevideciduous with evergreen n #number of unique replicates Im Growing Season #Index of Moisture during the Growing Season (May to August) = 100 x (precipitation x PET) / (PET) Biomass RGR Treatment Difference (M-L) #Estimated relative growth rate (RGR) dry biomass (g g-1 day-1) via allometric models (see additional README in this DRUM) Biomass RGR Treatment Difference (H-L) #g g-1 day-1 Biomass AGR Treatment Difference (M-L) #g day-1 Biomass AGR Treatment Difference (H-L) #g day-1 Starting Biomass (g) Final Biomass (g) Biomass AGR (g day-1) #Absolute growth rate Mean Biomass RGR #g Mean(Height RGR) #cm cm-1 day-1 Mean(Basal Diameter RGR) #(cm cm-1 day-1) Mean(Number of Leaves RGR) #(leaves leaves-1 day-1) Mean(LL Length RGR) #Longest leaf length (cm cm-1 day-1) Leaf Area Ratio #LAR (cm2 g–1) SPAD #Leaf chlorophyll concentration SPAD Std Err Leaf Thickness (mm) Total Leaf Area (cm2) Total Leaf Area St Err SLA (cold) (cm2 g-1) #Specific leaf area of cold climate-grown plants only P/A (cm cm-2) #leaf perimeter length per area Leaf Area (cm2) Leaf Mass (g) Leaf Perimeter (cm) SLA Std Err P/A Std Err Leaf Area Std Err Leaf Mass Std Err Leaf Perimeter Std Err LAR Plasticity Aarea Plasticity Amass Plasticity gs Plasticity WUE Plasticity gs/SD Plasticity SPI Plasticity Biomass ARG Plasticity Biomass RGR Plasticity Stem Dieback Plasticity Leaf Dieback Plasticity Leaf Loss Plasticity Saturated Osmolarity Plasticity P/A Plasticity SPAD Plasticity Saturated Osmotic Solute Concentration (Πo) #Saturated (hydrated) osmolarity, mmol/kg Mean(Ambient (Πa) Osmotic Equalibrium) #Ambient (non-hydrated) osmolarity, mmol/kg Saturated (Πo) Trt Difference (L-M) #mmol/kg Ambient (Πa) Trt Difference (L-M) #mmol/kg Turgor Loss Point (eTLP) #MPa Turgor Loss Point Std Err Leaf Mass Dieback (g) Leaf Area Dieback (cm2) Stem Dieback % Leaf Dieback % Leaf Loss % Leaf Mass Dieback St Err Leaf Area Dieback St Err Stem Dieback Std Err Leaf Dieback Std Err Leaf Loss Std Err Biomass AGR Std Err Biomass RGR Std Err Height RGR Std Err Basal Diameter RGR Std Err Number of Leaves RGR Std Err LL Length RGR Std Err Mean A area #Assimilation rate on area basis. μmol m-2 s-1 Mean A mass #Assimilation rate on mass basis. μmol g-1 s-1 Mean Cond #Stomatal conductance (of water). mol m-2 s-1 Mean WUE #Photosynthetic water use efficiency (Aarea/gs). μmol/mol Mean Ci (μmol mol-1) VWC (%) Mean at Licor VWC (%) Std Err at Licor A Std Err Cond Std Err WUE Std Err Ci Std Err N Rows #number of unique replicates Stem Dieback Treatment Difference (L-M) % Leaf Dieback Treatment Difference (L-M) Second-Year Leaf Loss Treatment Difference (L-M) Height RGR Treatment Difference (L-M) Basal Diameter RGR Treatment Difference (L-M) Leaf Count RGR Treatment Difference (L-M) Longest Leaf RGR Treatment Difference (L-M) Stem Dieback Treatment Difference (L-H) % Leaf Dieback Treatment Difference (L-H) Second-Year Leaf Loss Treatment Difference (L-H) Height RGR Treatment Difference (L-H) Basal Diameter RGR Treatment Difference (L-H) Leaf Count RGR Treatment Difference (L-H) Longest Leaf RGR Treatment Difference (L-H) Im Growing Season StErr Growing Season PET #Growing Season (May to August) Potential Evapotranspiration, in mm of water Growing Season PET Std Dev Im Growing Season Std Dev PET (mean) #Annual Potential Evapotranspiration, in mm of water MAP (Bio12) #Mean Annual Precipitation, in mm of water Index of Moisture (mean) #Im, full year Im of Driest Month Im of Wettest Month Range of Monthly Im #Over 12 months Im Variance #Over 12 months MAT (Bio1) #Mean Annual Temperature. °C x 10 Bio1 StDev Bio12 StDev Mean(Thermic Index) range n #number of specimen replicates used for environmental variables Mean(SPI) #Stomata pore area index (stomata mm-2 ˣ pore area mm2) Mean(Mean Stomatal Density (mm-2)) Mean(Mean Aperture Length (mm)) Individual gs (mol m-2 s-1) #Stomatal conductance (of water) gs / SPI #normalized mean gas exchange by mean stomatal pore index (SPI) Unless noted in the New Phytologist 2023 publication, all traits were measured using functional trait methods outlined in Cornelissen et al. 2003 Handbook for functional traits or Tyree & Ewers 1991. Seedlings were grown under uniform glasshouse conditions, in a mix of potting mix and sand similar to the well-watered treatments described in Kaproth and Cavender-Bares (2016). Additional trait measurement details are described in the following two publications: 1) Kaproth, M. A., Fredericksen, B. W., González‐Rodríguez, A., Hipp, A. L., & Cavender‐Bares, J. (2023). Drought response strategies are coupled with leaf habit in 35 evergreen and deciduous oak (Quercus) species across a climatic gradient in the Americas. New Phytologist, 239(3), 888–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.19019 2) Kaproth, M. A. & Cavender-Bares J. (2016). Drought tolerance and climatic distributions of the American oaks. International Oaks 27:49-60 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Kaproth/publication/320624057_Drought_Tolerance_and_Climatic_Distributions_of_the_American_Oaks/links/59f209b70f7e9beabfcc5860/Drought-Tolerance-and-Climatic-Distributions-of-the-American-Oaks.pdf Acknowledgements: This work was funded by NSF 1146488: Phylogeny of the New World oaks: Diversification of an ecologically important clade across the tropical-temperate divide, awarded to A. Hipp, J. Cavender-Bares, P. Manos, J. Romero-Severson, A. Gonzalez-Rodriguez. We thank these researchers as well as A. Scollard, S. Schnifer, S. Seramur, J. Nockwicki, B. Fredericksen, N. McMann, G. Perez, J. A. Ramirez-Valiente. Citations noted in descriptions above: 1) Cornelissen J. H. C. , Lavorel S. , Garnier E. , Díaz S. , Buchmann N. , Gurvich D. E. , Reich P. B. , Steege H. ter , Morgan H. D. , Heijden M. G. A. van der , Pausas J. G. Poorter H. (2003) A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany 51, 335-380. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT02124 2) Hipp, A.L., Manos, P.S., Hahn, M., Avishai, M., Bodénès, C., Cavender-Bares, J., Crowl, A.A., Deng, M., Denk, T., Fitz-Gibbon, S., Gailing, O., González-Elizondo, M.S., González-Rodríguez, A., Grimm, G.W., Jiang, X.-L., Kremer, A., Lesur, I., McVay, J.D., Plomion, C., Rodríguez-Correa, H., Schulze, E.-D., Simeone, M.C., Sork, V.L. and Valencia-Avalos, S. (2020), Genomic landscape of the global oak phylogeny. New Phytologist, 226: 1198-1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16162 3) Tyree, M. T. & Ewers. F. W. (1991). The hydraulic architecture of trees and other woody plants.” New Phytologist 119: 345-360.