Figure legends
Figure 1. Glucosinolate (GSLs) chemical distance versus
phylogenetic distance across 14 species of Cardamine . Shown is
the non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot of the GSLs of all
species grouped based on 95% confidence interval ellipses. Colours
represent the different groups (1: C. alpina, C. resedifolia, C.
rivularis , C. amara , 2: C. kitaibelii, C. pentaphyllos, C.
heptaphylla , 3: C. trifolia and C. pratensis , 4: C.
hirsuta, C. impatiens, C. flexuosa, C. matthioli and C.
bulbifera ). Finally, each species in the NMDS plot is assigned to its
corresponding phylogenetic position in the pruned cladogram depicted on
top.
Figure 2. Coinertia analysis figure based on correlated
structure between the matrix of plant functional traits and the GSL
matrix across species. Species are color-coded based on the assigned
group. Individual GSLs are not shown to avoid confusion on the figure
but are discriminated according to the groups in Fig. 3.
Figure 3. (a) Linear discriminant (LD) analysis of the
differences in the distribution of leaf GSLs profiles among the four
groups of Cardamine species. Histograms show the distribution of
discriminant scores of leaf GSL profiles produced by plant species
across different groups. The first LD1 explains 90.8% of the
between-group variance. n = the number of species in each group.
Figure 4. Boxplots representing the average growth of different
herbivores across the different groups of Cardamine species.
Significant differences among groups were tested with a linear model
followed by post-hoc analysis with Tukey HSD test.