Supportive Information Legends
Fig. S1 Panels: (a), phylum level distribution of microbiota from natural habitats; (b), phylum level distribution for microbiota from greenhouse samples; (c), differentially abundant phyla between soil treatments for mock and native microbiota where black boxes around tiles indicate a significant difference (adjusted P < 0.05) between soil treatments and the red color indicates a log fold change favoring the AI microbiota while blue favors CI microbiota;
Fig. S2 Phylum level differences with plants growing in their native habitats. Black boxes around tiles indicate a significant different between Austin Inoculated (AI) and Corpus Inoculated (CI) environments (adjusted P value < 0.05). A red color indicates a higher abundance in the AI environment, while a blue indicates higher abundance in the CI environment.
Fig. S3 Mock treatment microbiota are more similar than native treatment microbiota. The graph displays Bray-Curtis dissimilarities comparing inoculation within mock (Mock Austin Inoculated (MAI) vs. Mock Corpus Inoculated (MCI)) and native (Austin Inoculated (AI) vs. Corpus Inoculated (CI)) treatments levels.
Fig. S4 Field and greenhouse derived samples host non-identical microbiota. Panels: (a), PCoA graph displaying all samples collected in the study; (b), phylum level differences between greenhouse and field grown samples.
Table S1 Nutrient and mineral composition of native soils used for microbial inoculum.
Table S2 Means + SE for the parental ecotypes, RILs, RIL range and broad-sense heritability (H 2 + SE) for Mock Inoculated (MI), Austin Inoculated (AI), and Corpus Inoculated (CI) microbial treatments.
Table S3 P -values for genetic and microbial treatment effects of root and shoot traits for the Panicum hallii parental ecotypes across three microbial treatments (Mock Inoculates, Austin Inoculated and Corpus Inoculated).
Table S4 Comparison of “base” and “GxE” linear mixed models to evaluate the impact of the microbiome on the quantitative genetic architecture of our measured traits (The Diagonal model allows Va or Vaa to vary by treatment).
Table S5 QTL effects (main and epistatic) of for thePanicum hallii RIL population.
Table S6 Full model analysis of QTL–treatment interactions using PROC mixed in SAS with QTL modeled on the marker nearest the QTL peak.
Table S7 Main and epistatic effects of GxE QTL for thePanicum hallii RIL population.
Table S8 Tests of effect slices of significant TRT x Marker interaction in the full model analysis of QTL x treatment interactions using PROC mixed in SAS with QTL modeled on the marker nearest the QTL peak.