Figure S1. Comparison between results of this study and Loladze (2002) for wheat grain. Data are mean percentage change with 95% confidence limits.

Figure S2. Comparison between results of this study and Loladze (2002) for leaves of all species. Data are mean percentage change with 95% confidence limits.

Figure S3. Intercepts and slopes for the regression of change in nutrient concentration versus percentage acquired through mass flow using a hierarchical model. Regressions were performed on the whole data set or by breaking the data into levels of tissues or species. Estimates of mass flow from three studies were used for comparison (Gregory et al. 1979, square; Clarkson 1981, circle; Oliveira et al. 2010, triangle). Points are the parameter estimate using the original data. Error bars are bias-corrected 95% confidence limits from bootstrapping. Values in parentheses are the number of nutrients used for the three mass flow studies. These varied because the studies measured different nutrients.

Table S1. Nutrient acquisition values used in the regressions. Oliveira et al. (2010) examined plants in two water potential treatments; the unstressed treatment was used here. Studies measured the total amount of each nutrient within the plant, and determined the amount transported to the root by mass flow as the concentration of the nutrient in soil water (g m3) multiplied by the volume of water transpired (m3). It was assumed that the amount of each nutrient in a plant that could have been supplied by mass flow was supplied by mass flow, i.e. the amount in the plant was divided by the amount delivered. Because a molecule transported to the root is not necessarily taken up by the root, this value can exceed 100% if the amount transported exceeds the amount absorbed. Thus in the regression analysis, values were capped at 100% as an estimate of the percent of the nutrient acquired by mass flow.

Table S2. Between-group heterogeneity (Qb) for CO2 effect size versus percentage of uptake acquired through mass flow across species or portion of plant using a hierarchical model. The analysis was performed three times for each categorical variable (mass flow or portion of plant), using estimates of mass flow from three different studies. * P < 0.10, ** P < 0.05, *** P < 0.001.

pce12007_sm_FigS1.eps8KSupporting info item
pce12007_sm_FigS2.eps9KSupporting info item
pce12007_sm_FigS3.eps26KSupporting info item
pce12007_sm_Tables.doc62KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.