Relative genome size and ploidy distribution
We could not produce reliable RGS measurements for two individuals, which were excluded from further analyses. Also excluded were two individuals at locality 2 that had an RGS of 0.65 and 0.66, suggesting pentaploidy. Of the remaining 296 individuals, 27 were diploids (L. exspectata) with an RGS of 0.25–0.27, 224 tetraploids (L. alpina) with an RGS of 0.44–0.56, and 45 hexaploids (L. multiflora) with an RGS of 0.70–0.82 (Online Resource 1). At locality 1, 86 individuals were tetraploid, 13 diploid and 1 hexaploid, at locality 2, 52 were tetraploid, 44 hexaploid and 1 diploid, and at locality 3, 85 were tetraploid and 14 diploid. The spatial distribution of ploidies within each locality is shown in Fig. 1b–d.
Ecological microsite differentiation
We registered 105 accompanying vascular plant species at locality 1, 74 species at locality 2, and 84 at locality 3 (Online Resource 4), excluding accompanying species of Luzula sect. Luzula. The following pairs of explanatory variables were significantly correlated (p < 0.05) based on the significance test for Pearson correlation coefficient across all tested datasets: T-D, K-F, L-D, F-N, R-s, D-s, c-r and c-s. Many other variables were significantly correlated throughout some of the tested datasets, especially the indicator values (Online Resource 5). Regarding consistency of significant correlations between individuals of two different ploidy levels, 54.76% of all variables were consistently correlated between diploids and tetraploids (2x, 4x), 66.19% between diploids and hexaploids (2x, 6x), and 59.05% between tetraploids and hexaploids (4x, 6x). For different localities, 60.00% of variables were consistently correlated between locality 1 and 2, 70.00% between locality 1 and 3, and 64.29% between locality 2 and 3.
Results of the t-test/ Wilcoxon-test (Online Resource 6) showed that many variable means were significantly different between co-occurring ploidy levels at each locality. Within localities 1 and 2 there were four (RockCover, c, L, T) and five (RockCover, CryptogamCover, D, H, L) significantly differentiating variables for individuals with different ploidy levels, respectively. At locality 3, all but one (H) mean Landolt indicator values and seven additional values (Eastness, Inclination, OrganicCover, PlantCover, Richness, c, r) were significantly different (Fig. 2). At each locality SDs were not significantly different between the co-occurring ploidies, indicating no differences in niche breadths (locality 1: p = 0.41; locality 2: p = 0.61; locality 3: p = 0.88) and higher-ploidies only had a broader indicator value range due to higher sample numbers.
In the LDA, the highest mean accuracy was achieved for the data sets “Entire data (Locality)” and “Ploidy (2x, 6x)” with mean accuracies of 95.16 and 96.09%, respectively (Fig. 3). LDA for diploids versus tetraploids (“Ploidy (2x, 4x)“) had a mean accuracy of 88.66%. Tests on locality 1 and 3 (2x versus 4x) had mean accuracies of 88.32 and 89.46% while the “Entire data (Ploidy)” yielded a mean accuracy of 77.17%. Since all but one hexaploids occurred at locality 2, where only a single diploid was found, we additionally tested whether the high accuracy of “Ploidy (2x, 6x)” resulted from an additive effect of different ploidy level and locality. Therefore, we performed an additional LDA on all diploids from all localities and only tetraploids from locality 2. Included variables were the same as in “Ploidy (2x, 4x)”. This achieved a mean accuracy of 96.72%, which is in line with “Ploidy (2x, 6x)”. LDA performed worst at locality 2 (“Locality 2 (4x, 6x)”) with a mean accuracy of 59.02%, a SD of 9.95%. Minimum and maximum LDA accuracy of every other tested dataset differed by less than 36.84%, resulting in a SD of 2.61–4.60%, except for “Locality 3 (2x, 4x)” which had a SD of 6.61%, a SD of 2.61–4.60%. With ploidy as response variable, LDA largely failed to separate individuals of different ploidies into well-defined clusters; instead, they were strongly intermixed along the first two LDA axes (Fig. 4a). When locality was used as response variable, LDA performed considerably better, separating individuals according to sampling locality (Fig. 4b). Localities were mainly differentiated by Richness (locality 1), L and T (locality 2) as well as K, R and F (locality 3; Fig 4b). This differentiation was not visible in the LDA with ploidy as response variable but in both cases, diploids were positively correlated with a higher reaction value R.
When DCA was performed for the entire data, individuals were clearly grouped by locality (Fig. 5a). Differentiation between di- and tetraploids was most pronounced at locality 3 (Fig. 5d). The variables that contributed most to this differentiation were OrganicCover, D, K, L and R. On the other hand, individuals of different ploidies were intermixed at locality 1 (Fig. 5b) and 2 (Fig. 5c). Hierarchical clustering of the scores of accompanying vascular plant species resulted in three to four species groups (SG) within each of the four analyses (Fig. 5; orange arrows show the mean group score of each SG). The SGs did not have very high support, i.e. the overall mean silhouette width was between 0.4 and 0.6 (Online Resource 7). Alternative numbers of SGs only had slightly lower support. For the entire data, SGs (Online Resource 8) clearly corresponded to different localities (Fig. 5a): SG 1 corresponded to locality 3, SG 2 to locality 1 and SGs 3 and 4 to locality 2. As an example, the four to SG 1 belonging species Antennaria carpatica, Pedicularis elongata, Pedicularis verticillata and Ranunculus oreophilus were exclusively recorded at the corresponding locality 3). SG 4 contained only four species (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Silene rupestris, Trifolium alpinum and Vaccinium vitis-idaea) and corresponded to a few tetraploid and a single hexaploid Luzula individual at locality 2, that were separated from the rest along the second DCA axis. At locality 1 (Fig. 5b), SGs did not correspond to different ploidies and differentiated individuals along both DCA axes. Even though different ploidies were not separated by DCA at locality 2 (Fig. 5c), there was a clear differentiation along the first axis via SG 1 (e.g., Achillea millefolium aggr., Alchemilla vulgaris aggr., Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Carex sempervirens, Potentilla crantzii, Silene rupestris, Trifolium alpinum and Vaccinium vitis-idaea), reflecting the differentiation of few individuals similar to SG 4 for the entire data. SGs 2, 3 and 4 differentiated individuals along the second axis. At locality 3 (Fig. 5d), diploid individuals (L. exspectata) corresponded positively to species of SG 1 (e.g., Achillea clavenae, Agrostis rupestris, Antennaria carpatica, Anthyllis alpestris, Biscutella laevigata, Carex capillaris, Dryas octopetala, Elyna myosuroides, Leontopodium alpinum, Pulsatilla vernalis, Silene acaulis and Vaccinium gaultherioides) and to very small extent to SG 2, but negatively to species of SG 3 (e.g., Anthoxanthum alpinum, Arnica montana, Carlina acaulis, Festuca nigrescens, Gentiana pilosa, Geum montanum, Nardus stricta, Phleum rhaeticum, Poa alpina, Potentilla aurea and Trollius europaeus) and SG 4 (e.g., Anemone baldensis, Aster bellidiastrum, Bartsia alpina, Carduus defloratus, Helianthemum alpestre, Hieracium murorum aggr., Homogyne alpina, Pedicularis verticillata, Salix breviserrata, Salix retusa, Sesleria caerulea, Tofieldia calyculata and Vaccinium vitis-idaea).
In the PCA of the entire dataset, individuals were again mostly separated according to their sampling locality (Fig. 6a). Individuals from localities 1 and 3 were mainly separated along the first component, whereas those from locality 2 were separated from them along the second component. There was no visible separation of different ploidies. Within single localities, a slight differentiation trend of diploids and tetraploids at locality 1 (Fig. 6b) and 3 (Fig. 6d) was visible, whereas there was no clear differentiation at locality 2 (Fig. 6c). The variables that mainly contributed to differentiation trend of diploids from tetraploids at locality 1 were L and to a lesser extent c and T, and at locality 3 OrganicCover, D, K, L, R (positively correlated with the occurrence of diploids) as well as T, N and F (negatively correlated with the occurrence of diploids). Silhouette and gap statistics based on clustering of PCA site scores both suggested two clusters for each locality (large and small symbols in Fig. 6b–d), which were clearly correlated with the first PCA-axis. Ten out of thirteen diploids at locality 1 and twelve out of thirteen at locality 3 were classified into the same group, however, both groups also contained many tetraploids. The clustering at locality 2 was more random and did not correspond to ploidy levels.