<p> 1Supplementary Material 2The following supplementary material is available for this article online: 3 4Figure S1. RL/RD plotted against corresponding area-based rates of: (A) carboxylation (vc) -2 -1 5and (B) oxygenation (vo) measured at 1500 mol photons m s . Data shown are for 6individual leaves sampled along the 120,000 year old Franz Josef Glacier soil 7chronosequence (NZ). See Table 3 for correlation coefficients (using log-transformed values 8of net assimilation values) and significance values for each relationship. 9 10Figure S2. Log-log plots of mass-based leaf respiration in darkness (RD) in relation to: (A) 11leaf mass per unit leaf area (MA); (B) net CO2 assimilation measured at an irradiance of 1500 -2 -1 12mol photons m s (An); (C) leaf nitrogen concentration; and, (D) leaf phosphorus 13concentration. Data shown are for individual leaves sampled along the 120,000 year old 14Franz Josef Glacier soil chronosequence (NZ). Data are separated into leaves with N:P ratios 15below () and above (o) a value of 14. Comparisons of slopes/intercepts of the two groups of 16N:P ratios were made using Standardized Major Axis (SMA) tests. Where these tests 17revealed significant differences in slopes and/or intercepts, different SMA regression lines are 18shown. See Figure 7 and Table 4 in the main text for SMA regressions fitted through all data, 19irrespective of N:P ratio. 20 21Figure S3. Log-log plots of mass-based leaf respiration in the light (RL) in relation to: (A) 22leaf mass per unit leaf area (MA); (B) net CO2 assimilation measured at an irradiance of 1500 -2 -1 23mol photons m s (An); (C) leaf nitrogen concentration; and, (D) leaf phosphorus 24concentration. Data shown are for individual leaves sampled along the 120,000 year old 25Franz Josef Glacier soil chronosequence (NZ). Data are separated into leaves with N:P ratios 26above (red) and below (blue) a value of 14. Comparisons of slopes/intercepts of the two 27groups of N:P ratios were made using Standardized Major Axis (SMA) tests. Where these 28tests revealed significant differences in slopes and/or intercepts, different SMA regression 29lines are shown. See Figure 7 and Table 3 in the main text for SMA regressions fitted 30through all data, irrespective of N:P ratio. 31</p><p>1 1 32Figure S1. </p><p>1.5 D R</p><p>/ 1.0 L R</p><p>0.5</p><p>0.0 0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 v (mol CO m-2 s-1) v (mol CO m-2 s-1) 33 c 2 o 2 </p><p>2 2 34 35Figure S2. 36</p><p>100 (A) (B) N:P ratio < 14 N:P ratio > 14 SMA regression N:P ratio < 14 SMA regression N:P ratio > 14 10 ) 1 - s</p><p>1 - 1 g</p><p>2 O C</p><p> l</p><p> o 0.1</p><p> m 20 40 100 200 400 1 2 5 10 20 40 100 200 400 800 n (</p><p> s -2 -1 -1</p><p> s MA (g m ) An (nmol g s ) e n k r a</p><p> d 100 (D)</p><p>(C) n i</p><p>R</p><p> f</p><p> a 10 e L</p><p>1</p><p>0.1 5 10 20 40 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 -1 -1 37 Leaf [N] (mg g ) Leaf [P] (mg g )</p><p>3 3 38Figure S3. 39</p><p>100 (A) (B) N:P ratio < 14 N:P ratio > 14 SMA regression N:P ratio < 14 10 SMA regression N:P ratio > 14</p><p>1 ) 1 - s</p><p>1 -</p><p> g 0.1</p><p>2 O C</p><p> l 0.01 o</p><p> m 20 40 100 200 400 1 2 5 10 20 40 100 200 400 800 n (</p><p>-2 -1 -1 t M (g m ) A (nmol g s ) h A n g i l</p><p> e h t</p><p>100 (C) (D) n i</p><p>R</p><p> f a</p><p> e 10 L</p><p>1</p><p>0.1 5 10 20 40 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 -1 -1 40 Leaf [N] (mg g ) Leaf [P] (mg g ) </p><p>4 4</p>