Table 6.

The pp-mpG relation extraction by SEM^a.

pp-mpG relation	Estimator (coefficient)	S.E. (Standard Error)	C.R (t-test)	p-value
pp7 —> FA	0.163	0.097	1.682	0.093
pp7 —> FB	0.082	0.046	1.761	0.078
pp6 —> FC	−0.157	0.047	−3.342	0.001
pp6 —> FA	0.26	0.085	3.050	0.002
pp6 —> FB	0.063	0.036	1.748	0.080
pp5 —> FA	0.217	0.085	2.563	0.010
pp5 —> FB	0.078	0.044	1.773	0.076
pp5 —> FC	−0.287	0.066	−4.381	0.001
pp4 —> FA	0.219	0.072	3.040	0.002
pp4 —> FB	0.09	0.050	1.799	0.072
pp4 —> FC	−0.278	0.061	−4.566	0.001
pp3 —> FA	0.159	0.133	1.198	0.231
pp3 —> FB	0.113	0.064	1.761	0.078
pp3 —> FC	−0.169	0.068	−2.504	0.012
pp2 —> FA	0.819	0.119	6.908	0.001
pp2 —> FB	0.113	0.063	1.800	0.072
pp2 —> FC	−0.360	0.078	−4.611	0.001
pp1 —> FA	0.155	0.082	1.898	0.058
pp1 —> FB	0.099	0.055	1.796	0.072
pp1 —> FC	−0.209	0.053	−3.907	0.001
pp9 —> FA	0.864	0.256	3.372	0.001
pp9 —> FB	0.09	0.059	1.532	0.126
pp9 —> FC	−0.497	0.144	−3.460	0.001
pp8 —> FA	0.068	0.076	0.896	0.370
pp8 —> FB	0.109	0.06	1.805	0.071
pp8 —> FC	−0.215	0.053	−4.066	0.001
pp7 —> FC	−0.267	0.066	−4.029	0.001

^aAfter fine-tuning the model for overall fit, it is ascertained that the harmony index stands at Chi-Square/df = 3.69, GFI = 0.935, AGFI = 0.951, RMR = 0.051, RMSEA = 0.075, all of which conform to the established criteria for a well-fitting model (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003; Vandenberg, 2006), where pp1 = “WholePlant,” pp₂ = “Rhizome,” pp₃ = “Bark,” pp₄ = “Leaf and Branch,” pp₅ = “Flower,” pp₆ = “Fruit,” pp₇ = “Seed,” pp₈ = “Root,” pp₉ = “Sucker/Shoot.”