Table IV.
Percentage of feeding recordsa for the 10 top-ranked identified plant species (out of all records of plant feeding for which the plant species could be identified to at least genus level)
| Rank | Species | Family | % of feeding records | Selection index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acanthopanax evodiaefolius | Araliaceae | 47.0 | 20.4 |
| 2 | Sorbus spp.b | Rosaceae | 15.3 | 9.5 |
| 3 | Acer spp.c | Aceraceae | 7.7 | 3.4 |
| 4 | Sorbus cf. thibetica | Rosaceae | 6.3 | 4.9 |
| 5 | Fargesia spp.d | Gramineae | 5.5 | NAe |
| 6 | Pterocarya delavayi | Juglandaceae | 4.5 | 71.7 |
| 7 | Cornus macrophylla | Cornaceae | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| 8 | Padus obtusata | Rosaceae | 1.5 | 41.8 |
| 9 | Tilia cf. chinensis | Tiliaceae | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 10 | Litsea chunii | Lauraceae | 0.9 | 8.6 |
1In total, there were 2674 identified feeding records (1788 for lichens, 886 for plants).
bIncludes Sorbus oligodonta, S. rufopilosa, S. rehderiana, S. monbeigii, S. hupehensis, and S. macrantha; distinguishing among these species was difficult.
cIncludes Acer laxiflorum, A. mono. A. hookeri, A. caesium, and A. caudatum; distinguishing among these species was difficult.
dIncludes Fargesia cf. melanostachys and F. cf. dura. Identifying bamboos to species level was not possible.
eBamboo.