Table 3. Explanatory models for the proportion of monophages according to path analyses in Fig. 4 with direct and indirect coefficients and their relative contributions to the explained variation (R2).
| Proportion of monophages | Explanatory variables | Correlation (r) | Effect | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct (d) | Indirect (i) | Total (e = d + i) | |||
| All herbivores | Land use intensity | 0.08 | 0.32 | -0.22 | 0.10 |
| Proportion of exotic plants | -0.17 | -0.41 | 0.03 | -0.38 | |
| Plant taxonomic span | -0.01 | 0.09 | -0.03 | 0.06 | |
| Endophages | Land use intensity | 0.15 | 0.51 | -0.35 | 0.16 |
| Proportion of exotic plants | -0.40 | -0.85 | 0.05 | -0.80 | |
| Plant taxonomic span | -0.05 | 0.35 | -0.39 | -0.04 | |
Only variables with significant total effects are presented. The “direct effect” (d) expresses how much a given variable changes in response to changes in another variable while controlling for the effect of all other variables in the model. The ‘‘indirect effect’’ (i) expresses the influence of a given variable on another variable that is mediated by one or more variables through causal relationships presented in the model.