Tables
- Relative resource abundance explains butterfly biodiversity in island communities

Table 1. Results of a multiple regression of the Resource and Distance matrices on the Butterfly matrix by using an extension of the Mantel test


	${tau}$ _AB.C	${tau}$ _AC.B	R²

Distance	0.8052	0.1529	0.7654
	P	P = 0.2258	P
Log distance	0.8121	0.1603	0.7685
	P	P = 0.224	P

${tau}$ _AB.C, regression coefficient of the Resource matrix on the Butterfly matrix. ${tau}$ _{AC. B}, regression coefficient of the Distance matrix on the Butterfly matrix. The results for five-community analysis are shown in SI Table 3.

Table 2. Effects of host plant biomass on the butterfly densities of each species


Butterfly	Host plant

Graphium sarpedon nipponum	5^* (0.907)
Hestina persimilis japonica	—
Papilio xuthus	2^¶ (0.429)
Papilio macilentus	3, 2 (0.895)
Papilio bianor dehaanii	2^¶ (0.393)
Papilio machaon hippocrates	6 (0.657)
Papilio protenor	2 (0.294)
Atrophaneura alcinous	1^* (0.997)
Eurema hecabe	12, 16, 17, 18 (0.429)
Artogeia melete	11 (0.830)
Colias erate poliographys	10, 12, 15, 20 (0.982)
Artogeia rapae crucivora	11^¶ (0.368)
Everes argiades	31, 16, 29, 30 (0.967)
Rapala arata	25, 16, 21, 30 (0.978)
Lycaena phlaeas daimio	—
Pseudozizeeria maha	—
Celastrina argiolus ladonides	25, 22, 28^¶, 30^¶ (0.745)
Vanessa indica	40 (0.894)
Limenitis camilla japonica	—
Sasakia charonda	—
Polygonia c-aureum	—
Hestina persimilis japonica	—
Neptis sappho intermedia	14 (0.307)
Cynthia cardui	38 (0.509)
Kaniska canace	—
Libythea celtis	—
Lethe diana	48 (0.267)
Mycalesis francisca perdiccas	—
Minois dryas bipunctata	51^* (0.999)
Lethe sicelis	54^¶, 48, 53, 55 (0.706)
Ypthima argus	—
Mycalesis gotama fulginia	—
Neope niphonica	54 (0.476)
Parnara guttata	55, 46, 56 (0.840)
Polytremis pellucida	53, 48, 43, 55 (0.938)
Potanthus flavus	—
Thoressa varia	53^¶, 48 (0.578)
Daimio tethys	—
Isoteinon lamprospilus	44^¶, 47 (0.503)
Pelopidas jansonis	—

The numbers below indicate host plant species and are also shown in SI Fig. 3. The host plant species that were included in the model that yielded the lowest AIC are shown. The symbol–indicates that no host plant species was selected in the model. Italicized numbers indicate host plants with a negative regression coefficient. Values in parentheses indicate the R² of the regression. Significant values (P) were adjusted for controlling multiple comparisons by using the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure. 1, Aristolochia kaempferi; 2, Zanthoxylum ailanthoides; 3, Orixa japonica; 5, Neolitsea sericea; 6, Oenanthe javanica;10, Trifolium pratense; 11, Brassica rapa; 12, Medicago polymorpha; 14, Lespedeza buergeri; 15, Trifolium repens; 16, Lespedeza homoloba; 17, Albizia julibrissin; 18, Lespedeza juncea var. serpens; 20, Lotus corniculatus var. japonicus; 21, Deutzia crenata; 22, Vicia angstifolia; 25, Pueraria lobata; 28, Rosa wichuraiana; 29, Lathyrus japonicus; 31, Kummerowia stipulacea; 38, Cirsium nipponicum; 40, Boehmeria longispica; 43, Pleioblastus chino; 44, Spodiopogon sibiricus; 46, Carex doniana; 47, Miscanthus sinensis; 48, Sasamorpha borealis; 51, Calamagrostis arundinacea var. brachytricha; 53, Phyllostachys bambusoides; 54, Sasa nipponica; 55, Phyllostachys heterocycla; 56, Oryza sativa.