Supplementary Figures

Supplementary Figure 1: Vegetation cover changes under different forest management types.

Supplementary Figure 2. Association between shrub cover and nitrophilous, non-native spp.

Supplementary Figure 3. N-deposition effects on community composition.

Supplementary Figure 4. Species richness change and exchange ratio versus herbivory change in relation to N-deposition.

Supplementary Figure 5. Threatened and native spp. have lower N-numbers on average.

Supplementary Figure 6. Correlation between herbivory weighted with and without body mass.

Supplementary Figure 7. Histograms of herbivore pressure and N-deposition across sites.

Supplementary Figure 8. Conditional association between N-deposition and herbivore pressure.

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Table 1. Study site info.

Supplementary Table 2. Dataset.

Supplementary Table 3 - 11. Model summaries for Figure 2: Herbivory and shrub, herb and tree layer cover changes.

Supplementary Table 12 - 15. Model summaries for Figure 3: Herbivory, species richness and temporal turnover.

Supplementary Table 16 - 23. Model summaries for Figure 4: Herbivory and community composition.

Supplementary Table 24 - 25. Model summaries for Supplementary Figure 2: Shrub cover versus non-native, nitrophilous spp.

Supplementary Table 26 - 29. Model summaries for Supplementary Figure 3: N-deposition and community composition.

Supplementary Table 30 - 37. Model summaries for Figure 4: Interaction between herbivory and N-deposition.

Supplementary Table 38 - 39. Model summaries for Supplementary Figure 4: Differences in N-numbers.

Supplementary Table 40 - 43. Model summaries for changes in herbivory versus community composition, accounting for productivity.

Supplementary Table 44 - 47. Model summaries for changes in herbivory versus community composition, accounting for tree cover

Supplementary Table 48 - 51. Model summaries for changes in herbivory versus community composition, excluding baseline herbivory.

Supplementary Note

R code for all main analyses are available on figshare at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21596844







Supplementary Figures

**Relationship of (left) historical management practices and (right) recent management changes between changes in a, shrub cover; b, herb cover and c, tree cover.** The box and violin plots show that there is no association between forest management and changes in **a**, shrub cover or **b**, herb cover, either in the year 1800 (left) or due to recent management changes (resurvey - baseline). There is no association between historical forest management and **c**, changes in tree cover, however, there is an increase in tree cover in sites that experienced declines in management intensity between baseline and resurvey. Boxplots bound the interquartile range (IQR) divided by the median and whiskers extend up to a maximum of 1.5 x IQR beyond the box. Note that two sites lacked shrub and tree cover and one site also lacked herb cover data so that there were n=50 and n=51 independent resurvey sites for **a**, **c** and **b** respectively.

Supplementary Figure 1: Relationship of (left) historical management practices and (right) recent management changes between changes in a, shrub cover; b, herb cover and c, tree cover. The box and violin plots show that there is no association between forest management and changes in a, shrub cover or b, herb cover, either in the year 1800 (left) or due to recent management changes (resurvey - baseline). There is no association between historical forest management and c, changes in tree cover, however, there is an increase in tree cover in sites that experienced declines in management intensity between baseline and resurvey. Boxplots bound the interquartile range (IQR) divided by the median and whiskers extend up to a maximum of 1.5 x IQR beyond the box. Note that two sites lacked shrub and tree cover and one site also lacked herb cover data so that there were n=50 and n=51 independent resurvey sites for a, c and b respectively.







**Relationship between changes in shrub layer cover and a, % non-native species and b, the CMW N-number**. Lines and transparent ribbons represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval. The dotted line represents marginal non-significance here.  Note that two sites lacked shrub cover data so that there were n=50 independent resurvey sites for this analysis (Supplementary Table 24 and 25).

Supplementary Figure 2: Relationship between changes in shrub layer cover and a, % non-native species and b, the CMW N-number. Lines and transparent ribbons represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval. The dotted line represents marginal non-significance here. Note that two sites lacked shrub cover data so that there were n=50 independent resurvey sites for this analysis (Supplementary Table 24 and 25).







**Relationship between cumulative N-deposition and changes in a, % red-listed species, b, % non-native species, c, % small-ranged species and d, CWM N-number.** Lines and transparent ribbons represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval. Dotted lines represent marginal non-significance here. Models included inter-census time span, and site area as covariates, with n=52 independent resurvey sites (Supplementary Table 26 and 30).

Supplementary Figure 3: Relationship between cumulative N-deposition and changes in a, % red-listed species, b, % non-native species, c, % small-ranged species and d, CWM N-number. Lines and transparent ribbons represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval. Dotted lines represent marginal non-significance here. Models included inter-census time span, and site area as covariates, with n=52 independent resurvey sites (Supplementary Table 26 and 30).







**Counterfactual plots of the association between changes in herbivore pressure and species richness change/exchange ratio under low and high N-deposition.** Counterfactuals are depicted at the 10th (348 kg/ha; left) and 90th (1010 kg/ha; right) percentile of cumulative N-deposition in the data. The negative slope for the association with species richness became more pronounced under higher N-deposition, yet the interaction effect was statistically uncertain (beta = -2.83, se = 6.66). Species exchange ratio was higher under high N-deposition and low herbivory than under low N-deposition and low herbivory. The association between herbivory and species exchange ratio weakened under high N-deposition, but the interactive effect was statistically uncertain (beta = -0.03, se = 0.02). All models with n=52 independent resurvey sites. Lines and ribbons represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval. Dashed lines represent statistically unclear relationships. Rugs at figure bottom in **a** and **b** depict the marginal distribution of the predictor. Cumulative N-deposition is calculated between the baseline and resurvey year per site.

Supplementary Figure 4: Counterfactual plots of the association between changes in herbivore pressure and species richness change/exchange ratio under low and high N-deposition. Counterfactuals are depicted at the 10th (348 kg/ha; left) and 90th (1010 kg/ha; right) percentile of cumulative N-deposition in the data. The negative slope for the association with species richness became more pronounced under higher N-deposition, yet the interaction effect was statistically uncertain (beta = -2.83, se = 6.66). Species exchange ratio was higher under high N-deposition and low herbivory than under low N-deposition and low herbivory. The association between herbivory and species exchange ratio weakened under high N-deposition, but the interactive effect was statistically uncertain (beta = -0.03, se = 0.02). All models with n=52 independent resurvey sites. Lines and ribbons represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval. Dashed lines represent statistically unclear relationships. Rugs at figure bottom in a and b depict the marginal distribution of the predictor. Cumulative N-deposition is calculated between the baseline and resurvey year per site.







**Differences in N-number depending on a, threatened and b, native status**. The box and violin plots show that **a,** species threatened on a national Red List and **b,** native species have lower Ellenberg N-values than non-threatened and non-native species across sites, respectively. Boxplots bound the interquartile range (IQR) divided by the median and whiskers extend up to a maximum of 1.5 x IQR beyond the box. Note threatened and native classifications depend on the respective country, hence one species may be native / threatened in a given country but not in another. Sample size (n) is indicated across sites; n can be higher than the total number of species in our data set as classifications count cumulatively across sites. Our statistical model evaluates differences in N-number at the site level by including a random intercept for study site (Supplementary Table 38 and 39).

Supplementary Figure 5: Differences in N-number depending on a, threatened and b, native status. The box and violin plots show that a, species threatened on a national Red List and b, native species have lower Ellenberg N-values than non-threatened and non-native species across sites, respectively. Boxplots bound the interquartile range (IQR) divided by the median and whiskers extend up to a maximum of 1.5 x IQR beyond the box. Note threatened and native classifications depend on the respective country, hence one species may be native / threatened in a given country but not in another. Sample size (n) is indicated across sites; n can be higher than the total number of species in our data set as classifications count cumulatively across sites. Our statistical model evaluates differences in N-number at the site level by including a random intercept for study site (Supplementary Table 38 and 39).







**Relationship between changes in herbivory pressure and body-mass weighted herbivory pressure with a, the full range of values and b, an outlier value removed.** The lines and ribbons represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval. n=52 independent resurvey sites. R is Pearson's rho correlation coefficient.

Supplementary Figure 6: Relationship between changes in herbivory pressure and body-mass weighted herbivory pressure with a, the full range of values and b, an outlier value removed. The lines and ribbons represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval. n=52 independent resurvey sites. R is Pearson’s rho correlation coefficient.







**Histogram of herbivore pressure and N-deposition across forest sites.**

Supplementary Figure 7: Histogram of herbivore pressure and N-deposition across forest sites.







**Conditional association between cumulative N-deposition and changes in herbivore pressure.** The line and ribbon represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval for the conditional association between N-deposition and herbivory change in the interaction models. On the x-axis are the partial residuals of herbivore pressure change, namely the variation left unexplained by the other variables in the model (inter-census time span and site area). R is Pearson's rho correlation coefficient, p is the p-value.

Supplementary Figure 8: Conditional association between cumulative N-deposition and changes in herbivore pressure. The line and ribbon represent the posterior mean line and the 95% credible interval for the conditional association between N-deposition and herbivory change in the interaction models. On the x-axis are the partial residuals of herbivore pressure change, namely the variation left unexplained by the other variables in the model (inter-census time span and site area). R is Pearson’s rho correlation coefficient, p is the p-value.







Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Table 1. Study site info.

Supplementary Table 1: Dataset ID, country, site name, year of the baseline survey and resurvey [when one survey (baseline or resurvey) was carried out over several years, the list shows the earliest baseline survey and the latest resurvey in which all vegetation layers were sampled] and coordinates.
Dataset ID Country Site name Baseline yr Resurvey yr Lat Long
1 Belgium Meerdaalwoud 1954 2000 50.799 4.708
2 Sweden Dalby 1935 1976 55.692 13.330
3 Sweden Dalby 1976 2002 55.692 13.330
4 Germany Elbe-Weser 1986 2008 53.552 8.984
5 Czech Republic Děvín Wood 1953 2002 48.867 16.630
6 Czech Republic Milovice Wood 1953 2006 48.838 16.690
7 Czech Republic Rychlebské hory Mts. 1942 1998 50.267 17.083
8 United Kingdom Wytham Woods 1974 1999 51.773 -1.334
9 Germany Göttingen, SFB 1980 2001 51.530 10.048
10 Germany Göttingen, Carici-Fagetum 1960 2011 51.333 9.820
11 Germany Göttingen, Hordelymo-Fagetum 1960 2009 51.556 10.019
12 Austria Zöbelboden 1993 2005 46.840 14.440
13 Hungary Heves 1989 2008 47.988 20.501
14 Germany Brandenburg 1962 2012 52.059 13.857
15 Slovakia Slovakia, South-West 1966 2007 48.398 17.341
16 Slovakia Slovakia, Central 1964 2005 48.258 19.378
17 Slovakia Slovakia, North-East 1965 2006 49.215 21.850
18 Czech Republic České Středohoří 1965 2012 50.586 14.116
19 Czech Republic Krumlov Wood 1964 2012 49.053 16.384
20 Czech Republic Hodonínská Dúbrava 1965 2012 48.882 17.104
21 Czech Republic Ždánice Wood 1959 2012 49.099 17.030
22 Poland Białowieża 1966 2012 52.700 23.870
23 Sweden Skåne 1983 2014 55.881 13.719
24 Hungary Zselic 1958 2018 46.295 17.861
25 Germany Göttingen, Hünstollen 1992 2002 51.578 10.047
26 Poland Bazaltowa Mt 1992 2010 51.008 16.132
27 Poland Buki Sudeckie beech forest 1990 2014 50.943 16.028
28 Poland Trzebnickie Hills 1962 2011 51.262 16.816
29 Germany Prignitz 1954 2014 53.080 12.280
30 Germany Brandenburg Nord 1963 2014 53.064 13.471
31 Germany Brandenburg Süd 1960 2014 51.792 13.801
32 Germany Unteres Spreewald-Randgebiet 1965 2010 52.088 13.934
33 Slovenia Strmec 1983 2015 45.622 14.819
34 Slovenia Rajhenavski Rog 1983 2015 45.663 15.012
35 Slovenia Pecka 1983 2015 45.755 14.999
36 France Compiègne forest 1970 2015 49.364 2.887
37 Hungary Bakony és Gerecse 1955 2015 47.202 18.075
38 Hungary Bükkalja és Dél-Cserehát 1953 2014 47.909 20.399
39 Hungary Gödöllői-dombság 1950 2014 47.589 19.396
40 Hungary Mátra-Bükk-Zemplén 1958 2015 48.194 20.903
41 Hungary Őrség 1954 2014 46.916 16.567
42 Hungary Visegrádi-hegység 1953 2015 47.730 18.963
43 Germany Großer Staufenberg 1988 1998 51.625 10.636
44 Germany Riedried 1986 2018 49.033 8.230
45 Czech Republic Śnieżnik Massif 1955 2013 50.231 16.917
46 Germany Göttinger Wald (Fliehburgen) 1955 2015 51.576 10.008
47 Poland N-E Puszcza Niepołomicka 1966 2019 50.093 20.373
48 Ukraine Zakarpatska oblast 1935 1997 48.400 23.100
49 Ukraine Zakarpatska oblast 1935 1997 48.400 23.100
50 Ukraine Zakarpatska oblast 1935 1997 48.400 23.100
51 Poland Riparian forests of the Oder Valley (near Wrocław) 1959 2019 50.930 17.350
52 Poland Dolina Wapienicy (Wapienica Valley) 1991 2020 49.757 18.981






Supplementary Table 2. Dataset.
Supplementary Table 2: Data table with key variables. Shown here is the dataset ID; HP = change in herbivore pressure; Cum N-dep = cumulative N-deposition; RL% = % change in red list species/; Non-native % = % change in Non-native species; SR = change in species richness; herb cover; shrub cover; CWM-N = change in community weighted mean N value; Man 1800 = management in year 1800 (CWS = coppicing with standards; HF = high forest), Mgmt change = management change between baseline and resurvey.
Dataset ID Δ HP Cum N-dep Δ RL % Δ Non-native % Δ SR Δ Herb cover Δ Shrub cover Δ CWM-N Man 1800 Mgmt change
1 0.0 1295.51 0.00 5.29 -4 -66.67 -11.90 0.14 CWS Decline
2 6.0 544.46 5.94 2.20 -21 -14.14 -17.88 0.18 HF Similar
3 6.0 630.31 -3.61 3.06 5 -46.96 -3.90 -0.07 HF Similar
4 0.0 503.80 -0.31 0.54 26 -78.76 -12.73 -0.03 CWS / HF Similar
5 6.0 1107.00 -3.45 -0.10 -93 -56.30 0.52 0.59 CWS Decline
6 18.0 1185.39 -5.85 11.13 -32 -36.41 -19.72 0.89 CWS Decline
7 6.0 1028.09 0.59 0.59 -33 -94.05 1.44 -0.22 HF Similar
8 11.0 583.97 1.29 0.00 -18 24.87 NA -0.11 CWS Similar
9 0.0 456.89 0.03 0.00 -2 93.60 18.02 0.06 CWS Similar
10 2.0 1095.38 -3.82 0.90 -15 46.47 26.39 0.27 CWS Similar
11 2.0 1011.71 0.15 0.15 -13 10.86 8.07 0.20 CWS Similar
12 0.0 223.66 1.53 0.00 4 -46.84 0.01 0.13 HF Similar
13 0.0 344.98 -0.83 0.00 -34 NA NA 0.17 HF Similar
14 9.0 935.83 1.76 2.13 21 37.56 2.19 0.02 CWS / HF Similar
15 7.0 783.12 0.83 2.40 -9 -3.06 3.50 0.22 CWS / HF Similar
16 3.0 773.06 -0.62 0.67 -4 -3.90 5.17 0.30 CWS Similar
17 3.0 770.90 0.00 1.52 -2 -24.73 -4.75 0.13 CWS / HF Similar
18 7.0 874.61 -1.32 4.74 -10 -34.42 6.31 0.83 CWS / HF Decline
19 18.0 890.17 -1.70 11.99 90 -24.56 -3.97 0.65 CWS Similar
20 6.0 854.62 0.96 1.90 25 14.36 9.57 0.15 CWS / HF Similar
21 6.0 923.88 -2.07 8.57 4 -51.24 0.73 0.38 CWS / HF Similar
22 4.0 812.93 0.00 0.00 -7 -3.89 19.05 0.14 HF Similar
23 4.0 516.31 -0.60 4.94 -9 -23.27 -1.55 0.11 CWS / HF Similar
24 11.0 998.39 0.00 2.04 -33 -95.54 -33.20 0.40 HF Similar
25 0.0 157.96 0.10 -0.73 -13 -15.31 14.21 -0.02 CWS Similar
26 5.0 281.30 1.07 1.07 43 13.88 0.87 0.28 CWS Similar
27 4.0 375.06 -1.64 1.12 35 31.91 4.12 -0.08 HF Decline
28 -7.5 815.47 0.00 2.49 4 -52.73 -14.28 -0.26 HF Decline
29 5.0 914.52 -0.70 2.61 11 -47.45 -1.32 0.18 CWS / HF Similar
30 9.0 817.16 -3.14 1.76 4 22.67 15.14 0.40 CWS / HF Decline
31 9.0 857.72 -0.44 1.52 44 26.20 4.45 0.60 CWS / HF Decline
32 9.0 725.61 -0.83 2.50 37 -10.14 -0.28 0.38 HF Similar
33 0.0 485.57 2.71 0.00 -35 -37.86 0.59 0.08 HF Similar
34 0.0 474.97 2.41 0.00 -16 -46.00 13.56 -0.08 HF Similar
35 0.0 467.00 0.00 0.00 -21 -75.62 9.51 -0.08 HF Similar
36 1.0 677.73 0.37 1.46 39 66.96 10.13 0.29 HF Similar
37 17.0 842.89 1.94 2.26 -51 -60.98 -21.79 0.66 HF Decline
38 14.0 805.98 -0.79 1.89 -98 -93.10 -24.73 0.78 HF Similar
39 13.0 814.59 -1.12 2.04 -21 -24.21 5.87 0.60 HF Decline
40 17.0 774.21 -3.32 1.52 -71 -49.48 -2.77 0.28 HF Similar
41 13.0 784.58 -1.36 1.84 -77 -56.74 -1.79 1.23 HF Similar
42 16.0 800.16 -0.48 0.60 -35 -35.65 0.00 0.55 HF Decline
43 -1.0 129.69 2.56 0.12 -4 -1.41 2.37 -0.10 CWS Similar
44 1.0 399.87 -1.43 1.85 18 -60.40 14.81 0.03 CWS Similar
45 13.0 753.30 1.64 -0.60 -36 -2.41 4.32 -0.57 HF Similar
46 0.0 768.20 0.34 -0.18 -42 -0.73 22.34 0.09 CWS Similar
47 6.0 683.00 -0.18 -4.51 16 40.37 19.62 -0.08 HF Similar
48 -6.0 581.37 0.48 0.48 -19 -63.55 20.75 0.29 HF Similar
49 -4.0 541.78 0.10 0.05 -8 -74.17 22.85 0.08 HF Similar
50 -1.0 537.33 0.00 0.00 18 -28.19 4.26 -0.09 HF Similar
51 6.0 677.41 0.58 6.19 9 11.22 -0.27 0.03 HF Similar
52 -1.0 282.02 -1.14 -0.21 12 -13.08 -13.09 0.02 HF Similar







Supplementary Table 3 - 11. Model summaries for Figure 2: Herbivory and shrub, herb and tree layer cover changes.

Supplementary Table 3: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivory and shrub cover (Figure 2a). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.01 0.14 -0.28 0.25
Herbivore pressure -0.42 0.17 -0.76 -0.10
Baseline herbivory 0.14 0.15 -0.17 0.42
Time span 0.14 0.16 -0.17 0.45
Site area (log) 0.00 0.16 -0.31 0.33
Supplementary Table 4: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivory and herb cover (Figure 2b). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.01 0.14 -0.27 0.28
Herbivore pressure -0.02 0.17 -0.37 0.32
Baseline herbivory -0.09 0.16 -0.41 0.22
Time span -0.27 0.17 -0.59 0.06
Site area (log) 0.12 0.17 -0.23 0.46
Supplementary Table 5: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivory and tree cover (Figure 2c). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.01 0.14 -0.30 0.28
Herbivore pressure 0.13 0.18 -0.22 0.47
Baseline herbivory 0.12 0.17 -0.20 0.44
Time span 0.09 0.16 -0.24 0.41
Site area (log) 0.05 0.17 -0.29 0.38
Supplementary Table 6: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and shrub layer cover, after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.061 0.154 -0.243 0.368
Herbivore pressure -0.379 0.176 -0.725 -0.029
Baseline herbivory 0.168 0.153 -0.136 0.469
Time span 0.160 0.161 -0.148 0.481
Site area (log) 0.003 0.157 -0.306 0.306
Mgmt change:decline (delta) -0.364 0.348 -1.037 0.318
Supplementary Table 7: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and shrub layer cover, after accounting for historical forest management. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.254 0.218 -0.684 0.179
Herbivore pressure -0.385 0.177 -0.738 -0.034
Baseline herbivory 0.143 0.155 -0.156 0.450
Time span 0.223 0.169 -0.107 0.555
Site area (log) -0.121 0.235 -0.595 0.335
Mgmt: CWS/HF 0.472 0.508 -0.538 1.467
Mgmt: CWS 0.500 0.347 -0.168 1.169
Supplementary Table 8: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and herb layer cover, after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.006 0.171 -0.330 0.341
Herbivore pressure -0.017 0.181 -0.384 0.329
Baseline herbivory -0.092 0.167 -0.428 0.239
Time span -0.265 0.169 -0.603 0.064
Site area (log) 0.115 0.178 -0.227 0.461
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.000 0.370 -0.709 0.711
Supplementary Table 9: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and herb layer cover, after accounting for historical forest management. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.196 0.224 -0.627 0.245
Herbivore pressure -0.023 0.190 -0.407 0.346
Baseline herbivory -0.088 0.161 -0.398 0.239
Time span -0.177 0.180 -0.532 0.164
Site area (log) 0.085 0.251 -0.418 0.565
Mgmt: CWS/HF 0.246 0.552 -0.821 1.360
Mgmt: CWS 0.545 0.373 -0.210 1.293
Supplementary Table 10: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and tree layer cover, after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.152 0.168 -0.485 0.177
Herbivore pressure 0.059 0.178 -0.291 0.408
Baseline herbivory 0.055 0.166 -0.269 0.383
Time span 0.044 0.163 -0.278 0.354
Site area (log) 0.033 0.172 -0.316 0.369
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.678 0.373 -0.033 1.410
Supplementary Table 11: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and tree layer cover, after accounting for historical forest management. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.011 0.230 -0.443 0.459
Herbivore pressure 0.025 0.194 -0.338 0.418
Baseline herbivory 0.076 0.173 -0.253 0.411
Time span 0.105 0.180 -0.252 0.456
Site area (log) 0.282 0.254 -0.226 0.788
Mgmt: CWS/HF -0.572 0.566 -1.683 0.534
Mgmt: CWS 0.354 0.366 -0.379 1.087







Supplementary Table 12 - 15. Model summaries for Figure 3: Herbivory, species richness and temporal turnover.

Supplementary Table 12: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivory and spp. richness (Figure 3a). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.00 0.14 -0.27 0.27
Herbivore pressure -0.23 0.17 -0.56 0.10
Baseline herbivory 0.02 0.14 -0.27 0.31
Time span -0.28 0.16 -0.59 0.04
Site area (log) 0.28 0.16 -0.04 0.60
Supplementary Table 13: Summary of the model testing the association between herbivory change and spp. exchange ratio (Figure 3b). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.001 0.117 -0.228 0.232
Herbivore pressure 0.518 0.141 0.240 0.790
Baseline herbivory 0.036 0.122 -0.207 0.279
Time span 0.321 0.133 0.057 0.587
Site area (log) -0.248 0.137 -0.510 0.023
Supplementary Table 14: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and species richness, after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.011 0.163 -0.315 0.327
Herbivore pressure -0.223 0.173 -0.555 0.114
Baseline herbivory 0.022 0.148 -0.260 0.310
Time span -0.270 0.162 -0.591 0.048
Site area (log) 0.275 0.167 -0.057 0.606
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.065 0.373 -0.662 0.810
Supplementary Table 15: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and species exchange ratio, after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.048 0.133 -0.317 0.210
Herbivore pressure 0.495 0.146 0.207 0.783
Baseline herbivory 0.018 0.127 -0.234 0.268
Time span 0.308 0.136 0.045 0.578
Site area (log) -0.251 0.141 -0.529 0.022
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.242 0.311 -0.373 0.855







Supplementary Table 16 - 23. Model summaries for Figure 4: Herbivory and community composition.

Supplementary Table 16: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivory and CWM N number (Figure 4a). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.001 0.117 -0.226 0.229
Herbivore pressure 0.432 0.149 0.138 0.725
Baseline herbivory 0.011 0.127 -0.228 0.264
Time span 0.162 0.137 -0.107 0.431
Site area (log) 0.116 0.144 -0.169 0.401
Supplementary Table 17: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivory and % non-native spp. (Figure 4c). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.0025 0.1331 -0.2593 0.2614
Herbivore pressure 0.3665 0.1651 0.0452 0.6916
Baseline herbivory -0.0868 0.1370 -0.3554 0.1816
Time span 0.0463 0.1523 -0.2549 0.3460
Site area (log) 0.0122 0.1591 -0.3047 0.3110
Supplementary Table 18: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivory and % red-listed spp. (Figure 4e). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.0028 0.1408 -0.2854 0.2848
Herbivore pressure -0.1929 0.1690 -0.5250 0.1367
Baseline herbivory -0.0667 0.1458 -0.3545 0.2200
Time span -0.0690 0.1534 -0.3742 0.2347
Site area (log) -0.1379 0.1652 -0.4625 0.1941
Supplementary Table 19: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivory and % small-ranged spp. (Figure 4g). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.0047 0.1356 -0.2564 0.2710
Herbivore pressure -0.2463 0.1684 -0.5731 0.0860
Baseline herbivory -0.1852 0.1471 -0.4743 0.1032
Time span -0.0521 0.1606 -0.3592 0.2671
Site area (log) -0.1261 0.1607 -0.4433 0.1923
Supplementary Table 20: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and CWM-N, after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.123 0.134 -0.385 0.142
Herbivore pressure 0.376 0.142 0.102 0.660
Baseline herbivory -0.035 0.124 -0.277 0.216
Time span 0.129 0.132 -0.130 0.389
Site area (log) 0.108 0.138 -0.168 0.379
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.578 0.315 -0.054 1.199
Supplementary Table 21: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and % non-native spp., after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.077 0.155 -0.385 0.227
Herbivore pressure 0.331 0.170 -0.004 0.669
Baseline herbivory -0.115 0.143 -0.386 0.174
Time span 0.022 0.153 -0.275 0.326
Site area (log) 0.004 0.163 -0.311 0.334
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.367 0.361 -0.341 1.079
Supplementary Table 22: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and % red-listed spp., after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.130 0.159 -0.177 0.432
Herbivore pressure -0.134 0.174 -0.474 0.216
Baseline herbivory -0.018 0.147 -0.308 0.274
Time span -0.029 0.159 -0.338 0.288
Site area (log) -0.130 0.162 -0.444 0.190
Mgmt change:decline (delta) -0.614 0.367 -1.350 0.103
Supplementary Table 23: Summary of model testing the association between changes in herbivory and % small-ranged spp., after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.156 0.154 -0.143 0.457
Herbivore pressure -0.174 0.166 -0.506 0.146
Baseline herbivory -0.127 0.139 -0.400 0.142
Time span -0.012 0.153 -0.312 0.286
Site area (log) -0.112 0.158 -0.422 0.193
Mgmt change:decline (delta) -0.736 0.356 -1.446 -0.030







Supplementary Table 24 - 25. Model summaries for Supplementary Figure 2: Shrub cover versus non-native, nitrophilous spp.

Supplementary Table 24: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in shrub cover and % non-native spp. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.0106 0.1369 -0.2834 0.2594
Shrub cover -0.3696 0.1383 -0.6367 -0.0913
Time span 0.1261 0.1482 -0.1595 0.4160
Site area (log) 0.0850 0.1533 -0.2121 0.3874
Supplementary Table 25: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in shrub cover and CWM N number. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.0263 0.1256 -0.2715 0.2205
Shrub cover -0.1939 0.1314 -0.4557 0.0590
Time span 0.2763 0.1409 -0.0126 0.5518
Site area (log) 0.2557 0.1423 -0.0147 0.5450







Supplementary Table 26 - 29. Model summaries for Supplementary Figure 3: N-deposition and community composition.

Supplementary Table 26: Summary of the model testing the association between cumulative N-deposition and the %-change in red-listed spp. (Supplementary Figure 3a). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.00097 0.13410 -0.25931 0.26405
N-dep -0.45777 0.21303 -0.88617 -0.05272
Time span 0.16616 0.19624 -0.21195 0.55649
Site area (log) -0.07654 0.15470 -0.38173 0.22986
Supplementary Table 27: Summary of the model testing the association between cumulative N-deposition and the %-change in non-native spp. (Supplementary Figure 3c). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.0010 0.1307 -0.2593 0.2533
N-dep 0.5613 0.2041 0.1658 0.9601
Time span -0.2072 0.1904 -0.5818 0.1691
Site area (log) 0.0053 0.1530 -0.2960 0.3019
Supplementary Table 28: Summary of the model testing the association between cumulative N-deposition and the %-change in small-ranged spp. (Supplementary Figure 3b). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.00341 0.13545 -0.26353 0.27257
N-dep -0.37813 0.21241 -0.79709 0.04114
Time span 0.12171 0.20231 -0.28083 0.51614
Site area (log) -0.09509 0.15906 -0.41251 0.21813
Supplementary Table 29: Summary of the model testing the association between cumulative N-deposition and the change in CWM N-number. (Supplementary Figure 3d). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.0017 0.1314 -0.2593 0.2582
N-dep 0.1685 0.2081 -0.2512 0.5776
Time span 0.1702 0.1936 -0.2068 0.5472
Site area (log) 0.2327 0.1542 -0.0727 0.5366







Supplementary Table 30 - 37. Model summaries for Figure 4: Interaction between herbivory and N-deposition.

Supplementary Table 30: Summary of the model testing the interactive effect between herbivore pressure and N-deposition on CWM N-number. (Figure 4b). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.14346 0.13834 -0.41861 0.12963
Herbivore pressure 0.28525 0.15601 -0.01979 0.59231
N-dep 0.24089 0.19410 -0.14276 0.62363
Time span 0.10411 0.16984 -0.23513 0.44001
Site area (log) 0.12390 0.14429 -0.15784 0.41086
Herbivore:N-dep 0.32971 0.16528 0.00489 0.65462
Supplementary Table 31: Summary of the model testing the interactive effect between herbivore pressure and N-deposition on % non-native spp. (Figure 4d). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.15823 0.14254 -0.43938 0.12451
Herbivore pressure 0.19529 0.16362 -0.12837 0.51561
N-dep 0.66243 0.20276 0.26629 1.06086
Time span -0.26308 0.17790 -0.61263 0.08861
Site area (log) -0.07403 0.15048 -0.37599 0.21962
Herbivore:N-dep 0.36221 0.17277 0.02477 0.70093
Supplementary Table 32: Summary of the model testing the interactive effect between herbivore pressure and N-deposition on % red- listed spp. (Figure 4f). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.16467 0.15405 -0.14038 0.46590
Herbivore pressure 0.01358 0.17541 -0.32855 0.36299
N-dep -0.60393 0.21945 -1.03893 -0.17028
Time span 0.19537 0.19105 -0.18431 0.57162
Site area (log) -0.06133 0.16282 -0.38160 0.26048
Herbivore:N-dep -0.37769 0.18673 -0.74862 -0.00935
Supplementary Table 33: Summary of the model testing the interactive effect between herbivore pressure and N-deposition on % small-ranged spp. (Figure 4h). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.22165 0.15068 -0.07421 0.51683
Herbivore pressure 0.03988 0.17192 -0.29525 0.38004
N-dep -0.56607 0.21418 -0.98972 -0.14858
Time span 0.14544 0.18769 -0.22306 0.51553
Site area (log) -0.08430 0.15878 -0.39849 0.22959
Herbivore:N-dep -0.50683 0.18215 -0.86508 -0.14563
Supplementary Table 34: Summary of model testing the interaction between changes in herbivory and N-deposition on CWM-N, after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.261 0.151 -0.561 0.046
N-dep 0.113 0.205 -0.284 0.528
Herbivore pressure 0.234 0.163 -0.075 0.561
Baseline herbivory -0.090 0.131 -0.351 0.168
Time span 0.148 0.174 -0.188 0.490
Site area (log) 0.142 0.144 -0.142 0.421
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.558 0.320 -0.084 1.186
Herbivore:N-dep 0.329 0.167 -0.003 0.655
Supplementary Table 35: Summary of model testing the interaction between changes in herbivory and N-deposition on % non-native spp., after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.185 0.163 -0.511 0.135
N-dep 0.631 0.222 0.192 1.068
Herbivore pressure 0.158 0.176 -0.193 0.502
Baseline herbivory -0.089 0.141 -0.366 0.190
Time span -0.237 0.185 -0.601 0.125
Site area (log) -0.065 0.154 -0.368 0.240
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.075 0.347 -0.609 0.756
Herbivore:N-dep 0.386 0.182 0.032 0.748
Supplementary Table 36: Summary of model testing the interaction between changes in herbivory and N-deposition on % red-listed spp., after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.230 0.173 -0.113 0.570
N-dep -0.537 0.234 -0.997 -0.075
Herbivore pressure 0.019 0.184 -0.348 0.378
Baseline herbivory -0.034 0.151 -0.326 0.263
Time span 0.186 0.196 -0.200 0.571
Site area (log) -0.070 0.162 -0.388 0.250
Mgmt change:decline (delta) 0.358 0.362 -0.359 1.071
Herbivore:N-dep -0.351 0.191 -0.728 0.025
Supplementary Table 37: Summary of model testing the interaction between changes in herbivory and N-deposition on % small-ranged spp., after accounting for forest management change. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.311 0.164 -0.012 0.632
N-dep -0.484 0.225 -0.930 -0.045
Herbivore pressure 0.023 0.174 -0.316 0.368
Baseline herbivory -0.111 0.142 -0.388 0.165
Time span 0.154 0.189 -0.215 0.527
Site area (log) -0.090 0.155 -0.396 0.216
Mgmt change:decline (delta) -0.544 0.350 -1.232 0.139
Herbivore:N-dep -0.447 0.181 -0.804 -0.092







Supplementary Table 38 - 39. Model summaries for Supplementary Figure 4: Differences in N-numbers.

Supplementary Table 38: Summary of the model testing for differences in N-number between threatened and non-threatened spp. (Supplementary Figure 4a). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 5.34 0.09 5.17 5.51
Threatened - Yes -1.41 0.17 -1.73 -1.08
Supplementary Table 39: Summary of the model testing for differences in N-number between native and non-native species. (Supplementary Figure 4b). Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 6.52 0.12 6.29 6.75
Native - Yes -1.25 0.10 -1.46 -1.05







Supplementary Table 40 - 43. Model summaries for changes in herbivory versus community composition, accounting for productivity.

Supplementary Table 40: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and CWM-N, with productivity measured as AP:PET as a covariate. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.000 0.127 -0.247 0.256
Herbivore pressure 0.420 0.151 0.117 0.722
Baseline herbivory 0.016 0.128 -0.235 0.269
Time span 0.173 0.148 -0.112 0.453
Site area (log) 0.119 0.146 -0.166 0.406
Productivity - AP:PET 0.032 0.136 -0.230 0.294
Supplementary Table 41: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % non-naitve spp., with productivity measured as AP:PET as a covariate. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.001 0.134 -0.266 0.260
Herbivore pressure 0.348 0.173 0.011 0.688
Baseline herbivory -0.078 0.146 -0.379 0.208
Time span 0.057 0.160 -0.265 0.368
Site area (log) -0.001 0.161 -0.319 0.315
Productivity - AP:PET 0.059 0.150 -0.228 0.354
Supplementary Table 42: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % red-listed spp., with productivity measured as AP:PET as a covariate. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.005 0.146 -0.286 0.287
Herbivore pressure -0.187 0.181 -0.547 0.162
Baseline herbivory -0.070 0.159 -0.384 0.244
Time span -0.072 0.167 -0.396 0.254
Site area (log) -0.107 0.167 -0.440 0.215
Productivity - AP:PET -0.037 0.157 -0.349 0.263
Supplementary Table 43: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % small-ranged spp., with productivity measured as AP:PET as a covariate. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.005 0.143 -0.275 0.280
Herbivore pressure -0.239 0.176 -0.585 0.102
Baseline herbivory -0.182 0.149 -0.464 0.108
Time span -0.010 0.168 -0.343 0.315
Site area (log) -0.127 0.169 -0.469 0.202
Productivity - AP:PET 0.057 0.160 -0.258 0.376







Supplementary Table 44 - 47. Model summaries for changes in herbivory versus community composition, accounting for tree cover

Supplementary Table 44: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and CWM-N, with tree cover as a covariate. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.018 0.121 -0.252 0.218
Herbivore pressure 0.411 0.143 0.128 0.702
Baseline herbivory 0.033 0.130 -0.226 0.279
Time span 0.163 0.138 -0.114 0.428
Site area (log) 0.135 0.142 -0.148 0.414
Tree cover 0.172 0.127 -0.084 0.415
Supplementary Table 45: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % non-native spp., with tree cover as a covariate. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.005 0.140 -0.281 0.270
Herbivore pressure 0.353 0.168 0.020 0.685
Baseline herbivory -0.118 0.153 -0.420 0.180
Time span 0.030 0.156 -0.281 0.336
Site area (log) 0.000 0.162 -0.326 0.316
Tree cover 0.000 0.140 -0.271 0.273
Supplementary Table 46: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % red-listed spp., with tree cover as a covariate. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.018 0.143 -0.260 0.297
Herbivore pressure -0.207 0.174 -0.557 0.125
Baseline herbivory -0.128 0.166 -0.461 0.201
Time span -0.088 0.160 -0.406 0.235
Site area (log) -0.176 0.169 -0.508 0.154
Tree cover 0.023 0.150 -0.282 0.312
Supplementary Table 47: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % non-native spp., with tree cover as a covariate. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.020 0.141 -0.258 0.296
Herbivore pressure -0.241 0.173 -0.584 0.090
Baseline herbivory -0.205 0.161 -0.533 0.122
Time span -0.059 0.159 -0.382 0.254
Site area (log) -0.137 0.169 -0.468 0.196
Tree cover -0.066 0.146 -0.349 0.216







Supplementary Table 48 - 51. Model summaries for changes in herbivory versus community composition, excluding baseline herbivory.

Supplementary Table 48: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and CWM-N, excluding baseline herbivory. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.001 0.117 -0.227 0.231
Herbivore pressure 0.430 0.145 0.142 0.715
Time span 0.163 0.134 -0.104 0.433
Site area (log) 0.114 0.139 -0.167 0.392
Supplementary Table 49: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % non-native spp., excluding baseline herbivory. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.001 0.133 -0.258 0.259
Herbivore pressure 0.387 0.162 0.078 0.715
Time span 0.036 0.152 -0.262 0.336
Site area (log) 0.015 0.156 -0.287 0.315
Supplementary Table 50: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % red-listed spp., excluding baseline herbivory. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept -0.003 0.141 -0.279 0.284
Herbivore pressure -0.177 0.169 -0.508 0.168
Time span -0.066 0.158 -0.374 0.255
Site area (log) -0.135 0.167 -0.469 0.184
Supplementary Table 51: Summary of the model testing the association between changes in herbivore pressure and % small-ranged spp., excluding baseline herbivory. Parameter estimates, their standard error (SE) and 95% credible interval (CI). Both the response and predictor variables were scaled.
Predictor Slope estimate SE lower 95% CI upper 95% CI
Intercept 0.001 0.140 -0.278 0.274
Herbivore pressure -0.193 0.171 -0.531 0.139
Time span -0.062 0.160 -0.371 0.259
Site area (log) -0.122 0.164 -0.448 0.203