DOI: 10.1111/ele.13569
论文题名: Corrigendum to: Trait plasticity alters the range of possible coexistence conditions in a competition–colonisation trade-off (Ecology Letters, (2020), 23, 5, (791-799), 10.1111/ele.13477)
作者: [无可用作者姓名]
刊名: Ecology Letters
ISSN: 1461023X
出版年: 2020
卷: 23, 期: 9 起始页码: 1426
结束页码: 1427
语种: 英语
英文关键词: erratum
英文摘要: In ‘Trait plasticity alters the range of possible coexistence conditions in a competition–colonisation trade-off’ Muthukrishnan et al. (2020) which was published in Volume 23, issue 5 (May 2020), the authors would like to correct a coding error, discovered after publication in the analyses. Evaluation of mutual invasibility for specific conditions and landscapes in Simulations 1 and 2 of the manuscript involved aligning the outcomes of 2 separate simulations (one with each of the species as the resident or invading species). When outcomes were compared, the coding error led to a misalignment of some simulation output files. This in turn led to an underestimate of mutual invasibility. However, this error had consistent effects across all conditions and scenarios such that the differences between plastic and fixed strategies were essentially unimpacted. Thus, none of our conclusions or interpretations were affected, but some specific numeric values that were reported were incorrect. After correcting the analysis, the second paragraph within the Results section for Simulation 1 should read: Across all scenarios, even when trade-off magnitude equals zero and all strategies are equivalent to the average strategy, mutual invasibility was only observed in ~60% of simulations. This indicates the strong influence of stochastic dynamics. Thus, observing even moderate levels of coexistence suggests significant stabilisation. Here is the corrected version of Figure 2: (Figure presented.) For Simulation 2, after correction the numbers of simulations with mutual invasibility for each scenario are: Competitor=82, Dominator=4934, Colonizer=3801, and Spreader=6562. The corrected paragraph for the Results section Simulation 2 should read: Simulation 2: Coexistence under different landscape configurations Again, plastic strategies allowed for coexistence across a broader range of landscape patterns compared to fixed strategies (Fig. 3). This is particularly clear when comparing the competitor strategy, which showed coexistence in only a narrow window of landscapes with very high or very low proportion of usable habitat (82 total landscapes; Fig. 3a), with the dominator strategy which had coexistence across almost all landscape conditions except those with very little usable habitat that is highly clumped (4934 total landscapes; Fig. 3b). The coloniser (Fig. 3c) and spreader (Fig. 3d) strategies showed more similar patterns of coexistence across landscape types, but the plastic (spreader) strategy had more coexistence (6562 vs 3801 landscapes) across nearly all landscape conditions while the coloniser strategy largely displayed coexistence in landscapes with large amounts of usable habitat that was highly autocorrelated. Here is the corrected version of Figure 3: (Figure presented.) Additionally, in Table 2, the values for the dispersal kernel base rate parameter (λbase) should 0.00694 for all simulations. This value was correctly reported in the text of the manuscript, but the wrong value was originally included in the table. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/CNRS Citation statistics:
资源类型: 期刊论文
标识符: http://119.78.100.158/handle/2HF3EXSE/166566
Appears in Collections: 气候变化与战略
There are no files associated with this item.
Recommended Citation:
[无可用作者姓名]. Corrigendum to: Trait plasticity alters the range of possible coexistence conditions in a competition–colonisation trade-off (Ecology Letters, (2020), 23, 5, (791-799), 10.1111/ele.13477)[J]. Ecology Letters,2020-01-01,23(9)