DOI: 10.1111/ele.13572
论文题名: Corrigendum to: Eco-energetic consequences of evolutionary shifts in body size (Ecology Letters, (2018), 21, 1, (54-62), 10.1111/ele.12870)
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: 1428
结束页码: 1430
语种: 英语
英文关键词: erratum
英文摘要: In ‘Eco-energetic consequences of evolutionary shifts in body size’ by Malerba, White and Marshall which was published in Volume 21, issue 1 (January 2018), the authors wish to report a mistake in the geometric formula used to calculate the cell biovolume, due to confusing the semi-axes of the fitted ellipse with the axes. Specifically, the correct formula to calculate the volume of a cell with prolate spheroid shape is:1 (Formula presented.) (Figure presented.) where (Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.) are the semi-minor and semi-major axes, respectively, calculated from fitting an ellipse to the cell area (see Fig. 1 here). Eq. 1 can be also parametrised using the minor and major axes, which are twice the semi-minor and semi-major axes, as:2 (Formula presented.) In the article, we confused the semi-axis ((Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.) with the axis ((Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.)) and we used the wrong formula (Formula presented.). By replacing (Formula presented.) with (Formula presented.) in Eq. 1, it can be shown that all values reported in the manuscript are overestimated by exactly 8 times:3 (Formula presented.) Because all observations were overestimated by the same amount, this mistake affected the Y-axis values reported in most figures (see below) – but all of the qualitative differences are identical and the results and conclusions remain unchanged. Here below, we present all corrected figures from the main text. All supplementary materials accompanying the articles have been replaced with the corrected ones. All data and codes in the Dryad repository have been updated with the correct version (https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.bc1gb). (Figure presented.) Figure 1 Effect of artificial selection on mean cell volume for size-selection treatments of small, control and large ((Formula presented.) 1 SE). (Figure presented.) Figure 2a P–I curve for the volume-specific net energy flux as a function of light intensity for each size-evolved treatment ((Formula presented.) 95% confidence intervals). (Figure presented.) Figure 2c Max. growth rates and carrying capacity measured at low, mid and high light conditions across size-evolved lineages ((Formula presented.) 95% confidence intervals). Units of carrying capacity were converted to biovolume using linear calibration curves (see Appendix S2). Letters indicate significantly different groupings following Tukey’s post hoc test. (Figure presented.) Figure 3 Volume–standardised mean traits ((Formula presented.) 95% confidence intervals) among size-evolved treatments after 27 generations of size-selection for (a) total chlorophyll content (10-12 µg µm−3), (b) sinking rate (min−1 µm−3), (c) swimming speed (µm s−1 µm−3) and (d) swimming distance (µm µm−3). Letters indicate significantly different groupings following Tukey’s post hoc test. © 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/166567
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: Eco-energetic consequences of evolutionary shifts in body size (Ecology Letters, (2018), 21, 1, (54-62), 10.1111/ele.12870)[J]. Ecology Letters,2020-01-01,23(9)