Abstract
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172898.].
Highlights
Table), and pink salmon showed little support for the density dependent model, suggesting that variation may be better explained by other covariates
The correct sentence is: We found no evidence supporting a negative EVOS impact on sockeye salmon, or pink salmon productivity, weak evidence of a slightly positive EVOS signal on Copper River Chinook salmon productivity, and weak evidence of a negative pulse effect on herring productivity
Table of model selection values (AICc) comparing models without covariates to models that estimate an impact of juvenile competition
Summary
The correct sentence is: We found no evidence supporting a negative EVOS impact on sockeye salmon, or pink salmon productivity, weak evidence of a slightly positive EVOS signal (in the press-recovery model) on Copper River Chinook salmon productivity, and weak evidence of a negative pulse effect on herring productivity. Table of model selection values (AICc) comparing null models (constant productivity, or log(R/S) independent of spawners) to models that estimated density dependence via the Ricker stockrecruitment relationship.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
