Corrigendum

Abstract

Journal of EcologyVolume 105, Issue 5 p. 1437-1437 CorrigendumFree Access Corrigendum First published: 06 April 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12776AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL van Mantgem, P.J. & Stephenson N.L. (2005) The accuracy of matrix population model projections for coniferous trees in the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Ecology, 93, 737–747, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01007.x The authors have discovered that growth rates presented in the paper represent diameter growth (mm yr−1) instead of radial growth (mm yr−1). The error primarily affects some words in the text and in axis labels, but does not affect any of the results or conclusions, nor does it influence how matrices were calculated. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused by the error. The following corrections are made to the article: p. 738, right column, paragraph 2, the sentence beginning on line 11 should read ‘We measured tree diameters typically at 5-year intervals, and calculated diameter growth from these repeated measurements.’ p. 740, left column, paragraph 4, the sentences beginning on line 2 should read ‘We evaluated size dependent growth by assessing the effect of tree diameter on subsequent diameter growth with linear regression using a quadratic model during two 5-year intervals, and compared the residuals from the two time intervals. Our quadratic model was Gt+1 = C + α1·DBHt + α2·DBHt2, where Gt+1 is the diameter growth rate at the second time step and DBHt is the stem diameter at the first time step.’ The sentence beginning on line 12 should read ‘To compare our results directly against the findings of Pfister and Stevens (2003) we considered, simultaneously, the effects on growth of previous growth and size, using multiple regression (Gt+1 = C + α·DBHt + β·Gt, corresponding to Equation 1 in Pfister and Stevens, 2002), for stems <40 cm DBH where we do not find a curvilinear response between stem diameter and diameter growth (see Figure 1).’ p. 740, right column, paragraph 1, the sentence beginning on line 14 should read ‘We chose 1 mm yr−1 as the largest acceptable negative error in growth rate, and used diameter growth rates from −1 to 9 mm yr−1 for our growth analyses (Fig. 1).’ p. 742, Figure 1 caption should read ‘Size-dependent growth for the years 0–5. We limited our regressions to trees with growth rates of −1 to 9 mm yr−1 (see Methods), bounded by dashed lines, to calculate the influence of stem diameter on diameter growth.’ Vertical axis label should read ‘Diameter growth rate (mm yr−1).’ p. 743, Figure 2 caption should read ‘Growth autocorrelations for the years 0–5 and 5–10. The range of diameter growth rates used to calculate temporal correlations in growth was limited to −1 to 9 mm yr−1 (see Methods).’ Reference van Mantgem, P.J. & Stephenson, N.L. (2005) The accuracy of matrix population model projections for coniferous trees in the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Ecology, 93, 737– 747. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.0p1007.x Volume105, Issue5September 2017Pages 1437-1437 ReferencesRelatedInformation