Erratum

Abstract

Diversity and DistributionsVolume 19, Issue 12 p. 1578-1579 ErratumOpen Access Erratum This article corrects the following: Is vessel hull fouling an invasion threat to the Great Lakes? Francisco Sylvester, Hugh J. MacIsaac, Volume 16Issue 1Diversity and Distributions pages: 132-143 First Published online: November 30, 2009 First published: 07 November 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12141AboutSectionsPDF 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 In Sylvester and MacIsaac (2010), the wrong taxa abundance dataset was used for richness estimations. While some figures and models were recalculated for data accuracy, all overall findings of the paper remain the same. The correct abundance dataset has been posted in the Appendix S1 and S2 files. The correct form of Equation (2) is: R = 0.3501TP – 1; with AICc = 169.95. The following figures have been recalculated: Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Chao-2 species richness estimate for ships in this study. Estimate values could not be calculated for four ships due to lack of duplicates. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. Values off the scale are indicated. Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Individual-based rarefaction curves for all ships pooled from this study (dark line ± 95% C.I.) and the ship sampled by Drake and Lodge [2007; grey line (± 95% C.I.)]. Also shown are Chao-1 species richness estimates (± 95% C.I.) for our study and that of Drake and Lodge. Species richness estimates for our study either excluded species found in Great Lakes' port water (open bar) or included them (solid bar), whereas Drake and Lodge's estimate includes these species (grey bar). Chao-2 richness estimates for our study were 148 and 164 species without and with port water samples considered, respectively. Figure 5Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Individual-based rarefaction curves for underwater locations with significantly different asymptotic richness (a), Chao-2 species richness estimate (b), and average percentage cover (c) for all locations across all ships in this study. Dotted lines and error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. Values off the scale are indicated. Sea chest refers to the protective grating covering its exterior surface. Figure 6Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Principal component analysis of invertebrate communities fouled on hulls of vessels sampled in the Great Lakes based on ports visited over the year prior to sampling. Geographical identities represent total (black open symbols) and maximum (black solid symbols) residence time of vessels in port in that region over the preceding year. Variables related to fouling extent are indicated with grey crosses. Other variables are indicated with grey triangles. Last painted and last dry-dock refer to times since application of an antifouling agent and since the vessel was removed from the water for maintenance; speed refers to the vessels' reported cruising speed; % cover barnacles refers to total percentage cover of barnacles on the ship. Percentage of the total variance explained along the first and second PCA axes is indicated. Reference Sylvester, F. & MacIsaac, H.J. (2010) Is vessel hull fouling an invasion threat to the Great Lakes? Diversity and Distributions, 16, 132– 143. Volume19, Issue12December 2013Pages 1578-1579 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation