Erratum

Abstract

Journal of Evolutionary BiologyVolume 26, Issue 6 p. 1379-1379 ErratumFree Access Erratum This article corrects the following: Disentangling determinants of egg size in the Geometridae (Lepidoptera) using an advanced phylogenetic comparative method R. B. DAVIS, J. JAVOIŠ, J. PIENAAR, E. ÕUNAP, T. TAMMARU, Volume 25Issue 1Journal of Evolutionary Biology pages: 210-219 First Published online: November 28, 2011 First published: 10 June 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12208AboutSectionsPDF 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 Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat It is with regret that the analyses of Davis et al. (2012) were affected by an error in the authors' R code, which led to mistakes in phylogenetic comparative analysis. Reanalysis using corrected R code shows that although the absolute numbers are different to those previously published, nevertheless, qualitatively, the results are unaffected and the same conclusions can be drawn as before. Table 1 is provided with the correct values. Some particular aspects of these results are of note: Table 1. - Individual trait tests for phylogenetic signal in egg size and maternal body size (bold), and optimal regressions of different variables on egg size and maternal body size. A and D = ACCTRAN and DELTRAN character optimizations, respectively. INF = infinite half-life Trait (in bold) + Predictors Half-life: % tree height (t1/2) [support region] R 2 AICc Egg Size 45 [9-INF] – – + Maternal Body Size 8 [0-INF] 56.09 80.06 + Diet (Poly/Oligophagy) A: 34 [6-INF] 3.7 111.67 D: 43 [4-INF] 3.1 109.44 + Diet (Tree/Herb) A: 46 [4-INF] 3.22 111.79 D: 47 [6-INF] 2.97 109.47 + Habitat A & D: 33 [4-INF] 11.8 104.99 + Overwintering Eggs A & D: 39 [11-INF] 17.95 101.41 + Maternal Body Size and Diet (Poly/Oligophagy) D: 1 [0-INF] 56.51 82.87 + Maternal Body Size and Diet (Tree/Herb) D: 2 [0-INF] 56.43 81.69 + Maternal Body Size and Habitat A & D: 1 [0-INF] 59.14 81.61 + Maternal Body Size and Overwintering Eggs A & D: 9 [0-INF] 59.47 78.54 Maternal Body Size 82 [8-INF] – – + Diet (Poly/Oligophagy) A: 37 [0-INF] 10.38 125.27 D: 36 [9-INF] 7.54 124.49 + Diet (Tree/Herb) A: 27 [6-INF] 17.87 121.94 D: 45 [9-INF] 14.22 120.35 + Habitat A & D: 42 [9-INF] 11.34 122.1 + Overwintering Eggs A & D: 59 [17-INF] 8.76 123.24 Although egg size was previously shown to have a very small phylogenetic half-life, the half-life point estimate is now much greater (45%). However, compared with maternal body size, evidence still suggests that egg size is a more rapidly evolving trait than maternal body size (phylogenetic half-life point estimate = 82%) and can be analysed in an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck framework as before (i.e. egg size as response to maternal body size as predictor). The important conclusion that maternal body size as a single trait is the best predictor of egg size in geometrid moths remains the same showing an R2 value (56%) similar to that of the previously published article. Whether the egg is the overwintering stage of a species or not is shown in reanalysis to have a much greater R2 value than previously and may be of some predictive value, but is still shown to be a considerably less good predictor of egg size than maternal body size. Mixed model predictors are shown not to greatly increase predictive ability compared with maternal body size alone. This is an unchanged conclusion from the previously published article. Furthermore, maternal body size is not greatly explained by any discrete predictors as shown in the previous analysis. Reference Davis, R.B., Javoiš, J., Pienaar, J., Õunap, E. & Tammaru, T. 2012. Disentangling determinants of egg size in the Geometridae (Lepidoptera) using an advanced phylogenetic comparative method. J. Evol. Biol. 25: 210– 219. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume26, Issue6June 2013Pages 1379-1379 ReferencesRelatedInformation