Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 19 December 2008:
Vol. 322. no. 5909, p. 1790
DOI: 10.1126/science.322.5909.1790a
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Letters

Corrections and Clarifications

Editorial: "Scientists and human rights" by L. Rubenstein and M. Younis (28 November, p. 1303). Leonard Rubenstein is a Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, not a Randolph Jennings Senior Fellow as originally printed.

Reports: "Measurement of the distribution of site enhancements in surface-enhanced Raman scattering" by Y. Fang et al. (18 July, p. 388). The term deta was inadvertently left off the right side of Eq. 4. The correct equation should read

Figure 1
We thank M.-W. Shao and G. Shao for bringing this to our attention.

Reports: "Declining wild salmon populations in relation to parasites from farm salmon" by M. Krkoek et al. (14 December 2007, p. 1772). This correction summarizes small changes to the statistical results written in the main text of the Report on the effects of sea lice infestations on pink salmon population dynamics. Small changes have also been made to data set S1 and tables S2 and S3 in the Supporting Online Material. The changes to the statistical results do not affect the conclusions of the report.

Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the
population growth rate r from the Ricker model fit
to grouped pink salmon escapement data.
Data set used Group r 95% confidence interval (CI)
Original
 
 
 
 		 Unexposed 0.62 0.55 to 0.69        
Exposed pre-lice 0.68 0.46 to 0.90        
Exposed infested -1.17 -1.71 to -0.59        
Exposed fallow 2.50* 1.28 to 3.62*        
Corrected
 
 
 
 		 Unexposed 0.63 0.56 to 0.70        
Exposed pre-lice 0.70 0.47 to 0.92        
Exposed infested -1.16 -1.68 to -0.62        
Exposed fallow 2.63 1.39 to 3.78        
*Results shown as reported in the paper. This should actually read r = 2.63 with 95% CI
of 1.38 to 3.77.
Table 1.
Population viability analysis of Broughton Archipelago
pink salmon populations subjected to sea lice infestations.
Data set used  
Original
 
 
 		 Population growth rate -1.17
Variance of environmental stochasticity 1.92
Mean time to 99% collapse 3.9 (95% CI 3.7 to 4.2)
Corrected
 
 
 		 Population growth rate -1.16
Variance of environmental stochasticity 1.90
Mean time to 99% collapse 4.0 (95% CI 3.7 to 4.2)
Table 2.
The changes arise due to revisions of 11 escapement estimates for exposed populations that were not present in the original data provided to the authors by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The changes have been confirmed by Brian Riddell, Division Head, Salmon Assessment and Freshwater Ecosystems, Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Population growth rates. The population growth rate r was estimated from the Ricker model for four groups of data. There are small changes to the point estimates of r as well as the 95% confidence intervals. The changes are summarized in Table 1. The associated estimate of b for density-dependent mortality has changed from its original value of 0.64 to its corrected value of 0.65.

Population viability analysis. In this section, a population viability analysis was applied to pink salmon populations in the Broughton Archipelago during sea lice infestation years. Small changes to the results are summarized in Table 2.

Louse-induced salmon mortality. The Ricker model was extended to test whether including louse-induced mortality of wild pink salmon improved the fit of the model. The analysis consisted of estimating a parameter a. The point estimate for the parameter has changed from 0.89 to 0.90. The 95% credible intervals for the parameter a from the analysis using the unconstrained data changed from 0.46 to 1.34 in the original analysis to 0.47 to 1.34 using the corrected data set.

Reports: "Evolution of scleractinian corals inferred from molecular systematics" by S. L. Romano and S. R. Palumbi (2 February 1996, p. 640). In Note 14, the coral-specific primer 16Sc-H was erroneously described as 5′-AACAGCGCAATAACGTTTGAGAG-3′. It should have been reported as being in the 3′-5′ direction, that is, 5′-CTCTCAAACGTTATTGCGCTGTT-3′.

To Advertise     Find Products

ADVERTISEMENT

Featured Jobs

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)