Proc. R. Soc. B 290, 20221556 (Published Online 12 April 2023). (doi:10.1098/rspb.2022.1556)
There was a mistake in the numbering of the supplementary tables. This has now been corrected.
From:
‘(average reproduction EMM fed females: 92.7, fasted females: 105.0, contrast = 0.93, p = 0.566; electronic supplementary material, Table S8) resulting in a comparable total number of offspring between fed and fasted treatments (although we note the large increase in total number of offspring for females as they transition from fasting to refeeding; Total offspring: fed = 240, fasted = 281, estimate = 0.856, p = 0.509; electronic supplementary material, Table S9).’
To:
‘(average reproduction EMM fed females: 92.7, fasted females: 105.0, contrast = 0.93, p = 0.566; electronic supplementary material, table S8a), resulting in a comparable total number of offspring between fed and fasted treatments (although we note the large increase in total number of offspring for females as they transition from fasting to refeeding; total offspring: fed = 240, fasted = 281, estimate = 0.856, p = 0.509; electronic supplementary material, table S8b).’