Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20122373 (22 February 2013; Published online 2 January 2013) (doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2373)
In table 2, the p-value for the proximity matrix in the space+environment model was given mistakenly as 0.001.
Table 2.
MRM results on spatial and environmental factors affecting synchrony in oak masting. Significant results are shown in boldface.
| variable | coefficient | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| space-only model | ||
| proximity | 0.534 | 0.004 |
| environment-only model | ||
| synchrony in PC1 scores | –0.139 | 0.642 |
| synchrony in PC2 scores | 2.203 | 0.001 |
| space+environment model | ||
| proximity | –0.451 | 0.083 |
| synchrony in PC1 scores | –0.143 | 0.629 |
| synchrony in PC2 scores | 3.472 | 0.001 |
The correct p-value for the proximity matrix is 0.083.
Consequently, the statements in the text that spatial proximity was a significant predictor of synchrony in oak masting should be disregarded.
The main conclusions of the article remain unchanged. The evidence for the conclusion that weather may synchronize gypsy moth populations indirectly through effects on the synchrony of oak masting is strengthened following correction of the error because now the results indicate that synchrony in both acorn production and gypsy moth populations was correlated only with synchrony in weather.
The corrected table 2 is provided below.