Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20133051 (2014; published 22 July 2014) (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.3051)
Table 1 of our original publication [1] inadvertently listed the same best fit values for α and γ under the normal and lognormal error assumptions. The corrected version of table 1 is shown here. All computations and results shown in the paper [1] were done using the correct values, therefore nothing else changes. We apologize for this error.
Table 1.
Best fit values for the decay function parameters under the normal and lognormal error assumptions.
| normal errors |
lognormal errors |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| strain | α | γ | α | γ |
| H3N8 | 6.51 × 10−4 | 1.98 × 10−1 | 4.37 × 10−3 | 1.18 × 10−1 |
| H3N8* | 1.63 × 10−4 | 2.55 × 10−1 | 5.23 × 10−3 | 1.14 × 10−1 |
| H4N6* | 2.65 × 10−4 | 2.32 × 10−1 | 4.02 × 10−3 | 1.21 × 10−1 |
| H4N8 | 2.50 × 10−4 | 2.35 × 10−1 | 3.06 × 10−3 | 1.31 × 10−1 |
| H6N1 | 6.65 × 10−4 | 1.96 × 10−1 | 3.15 × 10−3 | 1.32 × 10−1 |
| H6N2 | 9.50 × 10−4 | 1.86 × 10−1 | 4.68 × 10−3 | 1.20 × 10−1 |
| H6N8 | 1.34 × 10−4 | 2.67 × 10−1 | 2.93 × 10−3 | 1.42 × 10−1 |
Reference
- 1.Handel A, Lebarbenchon C, Stallknecht D, Rohani P. 2014. Trade-offs between and within scales: environmental persistence and within-host fitness of avian influenza viruses. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20133051 ( 10.1098/rspb.2013.3051) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
