Correction to: ‘Captive-bred Atlantic salmon released into the wild have fewer offspring than wild-bred fish and decrease population productivity’

Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20201671. (Published 21 October 2020). (doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.1671)

(1) Under the section in the main text Methods: (d) Effect of intrusions of captive-bred fish on population productivity, the fourth line of this paragraph should read ‘This figure ranged from 0.01 to 0.61.’

(2) In the main text, Figure 1b should appear as such:

Figure 1.

(a) Overall and cohort-specific comparisons of RRS for captive- and wild-bred Atlantic salmon in the Burrishoole catchment, Ireland. Overall RRS comparison estimated as the weighted geometric mean of the six cohort point estimates. Significance of the overall comparison determined using FCPT, where χ² = 117.94 with 12 degrees of freedom. Significance of cohort-specific comparisons was determined using one-tailed permutation tests. Horizontal line for emphasis of increase/decrease in reproductive success of captive-bred fish relative to wild-bred fish. Numbers on top of bars represent the number of captive-bred (left number) salmon and wild-bred (right number) salmon used in cohort-specific comparisons. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. (b) Productivity of the mixed population as a function of the annual proportion of potentially spawning fish that were captive-bred. The solid line represents the line-of-best fit from a linear model, and shading represents the 95% confidence interval. (Online version in colour.)

(3) In the main text under the section Methods: (d) Effect of intrusions of captive-bred fish on population productivity, the first part of the sentence starting on the second line of the second column should be corrected as ‘While this density measure was only poorly correlated with the annual proportion of captive-bred fish (Pearson's correlation: r = 0.057, t = 0.37, d.f. = 41, p = 0.72)’

(4) In the main text under the section Results, the first sentence of the second paragraph should read ‘The population-level analysis revealed a significant negative relationship between our density-independent population productivity measure and the proportion of captive-bred fish in a spawning cohort (adjusted R² = 0.09, F_1,41 = 5.15, p-value = 0.0285).’

(5) In the main text under the section Results, the second sentence of the second paragraph should read ‘Population productivity at the mean value of the proportion captive-bred fish across the 43-year period (0.15) was reduced, on average, by 9.52% (back-transformed from the log scale), relative to a hypothetical pure population (proportion captive-bred fish = 0)’.