- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to “A meta-analysis of the effects of pesticides and fertilizers on survival and growth of amphibians” [Sci Total Environ 449 (2013) 150–156]
Science of the Total Environment 454–455 (2013) 639–640
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to “A meta-analysis of the effects of pesticides and fertilizers on survival and growth of amphibians” [Sci Total Environ 449 (2013) 150–156] Nick J. Baker a,⁎, Betsy A. Bancroft b, Tiffany S. Garcia a a b
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3803, USA Department of Biology, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT 84720, USA
The authors regret that a mistake was made in Figs. 1–3. The asterisks representing significant values did not align properly and may cause confusion. Importantly, the data represented in the figures are correct, it was simply the labelling of significant values that is incorrect. We have provided updated figures, with proper asterisk positions to clarify the figures. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Mean effect size (lnR)
1.0
A
*
*
Survival
Growth
0.0 0.0
−1.0 -1.0
−2.0 -2.0
Fig. 1. Grand mean effect size (log response ratio) and 95% confidence intervals of the effect of pesticides and fertilizers on amphibian survival and growth. Solid line represents zero effect. Survival and growth are both significantly lower when amphibians are exposed to pesticides and fertilizers, significant effect sizes are denoted by an asterisk. Confidence intervals are bias-corrected and bootstrapped.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.056. ⁎ Corresponding author at: 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3803, USA. Tel.: + 1 541 737 2164; fax: + 1 541 737 3570. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.J. Baker). 0048-9697/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.049
N.J. Baker et al. / Science of the Total Environment 454–455 (2013) 639–640
Mean effect size (lnR) Survival
640
2.2.0 0
A *
*
*
*
*
*
0.0.0 0
−2.0 -2.0
−4.0 -4.0
−6.0 -6.0 0) (1 ) ) a (11 24 re U ine (6) e ( in z ia oid yc Tr thr ogl 8) re n o (2 Py ph us os ) or Ph (4 ph ) er hos e (4 th O nop rid lo a rg ch O no 56) 4) ( a l ( (5) rg ic O an iny id g id Ac or yr In op xy or eno 4) hl (3 C ph or es hl at C am b ar C
Mean effect size (lnR) growth
Fig. 2. Mean effect size (log response ratio) and 95% confidence intervals of the effect of chemical classes on amphibian survival. Solid line represents zero effect. The number of comparisons is indicated by the value in parentheses. Significant effect sizes are denoted by an asterisk. Confidence intervals are bias-corrected and bootstrapped.
1.1.0 0
A
*
*
*
0.0.0 0
−1.0 -1.0 ) (6 ne ) zi ) (6 ia (7 Tr e id in ro th yc 5) gl re (2 o s Py on ru ph ho os sp Ph ho op an 8) rg (2 O ) c (4 ni yl ga in or d i In yr op 1) (2 or hl es C at m ba ar C Fig. 3. Mean effect size (log response ratio) and 95% confidence intervals of the effect of chemical classes on amphibian growth. Solid line represents zero effect. The number of comparisons is indicated by the value in parentheses. Significant effect sizes are denoted by an asterisk. Confidence intervals are bias-corrected and bootstrapped.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to “A meta-analysis of the effects of pesticides and fertilizers on survival and growth of amphibians” [Sci Total Environ 449 (2013) 150–156] Nick J. Baker a,⁎, Betsy A. Bancroft b, Tiffany S. Garcia a a b
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3803, USA Department of Biology, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT 84720, USA
The authors regret that a mistake was made in Figs. 1–3. The asterisks representing significant values did not align properly and may cause confusion. Importantly, the data represented in the figures are correct, it was simply the labelling of significant values that is incorrect. We have provided updated figures, with proper asterisk positions to clarify the figures. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Mean effect size (lnR)
1.0
A
*
*
Survival
Growth
0.0 0.0
−1.0 -1.0
−2.0 -2.0
Fig. 1. Grand mean effect size (log response ratio) and 95% confidence intervals of the effect of pesticides and fertilizers on amphibian survival and growth. Solid line represents zero effect. Survival and growth are both significantly lower when amphibians are exposed to pesticides and fertilizers, significant effect sizes are denoted by an asterisk. Confidence intervals are bias-corrected and bootstrapped.
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.056. ⁎ Corresponding author at: 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-3803, USA. Tel.: + 1 541 737 2164; fax: + 1 541 737 3570. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.J. Baker). 0048-9697/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.049
N.J. Baker et al. / Science of the Total Environment 454–455 (2013) 639–640
Mean effect size (lnR) Survival
640
2.2.0 0
A *
*
*
*
*
*
0.0.0 0
−2.0 -2.0
−4.0 -4.0
−6.0 -6.0 0) (1 ) ) a (11 24 re U ine (6) e ( in z ia oid yc Tr thr ogl 8) re n o (2 Py ph us os ) or Ph (4 ph ) er hos e (4 th O nop rid lo a rg ch O no 56) 4) ( a l ( (5) rg ic O an iny id g id Ac or yr In op xy or eno 4) hl (3 C ph or es hl at C am b ar C
Mean effect size (lnR) growth
Fig. 2. Mean effect size (log response ratio) and 95% confidence intervals of the effect of chemical classes on amphibian survival. Solid line represents zero effect. The number of comparisons is indicated by the value in parentheses. Significant effect sizes are denoted by an asterisk. Confidence intervals are bias-corrected and bootstrapped.
1.1.0 0
A
*
*
*
0.0.0 0
−1.0 -1.0 ) (6 ne ) zi ) (6 ia (7 Tr e id in ro th yc 5) gl re (2 o s Py on ru ph ho os sp Ph ho op an 8) rg (2 O ) c (4 ni yl ga in or d i In yr op 1) (2 or hl es C at m ba ar C Fig. 3. Mean effect size (log response ratio) and 95% confidence intervals of the effect of chemical classes on amphibian growth. Solid line represents zero effect. The number of comparisons is indicated by the value in parentheses. Significant effect sizes are denoted by an asterisk. Confidence intervals are bias-corrected and bootstrapped.