- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to “Stand and landscape-level factors related to bird assemblages in exotic pine plantations: Implications for forest management” [Forest Ecol. Manage. 255 (2008) 2688–2697]
Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 2198–2199
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to ‘‘Stand and landscape-level factors related to bird assemblages in exotic pine plantations: Implications for forest management’’ [Forest Ecol. Manage. 255 (2008) 2688–2697] Gary W. Luck * Charles Sturt University, Institute for Land, Water and Society, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia
Table 4 should be changed to the following. Results text (relating to Table 4) Original text ‘Three models had a Di < 2 and Akaike weights ranging from 0.16–0.20, indicating that no one model was clearly the best model (Table 4). Vegcover was included in all three models, while stand type and distrip were included in two.’ Should be changed to ‘Three models had a Di < 2 and Akaike weights ranging from 0.14 to 0.32, indicating that no one model was clearly the best model (Table 4), although distrip was included in two of the three models.’ Original text ‘Four models had a Di < 2, with all models receiving similar support (Akaike weights ranged from 0.16 to 0.24; Table 4). Distrip was included in three of the four models, including the highest ranked model.’ Should be changed to Table 4 Model results examining relationships between bird species richness in pine stands in each season and each of the predictor variables. Table shows 2 log-likelihood ( 2LL), number of parameters (K; including intercept and coefficients), second order derivative (AICc), difference from the best model (Di), and Akaike weights (wi). Only models where Di is <2 are included. Values in brackets are the model coefficients (excluding the categorical variable stand type—refer to Fig. 1 for its relationship with species richness). 2LL
K
AICc
Di
wi
Autumn Vegcover ( 0.014) + distrip ( 0.886) Distveg (0.148) Distrip ( 0.589)
24.58 27.40 28.71
3 2 2
31.44 31.81 33.12
0 0.38 1.69
0.32 0.26 0.14
Winter Distrip ( 0.562) Vegcover ( 0.010) + distrip ( 0.773) Distveg (0.062) + distrip ( 0.433) Distveg (0.109)
16.65 14.98 15.75 18.30
2 3 3 2
21.06 21.84 22.61 22.71
0 0.77 1.54 1.65
0.53 0.36 0.24 0.23
Spring Vegcover ( 0.017) + distrip ( 0.760) Stand type + distrip ( 0.001)
19.86 14.74
3 5
26.72 27.05
0 0.33
0.49 0.41
Summer Distrip ( 0.300) Vegcover (0.007)
10.31 10.74
2 2
14.72 15.15
0 0.43
0.44 0.35
Model
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.029 * Tel.: +1 2 6051 9945; fax: +61 2 6051 9897. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0378-1127/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.02.015
Corrigendum / Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 2198–2199
2199
‘Four models had a Di < 2, with the model including only distrip receiving the strongest support (Akaike weight of 0.53; Table 4). Moreover, distrip was included in three of the four models.’ Original text ‘Two models were included for spring, but the highest ranked model including stand type and distrip had much stronger support that the second ranked model (Akaike weights of 0.58 and 0.22, respectively).’ Should be changed to ‘Two models were included for spring, with both having relatively equal support (Akaike weights of 0.49 and 0.41).’ Original text ‘For summer, the model including only distrip was ranked highest, although support was evenly split between the first three models (Table 4).’ Should be changed to ‘For summer, the model including only distrip was ranked highest, although it had similar support to the one including only vegcover (Table 4).’ Discussion text affected Original text ‘Distance to native vegetation was only included in one of our landscape models suggesting little impact on bird species richness.’ Should be changed to ‘Distance to native vegetation was included in three of our landscape models, but only for autumn and winter.’
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to ‘‘Stand and landscape-level factors related to bird assemblages in exotic pine plantations: Implications for forest management’’ [Forest Ecol. Manage. 255 (2008) 2688–2697] Gary W. Luck * Charles Sturt University, Institute for Land, Water and Society, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia
Table 4 should be changed to the following. Results text (relating to Table 4) Original text ‘Three models had a Di < 2 and Akaike weights ranging from 0.16–0.20, indicating that no one model was clearly the best model (Table 4). Vegcover was included in all three models, while stand type and distrip were included in two.’ Should be changed to ‘Three models had a Di < 2 and Akaike weights ranging from 0.14 to 0.32, indicating that no one model was clearly the best model (Table 4), although distrip was included in two of the three models.’ Original text ‘Four models had a Di < 2, with all models receiving similar support (Akaike weights ranged from 0.16 to 0.24; Table 4). Distrip was included in three of the four models, including the highest ranked model.’ Should be changed to Table 4 Model results examining relationships between bird species richness in pine stands in each season and each of the predictor variables. Table shows 2 log-likelihood ( 2LL), number of parameters (K; including intercept and coefficients), second order derivative (AICc), difference from the best model (Di), and Akaike weights (wi). Only models where Di is <2 are included. Values in brackets are the model coefficients (excluding the categorical variable stand type—refer to Fig. 1 for its relationship with species richness). 2LL
K
AICc
Di
wi
Autumn Vegcover ( 0.014) + distrip ( 0.886) Distveg (0.148) Distrip ( 0.589)
24.58 27.40 28.71
3 2 2
31.44 31.81 33.12
0 0.38 1.69
0.32 0.26 0.14
Winter Distrip ( 0.562) Vegcover ( 0.010) + distrip ( 0.773) Distveg (0.062) + distrip ( 0.433) Distveg (0.109)
16.65 14.98 15.75 18.30
2 3 3 2
21.06 21.84 22.61 22.71
0 0.77 1.54 1.65
0.53 0.36 0.24 0.23
Spring Vegcover ( 0.017) + distrip ( 0.760) Stand type + distrip ( 0.001)
19.86 14.74
3 5
26.72 27.05
0 0.33
0.49 0.41
Summer Distrip ( 0.300) Vegcover (0.007)
10.31 10.74
2 2
14.72 15.15
0 0.43
0.44 0.35
Model
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.029 * Tel.: +1 2 6051 9945; fax: +61 2 6051 9897. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0378-1127/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.02.015
Corrigendum / Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 2198–2199
2199
‘Four models had a Di < 2, with the model including only distrip receiving the strongest support (Akaike weight of 0.53; Table 4). Moreover, distrip was included in three of the four models.’ Original text ‘Two models were included for spring, but the highest ranked model including stand type and distrip had much stronger support that the second ranked model (Akaike weights of 0.58 and 0.22, respectively).’ Should be changed to ‘Two models were included for spring, with both having relatively equal support (Akaike weights of 0.49 and 0.41).’ Original text ‘For summer, the model including only distrip was ranked highest, although support was evenly split between the first three models (Table 4).’ Should be changed to ‘For summer, the model including only distrip was ranked highest, although it had similar support to the one including only vegcover (Table 4).’ Discussion text affected Original text ‘Distance to native vegetation was only included in one of our landscape models suggesting little impact on bird species richness.’ Should be changed to ‘Distance to native vegetation was included in three of our landscape models, but only for autumn and winter.’