Corrigendum to: Interactions between the introduced European honey bee and native bees in urban areas varies by year, habitat type and native bee guild

This paper was published in the July 2021 issue, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 725-743. In the originally published version of this manuscript, Figures 1C and 1D needed to have their labels switched. There were also errors in the paragraph that read: In the first year, honey bee abundance had a significant p...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Prendergast, Kit, Dixon, Kingsley, Bateman, Bill
Format: Journal Article
Published: 2021
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/87425
Description
Summary:This paper was published in the July 2021 issue, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 725-743. In the originally published version of this manuscript, Figures 1C and 1D needed to have their labels switched. There were also errors in the paragraph that read: In the first year, honey bee abundance had a significant positive relationship with native bee species richness (estimate: 0.14; R2 = 0.19; P < 0.001; Fig. 1B). There was also a significant interaction with habitat (P = 0.01). Although the relationship remained significant and positive in both bushland remnants and residential gardens, the association was stronger in residential gardens (estimate: 0.22; R2 = 0.43, P < 0.001) compared with bushland remnants (estimate: 0.08; R2 = 0.16, P = 0.05; Fig. 1C). In contrast, in the second year, there was a significant negative, albeit weak, relationship between native bee species richness and honey bee abundance (estimate: −0.06; R2 = 0.05, P = 0.01; Fig. 1D). There was no interaction with habitat type (P = 0.95). Model outputs for the interaction variables and the relationship between honey bee abundance and native bee abundance and species richness can be found in Supporting Information 1 (Tables S2 and S3, respectively). This should have read: In the first year, honey bee abundance had a significant positive relationship with native bee species richness (estimate: 0.14; R2 = 0.19; P < 0.001) (Fig. 1B). There was also a significant interaction with habitat (P = 0.01). Although the relationship remained significant and positive in both bushland remnants and residential gardens, the association was stronger in residential gardens (estimate: 0.22; R2 = 0.43, P < 0.001) compared with bushland remnants (estimate: 0.08; R2 = 0.16, P = 0.05) (Fig. 1B). In contrast, in the second year, there was a significant negative, albeit weak, relationship between native bee species richness and honey bee abundance (estimate: −0.06; R2 = 0.05, P = 0.01) (Fig. 1D). There was no interaction with habitat type (P = 0.95). Model outputs for the interaction variables and the relationship between honey bee abundance and native bee abundance and species richness can be found in Supporting Information 1 (Table S2 and S3 respectively). These errors have now been corrected online.