Correction to: Nature Ecology & Evolution https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0970-7, published online 2 September 2019.
The Journal would like to note that the authors first made contact in September 2019 to raise the concerns that follow, and the Journal apologizes both for the delay in relaying these corrections publicly and for the changed instances that prevent making corrections to the original article itself. What follows is the Author correction.
In the version of this article initially published, we made several errors in our R analysis code, and in the text and figures. First, the number of species with negative net dispersal velocity (net DV) were incorrectly calculated, resulting in slight changes in Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 6, and in the text. The amended figures are provided below (Figs. 1–7). Changes to the text under the ‘DVs’ subsection of Results are: “When considering the mainstem pathway, we estimate that the mobile subpopulations of 134 (old version: 124) and 185 (old version: 174) (RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively) species will experience dispersal deficits in at least 50% of their southern Appalachian range, whereas these estimates increase to 229 (old version: 226) and 231 (old version: 232) species for the stationary subpopulation. Slow-climate-velocity tributaries reduce the number of species experiencing dispersal deficits by 99.3% (old version: 99.2%) and 90.3% (old version: 16.9%) (RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively) for the mobile component and 17.9% (old version: 90.8%) and 12.1% (old version: 12.9%) for the stationary component (Fig. 2a,b).” The two large discrepancies in dispersal deficit values (90.3% vs. 16.9%; 17.9% vs. 90.8%) were solely consequences of original text errors (16.9% and 90.8% values were erroneously switched), and not differences in calculations; therefore, the results did not change.
Figure 2, original and corrected.
Figure 3c,d, original and corrected.
Figure 4, original and corrected.
Figure 5, original and corrected.
Supplementary Figure 6, original.
Supplementary Figure 6, corrected.
Supplementary Figure 8, original.
Supplementary Figure 8, corrected.
Supplementary Figure 9, original.
Supplementary Figure 9, corrected.
Second, we made errors when plotting Fig. 3c,d. Boxplots of mean change in habitat suitability were plotted instead of median change as specified in the caption; further, whiskers did not include the entire range of values. The amended figure is provided below. We would like to correct associated errors in text; specific changes are: “Our ENMs estimate a median 15.1% (old version: mean 14.1%) reduction (range −42.5% to +16.6% [old version: −51.6% to +2.4%] across 233 species) in habitat suitability associated with the tributary pathway compared with only a 3.8% (old version: 1.6%) reduction (−11.0% to +12.3% [old version: −7.9% to +1.8%]) for the mainstem pathway due to differing non-temperature habitat conditions (Fig. 3a,b).”
Third, we made errors when plotting Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8. Specifically, net DV values were incorrectly rescaled; one extinct species was erroneously included in the plot; and the number of species in each quadrant was counted incorrectly. The amended figures are shown below. We would like to add a sentence (“The y-axes are inverse hyperbolic sine (asinh)-transformed”) to the caption of Fig. 4 to describe the y-axis scaling in the amended figures. There were two other text errors in the caption. The phrase “Mean net DV” should have been “Median net DV,” whereas the phrase “mean habitat suitability” should have read “median change in habitat suitability.” Therefore, the corrected Fig. 4 caption should read: “Species-level mismatch between net DV and upstream habitat suitability. a–d, Median net DV of mobile (a,b) and stationary subpopulations under the RCP 8.5 scenario plotted as a function of median change in habitat suitability for mainstem (a,c) and tributary (b,d) dispersal pathways. Each point represents a species and is computed as the median response across all projected occupied reaches. Red and blue numbers correspond to the number of species in each of the four quadrants. The y-axes are inverse hyperbolic sine (asinh)-transformed. e–h, Four species highlighting the diversity in dispersal-based and habitat suitability-based vulnerability: streamline chub (e); brook trout (f); flathead catfish (g); blacknose dace (h). Credit: David Neely (e–h)”. These corrections did not change our inferences.
Fourth, there were errors in rescaling and plotting net DV values and in the calculation of quadrant percentages in Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 9. The amended figures are shown below. We would like to add two sentences at the end of Fig. 5 caption to provide greater detail on plotting methods: “The y-axes of the scatterplots are inverse hyperbolic sine (asinh)-transformed. For clarity, the scatterplots show net DV values ≥ −13,000 and ≤ 130, and change in habitat suitability values ≤ 100, representing >99.5% of all observations.” There was one other text error in the caption: the phrase “mean habitat suitability” should have read “mean change in habitat suitability.” Therefore, the corrected Fig. 4 caption should read: “Community-level mismatch between net DV and upstream habitat suitability. a–d, Mean net DV of mobile (a,b) and stationary (c,d) subpopulations under the RCP 8.5 scenario plotted as a function of mean change in habitat suitability for mainstem (a,c) and tributary (b,d) dispersal pathways. Each point (scatterplot) and reach (map) is computed as the mean response for all species projected to occur within the reach. Quadrant numbers represent percentage of reaches in the quadrant. Colours associated with the upper-right quadrant correspond to ‘safe’ reaches where community members can keep pace with ISVs and habitat suitability increases. Colours associated with the lower-left quadrant correspond to ‘vulnerable’ reaches where community members cannot keep pace with ISVs and habitat suitability declines. The y-axes of the scatterplots are inverse hyperbolic sine (asinh)-transformed. For clarity, the scatterplots show net DV values ≥ −13,000 and ≤ 130, and change in habitat suitability values ≤ 100, representing >99.5% of all observations.” These corrections did not change our inferences.
Fifth, there was an error in the last sentence of the “Calculating net DVs” subsection in Methods: “Last, we calculated the mean net DV for each species (species-specific DV) by averaging net DVs at all occupied reaches, as well as the community-wide net DV at each stream reach (reach-specific DV) by averaging the net DVs of all species at each reach.” This sentence should have read “Last, we calculated the median net DV for each species (species-specific DV) across all occupied reaches, as well as the mean community-wide net DV at each stream reach (reach-specific DV) by averaging the net DVs of all species at each reach.”
Corrections of calculation errors yielded results that were similar to those in the original analysis whereas corrections of plotting and text errors did not affect our original inferences. Therefore, these errors did not change the overall results and conclusions of the article. We sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding and inconvenience caused by these errors.
Source: Ecology - nature.com
