There was a scaling error in the light attenuation values of Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 2.1 (about 210 should have been subtracted from each value). Also, the sentence “We perturbed the populations every 4–5 days by removing 10% of their biomass through dilution.” on page 357 should have read “We perturbed the populations every 4–5 days by flushing with medium (10% of the volume), which was equivalent to a reduction of the biomass by 3–5% owing to incomplete mixing.”. This sentence and Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 2.1 have been replaced in the PDF and HTML versions online. These changes do not alter any of the conclusions of this Letter. We thank J. Huisman for drawing our attention to these issues.
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1038/nature10723
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Veraart, A., Faassen, E., Dakos, V. et al. Correction: Corrigendum: Recovery rates reflect distance to a tipping point in a living system. Nature 484, 404 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11029
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11029
This article is cited by
-
Rate of recovery from perturbations as a means to forecast future stability of living systems
Scientific Reports (2018)
-
Breathing dissipative solitons in optical microresonators
Nature Communications (2017)
-
The duality of stability: towards a stochastic theory of species interactions
Theoretical Ecology (2016)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
