Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62643-2, published online 27 March 2020
This Article contains errors.
As a result of calculation errors, the intrinsic rate of increase was incorrectly reported in this Article. This, in turn, resulted in errors in the finite rate of increase and population doubling time.
In the Results, under the subheading ‘Reproductive life table of S. scimitus’,
“The intrinsic rate of increase (rm) and the finite rate of increase (λ) of S. scimitus fed on Mi-J2 were 0.6335 day−1 and 1.8843, respectively; both of them were greater than those of S. scimitus fed on T. putrescentiae (0.5026 day−1 and 1.6530). The population doubling time (Dt) of S. scimitus fed on Mi-J2 (1.0941 days) was less than that of S. scimitus fed on T. putrescentiae (1.3791 days).”
should read:
“The intrinsic rate of increase (rm) and the finite rate of increase (λ) of S. scimitus fed on Mi-J2 were 0.1692 day-1 and 1.1844, respectively; both of them were greater than those of S. scimitus fed on T. putrescentiae (0.1619 day-1and 1.1757). The population doubling time (Dt) of S. scimitus fed on Mi-J2 (4.0956 days) was less than that of S. scimitus fed on T. putrescentiae (4.2822 days).”
In Table 3, the reported values for intrinsic rate of increase, finite rate of increase and population doubling time are incorrect. The corrected Table 3 appears below.
Furthermore, in the Discussion,
“S. scimitus had higher rm (0.6335 day−1) and λ (1.8843), and shorter Dt (1.0941 days) when feeding on Mi-J2”
should read:
“S. scimitus had higher rm (0.1692 day-1), and λ (1.1844) and shorter Dt (4.0956 days) when feeding on Mi-J2”
Finally, as a result of these changes the following section of the Discussion is no longer correct:
“Abou El-Atta et al.16 reported that the intrinsic rate of the increase of S. berlesei fed on the eggs of Meloidogyne spp. was higher at 25 and 30 °C (rm was 0.23 day−1 and 0.29 day−1, respectively), which could be a result of the short generation times at those temperatures. However, the intrinsic rate of the increase of S. scimitus fed on M. incognita was 0.6335 day−1 at 25 °C, which was 2.75 times higher than that of S. berlesei fed on root-knot nematodes at 25 °C (rm was 0.23 day−1)16.”
Therefore, the second paragraph of the Discussion should read:
“The net reproductive rate (R0) means that the number of individuals in a population increases to an average multiple after a generation. In this study, the R0 of S. scimitus that were fed on Mi-J2 was 66.4 after one generation (R0 = 66.4), which was not only higher than that of mites fed on T. putrescentiae (R0 = 57.1) but was also higher than that of mites fed on potworms (R0 = 14.5) and fungus gnats (R0 = 17.3)22. Therefore, S. scimitus has better application potential in the biological control of root-knot nematodes.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, SH., Wang, D., Chen, C. et al. Author Correction: Evaluation of Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Laelapidae) for controlling the root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita (Tylenchida: Heteroderidae). Sci Rep 10, 9355 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65968-0
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65968-0
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.