Scientific Reports 6: Article number: 19829; published online: 29 January 2016; updated: 20 May 2016.

This Article contains typographical errors.

In the Results section under subheading ‘Quantitative comparison of WNS on bats’,

“The fungal load on qPCR-positive bats ranged from 0.21 pg to 3.41 μg across the surface of the left wing (Supplementary Fig. S1, see Table 1 for sample sizes)”.

should read:

“The fungal load on qPCR-positive bats ranged from 0.21 fg to 3.41 ng across the surface of the left wing (Supplementary Fig. S1, see Table 1 for sample sizes)”.

“The fungal load from UV-negative individuals (median = 3.78 × 10−5 μg) overlapped that from UV-positive individuals (median = 7.46 × 10−4 μg; Fig. 8)”.

should read:

“The fungal load from UV-negative individuals (median = 3.78 × 10−5 ng) overlapped that from UV-positive individuals (median = 7.46 × 10−4 ng; Fig. 8)”.

In the upper panel of Figure 4, the y-axis ‘Fungal load per cm2 (log10(ng))’ was incorrectly given as ‘Fungal load per cm2 (log10(μg))’

In the upper panel of Figure 5, the y-axis ‘P. destructans load per cm2 (log10(ng))’ was incorrectly given as ‘P. destructans load per cm2 (log10(μg))’

In Figure 6, the x-axis ‘P. destructans load per cm2 (log10(ng))’ was incorrectly given as ‘P. destructans load per cm2 (log10(μg))’

In Figure 8, the x-axis ‘Fungal load per cm2 (log10(ng))’ was incorrectly given as ‘Fungal load per cm2 (log10(μg))’

In the legend of Figure 8,

“Bats were identified as positive (grey; n = 255) and negative (orange; n = 151) using UV trans-illumination”.

should read:

“Bats were identified as positive (orange; n = 255) and negative (grey; n = 151) using UV trans-illumination”.

The correct Figures 4, 5, 6 and 8 appear below as Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

figure 1

Figure 1

figure 2

Figure 2

figure 3

Figure 3

figure 4

Figure 4