Corrigendum: A New Method for Standardizing Inland Fish Community Surveys: Characterizing Habitat Associated With Small-Bodied Fish Species, Abundance, and Size Distribution in a Highly Modified Estuary

A Corrigendum on
A New Method for Standardizing Inland Fish Community Surveys: Characterizing Habitat Associated with Small-Bodied Fish Species, Abundance, and Size Distributions in a Highly Modified Estuary

by Merz, J. E., Camp, M. J., Simonis, J. L., and Thorpe, W. (2021). Frontiers in Environmental Science 9:698210. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2021.698210

In the original article, there was a mistake in the legend for Figure 5 as published. GS was incorrectly described as Green Sunfish. It should be described as Golden Shiner. The correct legend appears below.

“Figure 5. Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling plots for the presence-based (left; stress: 0.085) and abundance-based (rieght; stress: 0.128) community composition data. Colors and shapes of points match the Principal Components Analysis plot (Figure 3), as do the colors of the ellipses, which are drawn to enclose all observations within the habitat types. The two axes in each plot are on the same scale, allowing plotting in space without axis lines. Oval size indicates relative number of species observed. Species are: American Shad (AS), Black Crappie (BC), Bluegill Sunfish (BS), Brown Bullhead (BB), Golden Shiner (GS), Inland Silverside (IS), Largemouth Bass (LB), Prickly Sculpin (PS), Rainwater Killifish (RK), Redear Sunfish (RS), Spotted Bass (SPB), Striped Bass (STB), Threadfin Shad (TS), Warmouth (WM), White Catfish (WC), Shimofuri Gobi (SG).”

In addition, we mistakenly refer to Green Sunfish in the Discussion, which should be Golden Shiner, and cited Etnier and Starnes (2001) which is related to Green Sunfish, not Golden Shiner. The reference was removed from the text and References section, and a correction has been made to Discussion, Can the Platform Detect Habitat Segregation by Important Ecological Groups of Estuary/Delta Fishes, Paragraph 4:

“The Platform was able to detect clear trends of fish assemblage composition, which varied in systematic and expected ways among and within habitat types. The NMDS plots logically grouped more pelagic fish (i.e., Striped Bass, Threadfin Shad, and American Shad) together along the x-axis (the primary axis of variation; Figure 5). We observed a second, large grouping along the x-axis of numerous ubiquitous invaders, including centrarchids (e.g., Bluegill and Redear Sunfish, Spotted and Largemouth Bass, etc.). This is a logical grouping because these fish generally show similar habitat preferences of slower moving, warm water with adequate submerged vegetation (Berra 2007). The only native species sampled, the Prickly Sculpin, was grouped alone to the far right on the x-axis (Figure 5). Inland Silversides fell between the pelagic and ubiquitous invaders group along the x-axis. They tended to be more prevalent in Riverine Wetland habitat (e.g., shallow and vegetated) and less in open water habitats than the two shad species or Striped Bass, yet preferred moderate to fast tidal currents, differentiating them from the other species observed (Weinstein 1986). The large separation of Golden Shiner and Brown Bullhead along the y-axis (the secondary axis of variation) is likely due to differences in their morphology and ecology compared to the other groupings. The Brown Bullhead is an ictalurid with a markedly different body form and feeding adaptations (i.e., mouth shape and position) than centrarchids, which could explain its separation from the other groupings (Wootton 1998). The Golden Shiner is a deep-bodied minnow and shoaling bait fish, which could explain its separation along the y-axis.”

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Author Contributions

JM conceived of the idea, conducted field work and analyses, and wrote the manuscript. JS conducted analyses. MC contributed to manuscript writing, and WT conducted field work and contributed to manuscript writing.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Etnier, D., and Starnes, W. (2001). The Fishes of Tennessee. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.