This article is a correction to:
Abundance and Potential Biological Removal of Common Dolphins Subject to Fishery Impacts in South Australian Waters
Guido J. Parra
Kerstin Bilgmann
Katharina J. Peters
Luciana M. Möller- 1Cetacean Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution Laboratory (CEBEL), College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- 2Molecular Ecology Laboratory, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
- 3Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- 4Cetacean Ecology Research Group, School of Natural Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
- 5Evolutionary Genetics Group, Department of Anthropology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- 6Global Ecology Partuyarta Ngadluku Wardli Kuu, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
A Corrigendum on:
Abundance and Potential Biological Removal of Common Dolphins Subject to Fishery Impacts in South Australian Waters
by Parra GJ, Bilgmann K, Peters KJ and Möller LM (2021) Front. Mar. Sci. 8:617075. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.617075
In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 4 as published. The PBR estimates in the table are incorrect. While reporting PBR estimates we copied the wrong estimated values from our data analysis. The corrected Table 4 appears below.
TABLE 4
Table 4 Estimates of abundance coefficient of variation (CV), 20th Percentile of abundance (Nmin) and the maximum number of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) that may be removed sustainably (Potential Biological Removal, PBR) from central South Australia under different recovery factors (Fr) and maximum population growth rates (Rmax).
Due to the mistake in Table 4 as published in the original article, there were wrong values reported in the Abstract, Results and Discussion sections. Corrections have been made to the Abstract, paragraph one: “Annual PBR estimates, assuming a conservative maximum population growth rate of Rmax = 0.02 and a recovery factor of Fr = 0.5 for species of unknown conservation status, ranged from 189 (summer/autumn) to 239 dolphins (winter/spring), and from 378 (summer/autumn) to 478 dolphins (winter/spring) with an Rmax = 0.04.” should have read “Annual PBR estimates, assuming a conservative maximum population growth rate of Rmax = 0.02 and a recovery factor of Fr = 0.5 for species of unknown conservation status, ranged from 95 (summer/autumn) to 120 dolphins (winter/spring), and from 189 (summer/autumn) to 239 dolphins (winter/spring) with an Rmax = 0.04.”
In addition, corrections have been made to the Results, Estimates of Potential Biological Removal, paragraph one: “Estimates of the annual PBR of common dolphins in the study area, assuming a conservative maximum population growth rate of Rmax = 0.02 and a recovery factor of Fr = 0.5 for species of unknown conservation status, ranged from 189 (summer/autumn) to 239 dolphins (winter/spring) (Table 4).” should have read “Estimates of the annual PBR of common dolphins in the study area assuming a conservative maximum population growth rate of Rmax = 0.02 and a recovery factor of Fr = 0.5 for species of unknown conservation status, ranged from 95 (summer/autumn) to 120 dolphins (winter/spring) (Table 4). Using a maximum rate of population increase of Rmax = 0.04 and an Fr = 0.5 resulted in annual PBR estimates of 189 (summer/autumn) and 239 dolphins (winter/spring) (Table 4).”
Finally, corrections have been made to the Discussion, paragraph nine: “If common dolphin abundance in 2011 was similar to 2004/5, when dolphin bycatch was the highest recorded in the SASF (423 dolphin mortalities), all PBR estimates, with the exception of those assuming a maximum population growth rate of Rmax = 0.04 and a recovery factor of Fr = 0.1 for species not at risk, suggest that common dolphin mortality in this fishery alone was likely unsustainable.” should have read “If common dolphin abundance in 2011 was similar to 2004/5, when dolphin bycatch was the highest recorded in the SASF (423 dolphin mortalities), all PBR estimates, with the exception of those assuming a maximum population growth rate of Rmax = 0.04 and a recovery factor of Fr = 1 for species not at risk, suggested that common dolphin mortality in this fishery alone was likely unsustainable.”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
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.
Keywords: Dolphins, Delphinus delphis, aerial survey, distance sampling, fishery interaction, bycatch, potential biological removal, conservation
Citation: Parra GJ, Bilgmann K, Peters KJ and Möller LM (2022) Corrigendum: Abundance and Potential Biological Removal of Common Dolphins Subject to Fishery-Impacts in South Australian Waters. Front. Mar. Sci. 9:913726. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.913726
Received: 06 April 2022; Accepted: 25 April 2022;
Published: 10 May 2022.
Edited and reviewed by:
Guillermo Luna-Jorquera, Universidad Católica del Norte, ChileCopyright © 2022 Parra, Bilgmann, Peters and Möller. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Guido J. Parra, guido.parra@flinders.edu.au