Correction to: The olfactive responses of Tetranychus urticae natural enemies in citrus depend on plant genotype, prey presence, and their diet specialization
Derechos de accesoopenAccess
MetadatosMostrar el registro completo del ítem
AutorCabedo-López, Marc; Cruz-Miralles, Joaquín; Vacas, Sandra; Navarro-Llopis, Vicente; Pérez-Hedo, Meritxell; Flors, Victor; Jaques, Josep A.
Cita bibliográficaCabedo‑López, M., Cruz‑Miralles, J., Vacas, S., Navarro‑Llopis, V., Pérez‑Hedo, M., Flors, V., & Jaques, J. A. (2021). Correction to: The olfactive responses of Tetranychus urticae natural enemies in citrus depend on plant genotype, prey presence, and their diet specialization. Journal of Pest Science, 2021, 1-4.
In the original publication of the article, the authors have inadvertently presented Figs.1-4 that were prepared from an incorrect data-set and were therefore inaccurate. The corrected figures and related statistical results are published herein. In addition, data supporting the corrected figures are provided as new supplementary online material (Supplementary Table 2 and Supplementary Figs. 3-6). The ecological relevance of certain responses to particular treatments were still discussed when P-values neared 0.05 (Wasserstein et al. 2019). This was the case of the preferences of Tetranychus urticae for (a) conspecific infested plants, where Cleopatra mandarin was preferred to sour orange (P ≤ 0.058), and (b) when having to choose between clean and infested Cleopatra mandarin, where infested plants were mostly preferred (P = 0.058) (Fig. 1; Supplementary Fig. 3). Similarly, the preferences of Euseius stipulatus and Neoseiulus californicus for T. urticae body odors were associated with a P-value of 0.058 (Figs. 2 and 3; Supplementary Figs. 4, 5). Finally, when having to choose between the same plant genotype, either infested or not, a P = 0.058 was obtained for N. californicus and sour orange (Fig. 3; Supplementary Fig. 5) and for Phytoseiulus persimilis and both sour orange and Cleopatra mandarin (Fig. 4; Supplementary Fig. 6). As a consequence, the conclusions discussed in the paper remain valid.