In the published article, there was an error in Table 1 as published. In the column “Experimental period” the date/year is incorrectly indicated as 2022 instead of 2021. The corrected Table and its caption, Overview of the experimental scenarios with the number of independent replicates (n) used for statistical analysis dependent on tested parameters: daytime, bank slope, down-ramping rate, larval stage, appear below.
TABLE 1
| Experimentalscenario | Day-time | Bank slope (%) | Down-ramping rate (cm.min-1) | Larval stage (sensu Peňáz, 1974) | Rep. (n) | Experimental period | Mean water temperature ±SD (°C) | Mean fish length TL ±SD (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D | 2 | 0.7 | 1 | D | 2 | 0.7 | III-IV | 8 | 22.5.–30.5.2021 | 9.6 ± 0.7 | 13.9 ± 0.4 |
| D | 2 | 1.1 | 1 | D | 2 | 1.1 | III-IV | 6 | 23.5.–29.5.2021 | 9.8 ± 0.8 | 13.9 ± 0.4 |
| D | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | D | 2 | 1.5 | III-IV | 8 | 20.5.–30.5.2021 | 9.8 ± 0.6 | 13.9 ± 0.5 |
| D | 5 | 1.1 | 1 | D | 5 | 1.1 | III-IV | 8 | 22.5.–30.5.2021 | 9.6 ± 0.7 | 13.9 ± 0.4 |
| D | 5 | 1.5 | 1 | D | 5 | 1.5 | III-IV | 6 | 23.5.–29.5.2021 | 9.8 ± 0.8 | 13.9 ± 0.4 |
| D | 5 | 2.0 | 1 | D | 5 | 2.0 | III-IV | 7 | 20.5.–30.5.2021 | 9.6 ± 0.6 | 13.8 ± 0.5 |
| N | 2 | 0.7 | 1 | N | 2 | 0.7 | III-IV | 4 | 20.5.–29.5.2021 | 9 ± 0.7 | 13.6 ± 0.7 |
| N | 2 | 1.1 | 1 | N | 2 | 1.1 | III-IV | 4 | 23.5.–27.5.2021 | 9.1 ± 0.6 | 13.7 ± 0.3 |
| N | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | N | 2 | 1.5 | III-IV | 5 | 19.5.–28.5.2021 | 9.6 ± 0.7 | 13.5 ± 0.5 |
| N | 5 | 1.1 | 1 | N | 5 | 1.1 | III-IV | 4 | 20.5.–29.5.2021 | 9 ± 0.6 | 13.6 ± 0.7 |
| N | 5 | 1.5 | 1 | N | 5 | 1.5 | III-IV | 4 | 23.5.–27.5.2021 | 9.1 ± 0.6 | 13.7 ± 0.3 |
| N | 5 | 2.0 | 1 | N | 5 | 2 | III-IV | 5 | 19.5.–28.5.2021 | 9.6 ± 0.7 | 13.5 ± 0.5 |
| D | 2 | 1.1 | 2 | D | 2 | 1.1 | V | 2 | 4.6.–4.6.2021 | 10.6 ± 0 | 15 ± 0 |
| D | 2 | 1.5 | 2 | D | 2 | 1.5 | V | 5 | 3.6.–8.6.2021 | 9.8 ± 1 | 15.1 ± 0.3 |
| D | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | D | 2 | 2.0 | V | 8 | 7.6.–16.6.2021 | 10.6 ± 1.2 | 15.8 ± 0.5 |
| D | 5 | 1.5 | 2 | D | 5 | 1.5 | V | 2 | 4.6.–4.6.2021 | 10.6 ± 0 | 15 ± 0 |
| D | 5 | 2.0 | 2 | D | 5 | 2.0 | V | 5 | 3.6.–8.6.2021 | 9.8 ± 1 | 15.1 ± 0.3 |
| D | 5 | 3.0 | 2 | D | 5 | 3.0 | V | 11 | 6.6.–16.6.2021 | 10.4 ± 1 | 15.6 ± 0.5 |
| N | 2 | 1.5 | 2 | N | 2 | 1.5 | V | 4 | 4.6.–8.6.2021 | 10.1 ± 0.5 | 15.2 ± 0.3 |
| N | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | N | 2 | 2.0 | V | 7 | 7.6.–15.6.2021 | 10.5 ± 0.7 | 16 ± 0.5 |
| N | 5 | 2.0 | 2 | N | 5 | 2.0 | V | 4 | 4.6.–8.6.2021 | 10.1 ± 0.5 | 15.2 ± 0.3 |
| N | 5 | 3.0 | 2 | N | 5 | 3.0 | V | 9 | 6.6.–15.6.2021 | 10.5 ± 0.6 | 15.8 ± 0.5 |
| 126 | 19.5.–16.6.2021 | 9.9 ± 0.8 | 14.6 ± 1 |
Overview of the experimental scenarios with the number of independent replicates (n) used for statistical analysis dependent on tested parameters: daytime, bank slope, down-ramping rate, and larval stage.
Daytime: D, day; N, night; In the “experimental scenario” the larval stage is coded as follows: 1, III-IV; 2, V. This coding is also used in Figure 5.
A correction has been made to 4 Discussion, Paragraph 5. This sentence previously stated:
“Both studies linked the higher nighttime stranding to increased fish activity during night. However, for 1+ Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and 0+ brown trout in autumn (>9°C) almost no difference in stranding between day and night could be detected (Saltveit et al., 2001).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Both studies linked the lower nighttime stranding to increased fish activity during night. However, for 1+ Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and 0+ brown trout in autumn (>9°C) almost no difference in stranding between day and night could be detected (Saltveit et al., 2001).”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Statements
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.
Summary
Keywords
flow ramping, young-of-the-year, experimental flumes, storage hydropower, hydro-peaking, river restoration
Citation
Führer S, Hayes DS, Hasler T, Graf DRM, Fauchery E, Mameri D, Schmutz S and Auer S (2023) Corrigendum: Stranding of larval nase (Chondrostoma nasus L.) depending on bank slope, down-ramping rate and daytime. Front. Environ. Sci. 11:1302317. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1302317
Received
26 September 2023
Accepted
29 September 2023
Published
09 October 2023
Volume
11 - 2023
Edited and reviewed by
Riccardo Fornaroli, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Führer, Hayes, Hasler, Graf, Fauchery, Mameri, Schmutz and Auer.
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: Simon Führer, simon.fuehrer@boku.ac.at
Disclaimer
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.