In the original article, there was an error. In the pedigree of the population, some offspring from 2013 and 2014 were considered as originating from their nest of rearing, not the nest where they hatched before being cross-fostered. We corrected these miss-assignments in the pedigree and re-fitted the models.
A correction has been made to the Results section, first paragraph:
Nevertheless, the day of choice (95% CI = [−0.517; 0.576]) did not explain the probability to copy (Appendix S5). Similarly, the proportion of boxes occupied by tits on the day of choice was greater in 2012, but this variable did not affect the probability to copy (95% CI = [−3.687; 3.419], Appendix S5). As could be expected, when a symbol was overrepresented on the empty boxes in a given patch, the probability to choose a box with this symbol was higher than random (95% CI = [3.725; 20.103], Table 3).
Table 3
| Posterior mode | CI (95%) | Effective sample size | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIXED EFFECTS | |||
| Intercept | −0.252 | [−1.066 ; 0.497] | 3,934 |
| Status ♂ | |||
| Older philopatric | 0.159 | [−0.576 ; 0.722] | 3,934 |
| Yearling | 0.837 | [0.145 ; 1.746] | 3,934 |
| Dev.symbol | 11.194 | [3.725 ; 20.103] | 3,934 |
| RANDOM EFFECTS | |||
| VA♀ | 0.007 | [0 ; 1.024] | 3,934 |
| VA♂ | 0.008 | [0 ; 1.262] | 3,934 |
| VD♀ | 0.009 | [0 ; 1.240] | 3,934 |
| VD♂ | 0.009 | [0 ; 1.226] | 3,934 |
| VM♀ | 0.009 | [0 ; 2.157] | 3,934 |
| VM♂ | 0.006 | [0 ; 2.737] | 3,934 |
| VPE♀ | 0.01 | [0 ; 1.352] | 3,934 |
| VPE♂ | 0.006 | [0 ; 1.192] | 3,495 |
| VY | 0.077 | [0 ; 1.703] | 3,934 |
| VN | 0.006 | [0 ; 1.672] | 3,934 |
| VR | 10 | [10 ; 10] | 0 |
| DERIVED ESTIMATES | |||
| h2♀ | 0.0003 | [0 ; 0.065] | 3,934 |
| h2♂ | 0.0003 | [0 ; 0.080] | 3,934 |
| T2 | 0.0016 | [0 ; 0.112] | 3,934 |
Posterior modes and credible intervals of the final animal model fitting the probability to copy the tit preference.
Estimates for the selected fixed and random effects are given on the latent scale with the residual variance VR set to 10. See Table 1 for a detailed description of the fixed effects. For the male categorical status variable (Status ♂), older immigrant males are considered as the group of reference. VA♀ and VA♂, sex-specific additive genetic variances; VD♀ and VD♂, sex-specific dominance variances; VM♀ and VM♂, sex-specific maternal identity variances; VPE♀ and VPE♂, sex-specific variances associated to the permanent environment effect (individual identities); VY, variance associated to the year; VN, variance associated to the nest box; VR, residual variance. h♀2 and h♂2, sex-specific narrow-sense heritability estimates; T2, proportion of phenotypic variance explained by the total sex-specific additive genetic effects.
A correction has been made to the Results section, sub-section “Age, Experience, and Environmental Effects on the Probability to Copy”:
Based on the animal model output, pairs including a yearling male were more likely to copy compared to pairs including an older immigrant male (56.0% of copying over the years, against 47.3% for pairs with an old immigrant male; 95% CI = [0.145; 1.746], Tables 2, 3, Figure 2). Pair experience with symbols, defined as whether both or one partner was naive or had experience with symbol choice had no effect on the probability to copy, even though we got a slight trend for mixed pair to reject tit preference (95% CI = [−2.064;0.174], Appendix S5).
Figure 2
A correction has been made to the Results section, sub-section “Quantitative Genetics of the Probability to Copy”:
There was no cross-sex additive genetic covariance in the probability to copy (95% CI = [−0.024; 0.029] in the full model).
A correction has been made to the Appendix S3, S4, and S5, and the corrected file is available using the link provided hereafter.
The corrected Tables 3, 4, and Figures 2, 3 appear below.
Table 4
| Male full model | Female full model | Female final model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post mode | CI (95%) | Post mode | CI (95%) | Post mode | CI (95%) | |
| FIXED EFFECTS | ||||||
| Intercept | 0.632 | [−2.789 ; 4.671] | 3.148 | [−6.048 ; 1.196] | 0.036 | [−1.099 ; 0.847] |
| Breeding success y-1 (success) | 0.277 | [−3.115 ; 3.007] | 1.453 | [−0.488 ; 4.025] | ||
| Age y-1 (yearling) | 0.381 | [−0.948 ; 1.786] | 0.642 | [−0.513 ; 1.868] | ||
| Choice y-1 (copying) | 0.43 | [−3.204 ; 3.948] | 0.455 | [−2.573 ; 2.871] | 0.124 | [−1.265 ; 0.881] |
| Tit preference than y-1 (same) | 1.517 | [−0.835 ; 4.699] | 1.745 | [−0.183 ; 4.199] | ||
| Dispersal status (philopatric) | 0.819 | [−2.506 ; 1.075] | ||||
| Dev.symbol (c.f. Table 1) | 9.786 | [−7.544 ; 34.650] | 5.971 | [−9.868 ; 22.977] | ||
| Number of past symbol experience | 0.285 | [−1.299 ; 0.77] | 0.324 | [−0.287 ; 1.517] | ||
| Choice : tit preference y-1 (copying : same) | 3.545 | [−6.087 ; −0.281] | 2.594 | [−5.853 ; −0.152] | ||
| Choice * success y-1 (copying * success) | 0.476 | [−4.459 ; 3.072] | 0.153 | [−3.406 ; 2.248] | ||
| RANDOM EFFECTS | ||||||
| VPE | 0.008 | [0 ; 2.098] | 0.055 | [0 ; 7.261] | 0.017 | [0 ; 5.356] |
| VY | 0.001 | [0 ; 1.198] | 0.004 | [0 ; 1.362] | 0.002 | [0 ; 0.968] |
| Vpatch | 0.006 | [0 ; 1.215] | 0.009 | [0 ; 1.089] | 0.007 | [0 ; 0.851] |
| VR | 10.000 | [10 ; 10] | 10.000 | [10 ; 10] | 10.000 | [10 ; 10] |
| Effective sample size: | >3,560 | >3,642 | >3,070 | |||
Posterior modes and credible intervals of the model explaining the probability to copy in subsequent years.
VPE: variance associated to the permanent environment effect (individual identity); VY, variance associated to the year; Vpatch, variance associated to the forest patch; VR, residual variance, set to 10.
Figure 3
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.
Statements
Author contributions
JM re-conducted the analyses for the correction. JM drafted the correction. JM, JF, SK, LG, and BD revised and approved the correction.
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.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2018.00080/full#supplementary-material
Summary
Keywords
social information, breeding site selection, collared flycatcher, Ficedula albicollis, heritability, indirect genetic effects, quantitative genetics, past experience
Citation
Morinay J, Forsman JT, Kivelä SM, Gustafsson L and Doligez B (2018) Corrigendum: Heterospecific Nest Site Copying Behavior in a Wild Bird: Assessing the Influence of Genetics and Past Experience on a Joint Breeding Phenotype. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6:80. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2018.00080
Received
01 March 2018
Accepted
23 May 2018
Published
06 June 2018
Volume
6 - 2018
Edited by
Deseada Parejo, Universidad de Extremadura, Spain
Reviewed by
Michael P. Ward, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2018 Morinay, Forsman, Kivelä, Gustafsson and Doligez.
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) or licensor 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: Jennifer Morinay jennifer.morinay@gmail.com
This article was submitted to Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
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.