Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeData now released with a corrigendum
Posted by JonathanSilvertown on 03 Oct 2011 at 15:21 GMT
We have now archived the data used in this paper at Data Dryad where it is available under creative commons:
doi:10.5061/dryad.p7h802r0
Some minor numerical errors were discovered in preparing the data for release. They do not affect the results or conclusions of the original paper. Briefly:
1. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Results has some wrong numbers. This is the bit looking at increase in midbanded in historical-only and in non-dune sites. What got into the paper is the versions of these from the analysis of midbanded as % total, and for consistency with everything else it should be midbanded as % banded. The right numbers are, for historical only, alpha = 0.0106, t = 7.694, P<0.001, and for non-dune, alpha= 0.0044, t=3.089, P=0.002. Still pretty strong evidence that the effect is still there in these restricted analyses, even though it’s a bit weaker (particularly for non-dune) than the paper said.
2. In the penultimate paragraph of the results, the correlation between change in midbanded and temp diffs is even more negative than we reported. The correlation shown as r=-0.108 should be r = -0.273, (d.f. and P are OK).