Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Minor correction to Text S2 and Figs. S2 and S3

Posted by njc1001 on 07 Oct 2015 at 09:04 GMT

I am the corresponding author of this article.

In Text S2, the latent period of 10-20 year old HLB infected trees is taken to be 0.8 years. This inadvertently misquotes the latent period given in Parry et al. (2014), the correct value is in fact 1/0.8 = 1.25 years. The simulations underlying Fig. S2 and Fig. S3 were rerun with the correct latent period of 1.25 years, setting the parameter 1/gamma to be 456d. This led to only very minor differences in the results. All inferences from the affected figures are unchanged. Updated versions of the figures are available at http://figshare.com/artic... and http://figshare.com/artic....

No competing interests declared.