Figures
There is an error in the caption for Fig 2, “Logistic regression of the probability of New England cottontail (NEC) presence versus eastern cottontail presence based on average percent tree canopy closure within 75 m of detection location (Wald = 6.2230, p < 0.05).” Please see the corrected Fig 2 here.
Notes: The frequencies of the two species in each canopy classes are provided in parentheses. New England cottontail: 0(6); 0.01–0.1 (0); 0.11–0.2 (4); 0.21–0.3 (13); 0.31–0.4 (19); 0.41–0.5 (38); 0.51-.06 (44); 0.61–0.7 (32); 0.71–0.8 (12); 0.81–1.0 (0). Eastern cottontail: 0 (13); 0.01–0.1 (1); 0.11–0.2 (2); 0.21–0.3 (17); 0.31–0.4 (35); 0.41–0.5 (29); 0.51-.06 (40); 0.61–0.7 (19); 0.71–0.8 (12); 0.81–1.0 (0).
Reference
- 1. Buffum B, McGreevy TJ Jr, Gottfried AE, Sullivan ME, Husband TP (2015) An Analysis of Overstory Tree Canopy Cover in Sites Occupied by Native and Introduced Cottontails in the Northeastern United States with Recommendations for Habitat Management for New England Cottontail. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0135067. pmid:26267857
Citation: Buffum B, McGreevy TJ Jr, Gottfried AE, Sullivan ME, Husband TP (2015) Correction: An Analysis of Overstory Tree Canopy Cover in Sites Occupied by Native and Introduced Cottontails in the Northeastern United States with Recommendations for Habitat Management for New England Cottontail. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0138741. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138741
Published: September 16, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 Buffum et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited