There is an error in Table 1. The correct N₀ and β values for the fifth individual (corresponding to the blue individual in Fig 1) are 2.81 ± 0.37*** and 0.039 ± 0.015*, respectively. Please see the corrected Table 1 here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Initial eDNA concentration and degradation constant (N₀ and β respectively; ± SE) estimated by non-linear models fitted to the change in the eDNA concentration after fish removal and fish body wet weight.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212145.t001

As a result of this error, the following sentences should be corrected in the article:

• There is an error in the penultimate sentence of the Abstract section. The correct sentence is: eDNA degradation rates (copies l^–1 h^–1), calculated by curve fitting of time-dependent changes in eDNA concentrations after fish removal, were 3.9–15.9% per hour (half-life: 7.0 h).
• In the Results, there are errors in the second and third sentences of the “eDNA degradation” subsection. The correct sentences are: All non-linear model fittings were statistically significant and the N₀ and β values were calculated as 3.01 × 10⁷ ± 1.81 × 10⁷ l^–1 (mean ± SD, n = 5) and 0.099 ± 0.052 h^–1, respectively (Table 1 and Fig 1). Using the mean β value, the eDNA degradation rate (copies l^–1 h^–1) can be estimated by Equation (2) as follows:

and the eDNA half-life was calculated by Equation (3) to be 7.0 h.

• In the Discussion, there is an error in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the “eDNA degradation” subsection. The correct sentence is: Our non-linear model fitting showed a 3.9–15.9% reduction in eDNA concentration per hour (Table 1 and Fig 1).
• In the Discussion, there is an error in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the “eDNA degradation” subsection. The correct sentence is: The eDNA half-life was calculated to be 7.0 h, which indicates that more than 90% of eDNA copies degraded within 24 hours.

In addition, as a result of the errors in Table 1, there are errors in Fig 3. Please see the corrected Fig 3 here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Box plots of the eDNA release compared between juvenile and adult groups.

a) Stabilized concentration, b) release rate per individual fish, and c) per fish body weight. Body wet weight was 0.5–2.0 g (n  =  10) and 30–75 g (n  =  9), respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212145.g001