We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
On page 234 the caption to Figure 1 should have read as follows:
Figure 1. Annual levels of damage (% damaged individuals y−1) to artificial seedlings reported in other studies (black bars) from a wide variety of temperate and tropical forests are consistent with those observed in the mixed-dicot, native-species-dominated stands in this study (first white bar), and much lower than those observed in high Cocos nucifera-dominated stands (second white bar). We present average values for each type of system studied from (1) New Zealand (Gilman et al. 2002); (2) New Jersey (McCarthy & Facelli 1990); (3) Hawaii (Drake & Pratt 2001); (4) Panama (Alvarez-Clare & Kitajima 2009), (5) Brazil (Portela & Santos (2009), (6) Mack (1998), (7) Line Islands (Young et al. this study), (8) Marquez et al. (2010), (9) Costa Rica (Clark & Clark1989), (10) Central Amazonia (Scariot 2000).
References
REFERENCE
YOUNG, H. S., MCCAULEY, D. J., POLLOCK, A. & DIRZO, R.2014. Differential plant damage due to litterfall in palm-dominated forest stands in a Central Pacific atoll. Journal of Tropical Ecology30:231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 1.Annual levels of damage (% damaged individuals y−1) to artificial seedlings reported in other studies (black bars) from a wide variety of temperate and tropical forests are consistent with those observed in the mixed-dicot, native-species-dominated stands in this study (first white bar), and much lower than those observed in high Cocos nucifera-dominated stands (second white bar). We present average values for each type of system studied from (1) New Zealand (Gilman et al. 2002); (2) New Jersey (McCarthy & Facelli 1990); (3) Hawaii (Drake & Pratt 2001); (4) Panama (Alvarez-Clare & Kitajima 2009), (5) Brazil (Portela & Santos (2009), (6) Mack (1998), (7) Line Islands (Young et al. this study), (8) Marquez et al. (2010), (9) Costa Rica (Clark & Clark1989), (10) Central Amazonia (Scariot 2000).
This correction applies to the following article(s):