Version of Record online: 29 MAR 2005
Ecological Management & Restoration
Volume 6, Issue 1, page 80, April 2005
How to Cite
(2005), Correction. Ecological Management & Restoration, 6: 80. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2005.00222.x
- Issue online: 29 MAR 2005
- Version of Record online: 29 MAR 2005
Attraction of auditory and olfactory lures to Feral Cats, Red Foxes, European Rabbits and Burrowing Bettongs. Katherine E. Moseby, Robert Selfe and Andrew Freeman.
Ecological Management & Restoration, Volume 5, Number 3, December 2004; pp. 228–231
Several chi-squared analyses were incorrectly stated or interpreted within this manuscript. The authors apologise for the mistakes and now present the correct interpretation and the significance on results.
- 1Results section, first para, second sentence. “During Trial 1, there was a significant difference in the proportion of sites visited between lure types for cats (χ2 = 13.87, DF = 3, P < 0.001) and foxes (χ2 = 3.29, DF = 3, P < 0.05) but not rabbits (χ2 = 1.67, DF = 3, P > 0.05).” The chi-squared value for cats of 13.87 should read 16.72. This value is significant to the P-value stated and has no significance on the results. The chi-squared value of 3.29 for foxes however is incorrectly stated as significant when the critical value is in fact 7.81. The interpretation of results remains unchanged, however, as both Table 1 and subsequent field trials outlined in the results both support the conclusion that lures attract foxes. The low sample size in Trial 1 is likely to have prevented a significant result.
- 2Results section, first para, fourth sentence. “When controls were excluded there was a significant difference between visitation at Bird, FAP and Pongo sites for cats only (χ2 = 5.74, DF = 2, P < 0.05)”. The chi-squared value for cats is incorrectly stated as significant when the critical value is 5.99. However, several factors suggest this has little significance on the interpretation of results. The result is very close to being significant and Table 1 suggests a difference between visitation but low sample size is probably preventing a significant result. When sample size is increased by pooling Bird and FAP visitation and comparing with Pongo (a valid comparison as there was no significant statistical difference between Bird and FAP visitation rates) there is a significant difference in visitation rate (χ2 = 5.72, DF = 1, P < 0.05), critical value = 3.841, thus supporting the original interpretation of results.
- 3Results section, second para, second sentence. “During Trial 2, 14 cats were recorded at the 40 lure sites and the addition of Pongo did not have a significant effect on the proportion of FAP/Bird lure sites visited (Table 1, χ2 = 3.96, DF = 1, P > 0.05)”. This result is incorrectly stated as not statistically significant when in fact the critical value is 3.84. The interpretation of results in the second paragraph of the discussion should be changed from “The addition of Pongo appeared to increase visitation by cats but this was not significant” to “The addition of Pongo signficantly increased visitation by cats”.