Corrigendum to: Interactions between the introduced European honey bee and native bees in urban areas varies by year, habitat type and native bee guild
Access Status
Date
2021Type
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Source Title
ISSN
Faculty
School
Collection
Abstract
This paper was published in the July 2021 issue, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 725-743. In the originally published version of this manuscript, Figures 1C and 1D needed to have their labels switched. There were also errors in the paragraph that read: In the first year, honey bee abundance had a significant positive relationship with native bee species richness (estimate: 0.14; R2 = 0.19; P < 0.001; Fig. 1B). There was also a significant interaction with habitat (P = 0.01). Although the relationship remained significant and positive in both bushland remnants and residential gardens, the association was stronger in residential gardens (estimate: 0.22; R2 = 0.43, P < 0.001) compared with bushland remnants (estimate: 0.08; R2 = 0.16, P = 0.05; Fig. 1C). In contrast, in the second year, there was a significant negative, albeit weak, relationship between native bee species richness and honey bee abundance (estimate: −0.06; R2 = 0.05, P = 0.01; Fig. 1D). There was no interaction with habitat type (P = 0.95). Model outputs for the interaction variables and the relationship between honey bee abundance and native bee abundance and species richness can be found in Supporting Information 1 (Tables S2 and S3, respectively). This should have read: In the first year, honey bee abundance had a significant positive relationship with native bee species richness (estimate: 0.14; R2 = 0.19; P < 0.001) (Fig. 1B). There was also a significant interaction with habitat (P = 0.01). Although the relationship remained significant and positive in both bushland remnants and residential gardens, the association was stronger in residential gardens (estimate: 0.22; R2 = 0.43, P < 0.001) compared with bushland remnants (estimate: 0.08; R2 = 0.16, P = 0.05) (Fig. 1B). In contrast, in the second year, there was a significant negative, albeit weak, relationship between native bee species richness and honey bee abundance (estimate: −0.06; R2 = 0.05, P = 0.01) (Fig. 1D). There was no interaction with habitat type (P = 0.95). Model outputs for the interaction variables and the relationship between honey bee abundance and native bee abundance and species richness can be found in Supporting Information 1 (Table S2 and S3 respectively). These errors have now been corrected online.
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Prendergast, Kit ; Tomlinson, Sean ; Dixon, Kingsley ; Bateman, Bill ; Menz, Myles (2022)Native bees are declining in many regions, often associated with loss of natural habitat. Urbanisation replaces natural vegetation with a highly-modified landscape, where residential gardens are a major component of urban ...
-
Prendergast, Kit ; Dixon, Kingsley ; Bateman, Bill (2021)European honey bees have been introduced across the globe and may compete with native bees for floral resources. Compounding effects of urbanization and introduced species on native bees are, however, unclear. Here, we ...
-
Lyons, Anita Marie (2008)Since European settlement, around 93% of the Western Australian wheatbelt has been cleared for agriculture, leading to a range of environmental problems, including erosion, salinity, and loss of biodiversity. Recently, ...