Corrigendum: Invasion potential of hornets (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Vespa spp.)
Gard W. Otis, Benjamin A. Taylor, Heather R. Mattila
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior · Plant and animal studies · Insect and Pesticide Research
In the published article, there were three errors. Vespa tropica has been split into two species, V. tropica and V. ducalis, and the authors failed to realize this. Vespa ducalis, as currently recognized, occurs in temperate regions such as Japan and Korea, whereas V. tropica occurs in tropical and subtropical regions. Therefore, our contrasts of tropical and temperate V. tropica populations were unfounded.
A correction has been made to 5 Successful Invasions of Vespa spp., 5.3 Vespa tropica, the greater banded hornet, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated: “Vespa tropica has a broad natural distribution, from Afghanistan and Japan in the north to the tropical islands of Indonesia, the Philippines, and New Guinea in the south (46).”.
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Vespa tropica has a broad natural distribution, from Afghanistan and Pakistan in the west to southeastern China, the Philippines, many islands of Indonesia, and New Guinea in the east (62).”
A correction has been made to 5 Successful Invasions of Vespa spp., 5.3 Vespa tropica, the greater banded hornet, Paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated: “Specification of the source population during model training may be necessary due to ecological differences between temperate and tropical populations.”.
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Specification of the source population during model training may be necessary due to ecological differences between different geographic populations.”
A correction has been made to 7 Discussion, Paragraph 2. This section previously stated: “For example, the natural history information we have about V. tropica comes predominantly from studies in Japan. However, applying that knowledge to the invasion by this species in Guam would be of little value if the hornets that colonized the island arrived from a tropical locality such as Manila, Bangkok, or Chennai. For instance, mature V. tropica colonies in Japan are monogynous, have combs with a few hundred cells, and rear only a few dozen new gynes (2). In contrast, colonies in tropical Sumatra may be polygynous, construct more than 5000 cells, and produce several hundred gynes (74).”.
The corrected section appears below:
“For example, the limited natural history information we have about V. tropica comes from Sumatra, Indonesia (74). Applying that knowledge to the invasion of Guam by V. tropica would be of little value if the hornets that colonized the island arrived from a location such as Hong Kong, Hanoi, or Chennai, and their ecology, behavior, and genetics in that source location differed greatly from those of the population on Guam.”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.