EDITORIAL NOTES AND NEWS

N OTE on ‘‘Review and Synthesis of Estimated Vital Rates for Terrestrial Salamanders in the Family Plethodontidae’’ by Jillian S. Howard and John C. Maerz, published in Ichthyology & Herpetology 109(4), pages 929–939 (DOI: 10.1643/h2020079). Dr. Richard Bruce brought to our attention that we incorrectly calculated survival rates from the instantaneous mortality rates reported in Table 3 in Bruce (2013: 266) as though those mortality rates were finite. Consequently, we generated values of 0.215 for Desmognathus aeneus and 0.276 for D. wrighti (as single rates for all life stages), while the correct rates are 0.460 for D. aeneus and 0.480 for D. wrighti. These values were reproduced in both Table 1 (Howard and Maerz, 2021: 931) and in the supplementary table available online. In Table 1, the value for D. wrighti was averaged with survival estimates from other sources yielding values of 0.593, 0.593, 0.593, 0.233, 0.593, and 0.252 for age 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5þ survival, respectively, and these, in the same order, should have been 0.695, 0.695, 0.695, 0.335, 0.695, and 0.360. We used average agespecific survival rates across all species (as shown in Table 1) in the base version of the matrix model, which were given as 0.504, 0.472, 0.535, 0.575, 0.623, and 0.629 for age 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5þ survival, respectively, but should have been 0.543, 0.507, 0.570, 0.604, 0.652, and 0.659. The largest difference between the values originally listed and the corrected values is 0.039. Because we used the mean values in Table 1 only as a starting point for the matrix models, and then varied those values widely as part of the sensitivity analysis, a change in starting values of up to 0.039 is relatively inconsequential, and does not result in a change to our conclusions. The survival estimates from Bruce (2013) were not included in the regression analyses examining potential relationships between survival and study duration, snout–vent length at maturity, or age at maturity (Figure 2, page 932), and so the interpretations of those relationships remain unchanged. However, Figure 3 (page 934) contains nine isocline plots showing the stable population curves under various matrix model scenarios, with estimates from the literature plotted as points, and in these plots, the incorrect survival estimates attributed to Bruce (2013; 0.215 and 0.276) are shown as the two lowest values for Desmognathus. Plotting the correct values (0.460 and 0.480) removes what are arguably two of the most extreme outliers, but the correct values still fall well to the left of the stable population curves, thereby leaving the overall interpretation, that most survival estimates in the literature are lower than what would likely support a stable population, unchanged. Finally, in the discussion section (page 935), we cited Bruce (2013) as the source of two of the lowest estimates for any genus examined, when in fact, the true values from that publication are closer to the midrange of reported values. However, our assessment of the limitations of the methods in Bruce (2013), that calculation of instantaneous mortality rates does not account for imperfect detection or temporary emigration rates, is still correct. We sincerely apologize to Dr. Bruce for this error, and we hope this note provides sufficient clarification for those who may take the time to assess our methods in detail.