English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

There were two errors in our original submission: (i) an error in the equation used to calculate egested nitrogen, ultimately leading to a small (1.8%) reduction in our estimate of nitrogen egestion; and (ii) an omitted step in converting wet weight of ingested material to dry mass, leading to a further approximately 50% reduction in the estimate of nitrogen egestion at the individual and population level. In the nitrogen egestion equation, N was used to define two different variables, and the second N was incorrectly defined and assessed as the percentage concentration of nitrogen found in the grey reef shark tissue, for which we used 14.84% (unpublished data from McCauley et al. [5]). We have rewritten the equation (below) and updated the relevant term to correctly represent the per cent of nitrogen found in the prey species, for which we used 13.0% for the Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus) [4]. The rate of nitrogen egested by an individual i grey reef shark per day (EN) was defined as EN,i 1⁄4 Ii (1 b) Nprey, ð1Þ

Correction to: ‘Mobile marine predators: an understudied source of nutrients to coral reefs in an unfished atoll’