Correction: Lange et al. Site-Level Variation in Parrotfish Grazing and Bioerosion as a Function of Species-Specific Feeding Metrics. Diversity 2020, 12, 379

Error in Table

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Table 1 as published. The bioerosion coefficient b for Chlorurus strongylocephalus was stated as 2.577 instead of 2.258. The corrected

Table 1. Individual annual grazing (m² ind.⁻¹ yr⁻¹) and bioerosion rates (kg ind.⁻¹ yr⁻¹) for a range of parrotfish species and size classes. Empty cells indicate size classes above the maximum total length (TL) of species (based on own observations and FishBase). Coefficients a and b describe allometric regressions between body size and individual functional rates (grazing/bioerosion = a × (TL)^b).

Grazing (m2 ind.−1 yr−1)	10–19 cm	20–29 cm	30–39 cm	40–49 cm	50–59 cm	≥60 cm	a	b
Cetoscarus ocellatus	6.9	21.6	69.4	151.7	274.1	441.5	0.0010	3.130
Chlorurus strongylocephalus	7.7	29.2	64.9	114.9	179.2	245.5	0.0209	2.256
Chlorurus sordidus	13.8	54.8	111.5				0.0433	2.209
Scarus rubroviolaceus	4.6	15.3	52.5	114.9	205.5	318.7	0.0011	3.028
Scarus frenatus	20.0	81.9	188.3	341.1			0.0318	2.439
Scarus tricolor	11.6	33.2	53.1				0.1836	1.591
Scarus niger	15.6	48.4	100.6				0.0367	2.200
Scarus scaber	10.1	42.1	100.5				0.0116	2.541
Scarus psittacus	1.0	6.0					0.0004	2.986
Bioerosion (kg ind.−1 yr−1)	10–19 cm	20–29 cm	30–39 cm	40–49 cm	50–59 cm	≥60 cm	a	b
Cetoscarus ocellatus	15.7	48.8	157.2	343.5	620.7	999.6	0.0024	3.111
Chlorurus strongylocephalus	17.4	65.8	146.2	258.7	403.5	552.9	0.0475	2.258
Chlorurus sordidus	4.2	16.7	33.9				0.0131	2.211
Scarus rubroviolaceus	3.6	15.5	62.9	156.0	308.2	519.4	0.0003	3.488
Scarus frenatus	3.0	12.4	28.5	51.6			0.0058	2.386
Scarus tricolor	1.8	5.0	8.1				0.0294	1.576
Scarus niger	2.1	6.6	13.8				0.0059	2.183
Scarus scaber	1.6	6.5	15.5				0.0019	2.517
Scarus psittacus	0.2	1.0					0.0001	2.927

appears below. The authors state that the calculations and scientific conclusions of this paper are unaffected, but the error might affect researchers using the coefficients for their own bioerosion calculations. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication and the dataset at https://doi.org/10.24378/exe.2623 have also been updated.