Correction: Remote reefs and seamounts are the last refuges for marine predators across the Indo-Pacific

Abstract

There are two textual errors in the published paper. In the Abstract, the last line reads "hotpots" instead of "hotspots." The same textual error is present in the Introduction. The last line of the Abstract should read as follows:Worryingly, hotspots of large individuals and of shark abundance are presently under-represented within no-take MPAs that aim to effectively protect marine predators, such as the British Indian Ocean Territory. Population recovery of predators is unlikely to occur without strategic placement and effective enforcement of large no-take MPAs in both coastal and remote locations.The first line of the last paragraph of the Introduction should read as follows:Here, we utilize an extensive data set of standardized and nondestructive baited video surveys from nine regions across the Indo-Pacific region to model predator diversity and abundance and to identify hotspots of vertebrate species richness, mean maximum body size weighted by abundance (hereafter "body size"), and shark abundance as a function of environmental conditions, geomorphology, human pressure, and management levels.

How many replicates to accurately estimate fish biodiversity using environmental DNA on coral reefs?

“…Traditional methods such as visual surveys are very costly, time-consuming and require on-site taxonomic expertise (Kim and Byrne, 2006; Ballesteros-Mejia et al ., 2013; Dornelas et al ., 2019). Despite decades of sampling efforts, biodiversity monitoring still covers only a small fraction of global ecosystems and is particularly challenging in isolated and remote regions across the oceans (Collen et al ., 2009; Webb, Vanden Berghe and O’Dor, 2010; Dornelas et al ., 2018; Letessier et al ., 2019). An emerging tool for rapid biodiversity assessment is environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding (Stat et al ., 2017;Eble et al ., 2020), which is proving to be particularly effective for marine environments (Juhel et al ., 2020; Boulanger et al ., 2021; Holman et al ., 2021).…”

A review of new and existing non-extractive techniques for monitoring marine protected areas

“…Numerous studies have deployed BRUVs within and around MPAs and they have been used to demonstrate changes linked to management measures as well as identifying suitable sites for protection (Letessier et al, 2019). Although historically used for imaging benthic and demersal species, there has been increasing interest in deploying BRUVs in the water column.…”

“…Although historically used for imaging benthic and demersal species, there has been increasing interest in deploying BRUVs in the water column. Letessier et al (2019) recorded observations of pelagic fishes and sharks using benthically anchored BRUVs moored in mid-water. Pelagic BRUVs tend to be lighter, easier to deploy and cheaper to construct and have been used to identify wildlife hotspots (Letessier et al, 2019), examine aggregations around seamounts (Bouchet et al, 2020) and assess temporal community stability in submarine canyons (Forrest et al, 2021).…”

Author Correction: Global status and conservation potential of reef sharks

“…Global demand for shark products, such as fins and meat, as well as high levels of bycatch have caused widespread declines in shark populations globally [1][2][3] , likely impacting the function of ocean ecosystems 4 and jeopardizing associated fishing and tourism sectors 5,6 . However, there are large knowledge gaps concerning the population status of sharks in coastal environments such as coral reefs, where the majority of threatened species occur 1 .…”