Several errors were published in the original online version of J. Exp. Biol. 212,[471][472][473][474][475][476][477][478][479][480][481][482]. These errors occurred in both the PDF and fulltext versions of the online article but have now been corrected. The print version is correct.The captions of Figs 9 and 10 were truncated, and the caption published under Fig. 11 referred to Fig. 10.Figs 9-11, together with the correct captions, are printed below.We sincerely apologise to all authors and readers of this article for any inconvenience this has caused. Erratum Fig. 9. Rate of oxygen consumption as a function of heart rate in eight bantam chickens. Data were recorded while the chickens walked on a treadmill (filled squares), ate a meal of food pellets (filled triangles), digested the meal of food pellets (open triangles) or thermoregulated (open squares). Also plotted are two best-fit regression lines (solid line) and 95% confidence intervals (black dashed lines) and 95% prediction intervals (grey broken lines). 95% confidence intervals were calculated as if sVO 2 was estimated from one measurement of heart rate, during one additional behaviour by one additional chicken. 95% prediction intervals were calculated as if sVO 2 was estimated from 10,000 measurements of heart rate, during four additional behaviours by 100 additional chickens, effectively the smallest possible prediction interval for this model. . Also plotted are best-fit regression lines (solid line) and 95% confidence intervals (black broken lines) and 95% prediction intervals (grey broken lines). 95% confidence intervals were calculated as if sVO 2 was estimated from one measurement of heart rate, during one behaviour by one additional chicken. 95% prediction intervals were calculated as if sVO 2 was estimated from 10,000 measurements of heart rate, during four additional behaviours by 100 additional chickens, effectively the smallest possible prediction interval for this model. the standard error of the estimate (s.e.e.) and (C) the coefficient of variation (CV=100*s.e.e./Estimate) were calculated for this range of activity using four predictive approaches. Each of the four approaches used either partial dynamic body acceleration in the x and z axis (PDBAxz) or heart rate (fH) to predict VO 2 . The approaches used were (1) one-model using PDBAxz (black solid lines), (2) two-model using PDBAxz (grey solid lines), (3) one-model using fH (black broken lines), (4) two-model using fH (grey broken lines). See text for further details of the four predictive approaches.