This is the accepted version of the journal article:
Heneghan, Ryan; Everett, Jason D.; Sykes, Patrick; [et al.]. «Corrigen-
dum to "A functional size-spectrum model of the global marine ecosystem
that resolves zooplankton composition", Ecological Modelling, 2020, 435 :
109265». Ecological Modelling, Vol. 480 (June 2023), art. 110309. DOI
10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110309


This version is available at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/273866

under the terms of the               license
Title
Corrigendum to “A functional size-spectrum model of the global marine ecosystem that
resolves zooplankton composition”, Ecological Modelling, 2020, 435: 109265

Authors
Ryan F. Heneghan1,2,3*, Jason D. Everett1,4,5, Patrick Sykes1, Sonia D. Batten6, Martin
Edwards7, Kunio Takahashi8, Iain M. Suthers4, Julia L. Blanchard5, Anthony J. Richardson1,9


1
    Centre for Applications in Natural Resource Mathematics, School of Mathematics and
Physics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
2
    Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,
Barcelona, Spain
3
    School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Australia
4
    School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, NSW, Australia
5
    Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
6
    The CPR Survey, Marine Biological Association, Nanaimo, BC, Canada
7
    Marine Biological Association of the UK, Citadel Hill, The Hoe, Plymouth, United
Kingdom
8
    National Institute of Polar Research, Tokyo, Japan
9
    CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, St Lucia, QLD,
Australia


*Corresponding Author: ryan.heneghan@gmail.com
Main text

The authors regret that some references were incorrect in the original article’s Table 2. Below
is Table 2 with corrected references.

The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Table 2 | Trait values for the nine zooplankton and three fish groups.
                        Minimum Size           Maximum Size            log10PPMR                                     Carbon (% of
Group
                        ESD          log10(g)* ESD         log10(g)* range                                           wet weight)
Heterotrophic                   3.3μma          –10.7a          70μma            –6.8a           0.2–0.72            14b
flagellates
Heterotrophic ciliates          10μmc           –9.3c           100μmc           –6.3c           2.5–2.92            15d
Larvaceans                      90μme           –6.4e           1mme             –3.2e           6.8–10.0f           28
Omnivorous copepods             40μmg           –7.5g           0.8mmh           –3.5h           3.6–4.62            128,10
Carnivorous copepods            40μmg           –7.5g           1.8mmh           –2.5h           0.8–1.92            128,10
Euphausiids                     0.6mmi          –4.2i           1.5 cmj          0.2j            6.6–7.8k            128,10
Chaetognaths                    0.15mml         –5.9l           6mml             –0.9l            1.7–3.1m           48,10
Salps                           0.5mmn          –4.7n           3.6cmn           1.4n            6.8–12.9o           28
Jellyfish                       1.2mmp          –3p             6cmp             2p              2.7–4.72            0.58,10
Small pelagic fish              1.2mmq          –3q             6cm              2                222                1023
Medium pelagic fish             1.2mmq          –3q             27cm             4                222                1023
Large pelagic fish              1.2mmq          –3q             124cm            7                222                1023
 *g wet weight calculated from ESD, assuming 1 gram = 1 cm3.
a Volume from Table 3 in (1), converted to g wet weight and ESD, assuming 1 gram = 1 cm3 b Calculated using geometric
mean size of heterotrophic flagellates, with equation for heterotrophic flagellates carbon content in Table 3 of (3), c From
Figure 1 in (4), d Calculated using geometric mean size of heterotrophic ciliates, with equation for carbon content of loricate
ciliates in Table 4 of (3), e Minimum and maximum larvacean trunk lengths taken from (5) and (6) respectively, and converted
to ESD and wet weight using equation derived in (6), f Larvacean PPMR range calculated using linear regression fit to predator-
prey size data from (6) and (7). g Minimum copepod carbon mass obtained from supplementary material in (9), converted to
wet weight and ESD using copepod carbon:wet weight ratio, h Maximum omnivorous and carnivorous copepod lengths taken
from Table 2 in (11) and converted to ESD and then wet weight using equation derived in (12), i Euphausiid embryo ESD
from Figure 2 in (13), j Maximum euphausiid length taken from supplementary material in (14) and converted to ESD and wet
weight using equation in Table 2 from (15), k PPMR range for euphausiids centred on prey between 5μm-20μm ESD, as shown
in Figure 5.4 of (16). l Minimum and maximum chaetognath ESD from supplementary material in (14) m PPMR range for
chaetognaths calculated using linear regression fit to predator-prey size data in (14), and the non-isometric scaling relationship
in (2). n Minimum salp length taken from Box 1, Table I in (17), maximum salp length taken as geometric mean of Thalia
democratica and Thetys vagina maximum length from Table 1 in (17), then converted to ESD and wet weight using equation
derived in (18), using a carbon content of 1% from (8), o Salp PPMR range fixed so that feeding for all salps is centred on
picoeukaryotes ~1-3μm ESD, based on (19). p From supplementary material in (20), q From (21).

1.Hansen et al. (1997), 2. Wirtz (2012), 3. Menden-Deuer and Lessard (2000), 4. Taylor (1978), 5. López-Urrutia (2004), 6.
Deibel (1998), 7. Conley et al. (2018), 8. McConville et al. (2017), 9. Kiørboe & Hirst (2014), 10. Kiørboe (2013), 11.
Benedetti et al. (2016), 12. Acevedo et al. (2012), 13. Kawaguchi et al. (2011), 14. Fuchs and Franks (2010), 15. Hewitt and
Demer (1993), 16. Schmidt and Atkinson (2016), 17. Henschke et al. (2016), 18. Heron et al. (1988), 19. Dadon-Pilosof et al.
(2019) 20. Acuña et al. (2011), 21. Heneghan et al. (2016), 22. Andersen et al., (2016b), 23. Pauly and Christensen (1995).
References (for Table 2, in order of appearance)

1.     Hansen, P. J., Bjørnsen, P. K. & Hansen, B. W. Zooplankton grazing and growth: Scaling within the 2-
       2,000-μm body size range. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42, 687–704 (1997).
2.     Wirtz, K. W. Who is eating whom? Morphology and feeding type determine the size relation between
       planktonic predators and their ideal prey. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 445, 1–12 (2012).
3.     Menden-Deuer, S. & Lessard, E. J. Carbon to volume relationships for dinoflagellates, diatoms, and other
       protist plankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 45, 569–579 (2000).
4.     Taylor, W. D. Maximum growth rate, size and commonness in a community of bactivorous ciliates.
       Oecologia 36, 263–272 (1978).
5.     López-Urrutia, Á., Harris, R. P. & Smith, T. Predation by calanoid copepods on the appendicularian
       Oikopleura dioica. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 303–307 (2004).
6.     Deibel, D. (1998) Feeding and metabolism of Appendicularia, in: Bone, Q. (Ed.), The Biology of Pelagic
       Tunicates. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 139–149.
7.     Conley, K. R., Lombard, F., & Sutherland, K. R. Mammoth grazers on the ocean’s minuteness: A review
       of selective feeding using mucous meshes. In Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285,
       1878 (2018).
8.     McConville, K., Atkinson, A., Fileman, E. S., Spicer, J. I., & Hirst, A. G. Disentangling the counteracting
       effects of water content and carbon mass on zooplankton growth. Journal of Plankton Research, 39(2),
       246–256 (2017).
9.     Kiørboe, T. & Hirst, A. G. Shifts in Mass Scaling of Respiration, Feeding, and Growth Rates across Life-
       Form Transitions in Marine Pelagic Organisms. Am. Nat. 183, E118–E130 (2014).
10.    Kiørboe, T. Zooplankton body composition. Limnology and Oceanography, 58(5), 1843–1850 (2013).
11.    Benedetti, F., Gasparini, S., Ayata, S.D., Identifying copepod functional groups from species functional
       traits. J. Plankton Res. 38, 159–166 (2016).
12.    Acevedo, F. de, Dias, J.D., Braghin, L. de S.M., Bonecker, C.C., Length-weight regressions of the
       microcrustacean species from a tropical floodplain. Acta Limnol. Bras. 24, 01–11 (2012).
13.    Kawaguchi, S. et al. Will krill fare well under Southern Ocean acidification? Biol. Lett. 7, 288–291 (2011).
14.    Fuchs, H. L. & Franks, P. J. S. Plankton community properties determined by nutrients and size-selective
       feeding. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 413, 1–15 (2010).
15.    Hewitt, R. P., & Demer, D. A. Dispersion and abundance of Antarctic krill in the vicinity of Elephant Island
       in the 1992 austral summer. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 99(1–2), 29–39 (1993).
16.    Schmidt, K and Atkinson, A., 2016. Feeding And Food Processing Antarctic Krill (Euphausia Superba
       Dana), in: Volker, S., Biology and Ecology of Antarctic Krill. 1st ed, Springer International Publishing, pp.
       175–224.
17.    Henschke, N., Everett, J. D., Richardson, A. J. & Suthers, I. M. Rethinking the Role of Salps in the Ocean.
       Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 720–733 (2016).
18.    Heron, A. C. Length-weight relation in the salp Thalia democratica and potential of salps as a source of
       food. 42, 125–132 (1988).
19.    Dadon-Pilosof, A., Lombard, F., Genin, A., Sutherland, K. R., & Yahel, G. Prey taxonomy rather than size
       determines salp diets. Limnology and Oceanography, 64(5), 1996–2010 (2019).
20.    Acuña, J. L., López-Urrutia, Á. & Colin, S. Faking giants: The evolution of high prey clearance rates in
       jellyfishes. Science (80-. ). 333, 1627–1629 (2011).
21.    Heneghan, R. F., Everett, J. D., Blanchard, J. L. & Richardson, A. J. Zooplankton Are Not Fish: Improving
       Zooplankton Realism in Size-Spectrum Models Mediates Energy Transfer in Food Webs. Front. Mar. Sci.
       3, 1–15 (2016).
22.    Andersen, K. H., Jacobsen, N. S. & Farnsworth, K. D. The theoretical foundations for size spectrum models
       of fish communities. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 73, 575–588 (2016).
23.    Pauly, D. & Christensen, V. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 376, 279
       (1995).