{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01993704092339979, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014690451206715634, 'mean_word_length': 5.5793103448275865, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Diversity and conservation of saproxylic beetles in 42 European tree species: an experimental approach using early successional stages of branches

In the original version of the article by Vogel et al. (2021), the non-native Prunus serotina was incorrectly interchanged with the native Prunus padus, and eight individuals of saproxylic beetles were incorrectly removed from the data when splitting beetles in saproxylic and non-saproxylic species. The correct tree species is Prunus serotina, and results refer to a total of 113 species of saproxylic beetles and 30,550 individuals. Divergent from the version originally published, the estimated gamma-diversity did not differ between native and non-native tree species. Mycethophagous beetle species colonised significantly higher number of tree species compared to detritivorous, xylophagous and zoophagous beetle species. The table and figures in the main manuscript should have appeared as follows: