{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04171562867215041, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025851938895417155, 'mean_word_length': 4.872413793103449, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?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}}
Correction to: Cannibalism by damselflies increases with rising temperature

(1) The experimental design crossed temperature with variation in hatching time, with temperature differences created through water baths so that several hatching time treatments were replicated in each batch. The original data posted were lacking data on the water bath, lacked appropriate metadata and included additional columns and data sheets not used in the analysis of the experiment. We have posted the corrected data sheet that includes the water bath information to Dryad [1]. (2) In the original paper, we stated that cannibalism rate increased significantly with temperature, variation in hatching time, and their interaction. A reanalysis of the data [2] showed that temperature was only significant through its interaction with variation in hatching time (temperature F1,6 = 0.2, p = 0.66; temperature × variation in hatching time F1,114 = 6.2, p = 0.014). Variation in hatching time was also significant as a main effect (F1,114 = 34.9, p < 0.001). Owing to concerns about interpreting models with an interaction when the main effect is not significant, we used a model comparison approach to compare a model with only variation in hatching time against the full model that included both predictors and their interaction [3]. We found support for the full model that included temperature as a main effect and in interaction with variation in hatching time (χ (2 d.f.) = 12.3, p = 0.002). (3) In the original paper, the error bars in figure 2b were incorrect (the lower bar was missing or truncated). The corrected figure, with confidence intervals estimated from our reanalysis, is below (figure 2b Corrected).