The authors have identified several errors in the article by Creissen et al .1 These occurred because of a small error in the dataset on which the analysis was based. These errors do not affect the overall results reported, nor the conclusions made.

The authors have supplied the following corrections to the published article:

1. In the Abstract, the range of IPM scores for farmers in the sample should be: (minimum 32.6 points, mean score of 67.1).
2. In the Abstract, the number of farmers scoring more than 85 of a possible 100 on the metric should be: 15 of 225 farmers (6.7%).
3. In Section 3.3, the range farmer IPM scores should be: 32.6–91.3, with a mean of 67.1 and a standard deviation of 13.1 (coefficient of variation 19.6%).
4. In Section 3.3, as mentioned at (1) above, only 15 of 225 farmers (6.7%) scored more than 85 on a possible IPM scale of 100.
5. Figure 2 has been slightly modified, but remains very similar to the originally published version. The corrected version is presented here.
6. Appendix S5 has been slightly modified, but remains very similar to the originally published version. The corrected version is presented here.
7. A revised Table 6 is presented below. Previously expressed conclusions about the coherence of individual measures with the IPM construct are unchanged.
8. In Section 4, the minimum IPM score for farmers in the sample should be > 30.

作者在Creissen等人的文章中发现了一些错误。1发生这些是由于分析所基于的数据集中的一个小错误。这些错误不会影响所报告的总体结果或结论。

作者对发表的文章进行了以下更正：

1. 摘要中，样本中农民的IPM得分范围应为：（最低32.6分，平均得分67.1）。
2. 在摘要中，得分超过100（可能为100）的农民人数应为：225位农民中的15位（6.7％）。
3. 在第3.3节中，范围内农民IPM得分应为：32.6–91.3，平均值为67.1，标准差为13.1（变异系数为19.6％）。
4. 如上文（1）所述，在第3.3节中，在IPM可能为100的情况下，225名农民中只有15名（6.7％）得分超过85。
5. 图2已稍作修改，但与原始发布的版本非常相似。此处显示了更正的版本。
6. 附录S5已稍作修改，但与原始发布的版本非常相似。此处显示了更正的版本。
7. 修改后的表6如下所示。先前表达的关于单个措施与IPM构造的一致性的结论没有改变。
8. 在第4节中，样本中农民的IPM最低分数应大于30。