In ‘Trait plasticity alters the range of possible coexistence conditions in a competition–colonisation trade‐off’ Muthukrishnan et al. (2020) which was published in Volume 23, issue 5 (May 2020), the authors would like to correct a coding error, discovered after publication in the analyses. Evaluation of mutual invasibility for specific conditions and landscapes in Simulations 1 and 2 of the manuscript involved aligning the outcomes of 2 separate simulations (one with each of the species as the resident or invading species). When outcomes were compared, the coding error led to a misalignment of some simulation output files. This in turn led to an underestimate of mutual invasibility. However, this error had consistent effects across all conditions and scenarios such that the differences between plastic and fixed strategies were essentially unimpacted. Thus, none of our conclusions or interpretations were affected, but some specific numeric values that were reported were incorrect.

After correcting the analysis, the second paragraph within the Results section for Simulation 1 should read:

• Across all scenarios, even when trade‐off magnitude equals zero and all strategies are equivalent to the average strategy, mutual invasibility was only observed in ~60% of simulations. This indicates the strong influence of stochastic dynamics. Thus, observing even moderate levels of coexistence suggests significant stabilisation.

For Simulation 2, after correction the numbers of simulations with mutual invasibility for each scenario are: Competitor=82, Dominator=4934, Colonizer=3801, and Spreader=6562. The corrected paragraph for the Results section Simulation 2 should read:

• Simulation 2: Coexistence under different landscape configurations
• Again, plastic strategies allowed for coexistence across a broader range of landscape patterns compared to fixed strategies (Fig. 3). This is particularly clear when comparing the competitor strategy, which showed coexistence in only a narrow window of landscapes with very high or very low proportion of usable habitat (82 total landscapes; Fig. 3a), with the dominator strategy which had coexistence across almost all landscape conditions except those with very little usable habitat that is highly clumped (4934 total landscapes; Fig. 3b). The coloniser (Fig. 3c) and spreader (Fig. 3d) strategies showed more similar patterns of coexistence across landscape types, but the plastic (spreader) strategy had more coexistence (6562 vs 3801 landscapes) across nearly all landscape conditions while the coloniser strategy largely displayed coexistence in landscapes with large amounts of usable habitat that was highly autocorrelated.

Here is the corrected version of Figure 3:

Additionally, in Table 2, the values for the dispersal kernel base rate parameter (λ_base) should 0.00694 for all simulations. This value was correctly reported in the text of the manuscript, but the wrong value was originally included in the table.

Muthukrishnan等人在“特质可塑性改变了竞争与殖民化权衡的可能共存条件的范围”中。（2020年）（已发布在第23卷第5期（2020年5月）中，作者希望纠正在分析中发表后发现的编码错误。在手稿的模拟1和2中，对特定条件和景观的相互侵入性的评估涉及对齐2个独立模拟的结果（每个物种作为常驻物种或入侵物种）。比较结果时，编码错误导致某些模拟输出文件未对齐。反过来，这导致了对相互入侵的低估。但是，此错误在所有条件和情况下均具有一致的影响，因此，固定策略与固定策略之间的差异基本上不会受到影响。因此，我们的任何结论或解释均不受影响，但是报告的某些特定数值不正确。

校正分析后，“模拟1”的“结果”部分中的第二段应为：

• 在所有情况下，即使权衡幅度等于零且所有策略均等于平均策略，也只能在约60％的仿真中观察到相互入侵。这表明了随机动力学的强大影响。因此，观察到适度的共存水平表明存在显着的稳定作用。

对于模拟2，在校正后，每种情况下具有相互侵入性的模拟数量为：竞争者= 82，控制者= 4934，殖民者= 3801和扩展器= 6562。结果部分“模拟2”的更正段落应为：

• 模拟2：不同景观配置下的共存
• 同样，与固定策略相比，塑性策略允许在更广泛的景观模式中共存（图3）。当比较竞争者策略时，这一点尤其明显。竞争者策略仅在狭窄的景观窗口中共存，而可用景观的可用比例非常高或非常低（共82个景观；图3a），而主导策略几乎在所有景观中都共存。景观条件除外，只有很少的可用栖息地高度集聚（总共4943个景观；图3b）。定居者策略（图3c）和传播者策略（图3d）显示出在景观类型之间更相似的共存模式，

这是图3的更正版本：

另外，在表2中，对于扩散内核的基本速率参数（λ的值_基）应该0.00694对于所有模拟。该值已在手稿的文本中正确报告，但该表最初包含错误的值。