Correction to: Orius laevigatus strengthens its role as a biological control agent by inducing plant defenses

Correction to: J Pest Sci (2018) 91:55–64 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-017-0886-4

The authors regret that values of χ ² and P were published incorrectly. Therefore, the authors would like to include the following changes in the published article:

• In the Key message; where it says

“….. The results further show how the plant's response to O. laevigatus increases emission of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) which can modulate the behavior of other arthropods (Bemisia tabaci, Frankliniella occidentalis and Encarsia formosa)…”, it should say:

“….. The results further show how the plant's response to O. laevigatus increases emission of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) which can modulate the behavior of other arthropods (Bemisia tabaci and Frankliniella occidentalis) ….”

• In the Abstract; where it says

“….. These O. laevigatus plant-induced defenses are then shown to contribute to the repellence or attraction of pests or natural enemies, respectively. Specifically, O. laevigatus-punctured sweet pepper plants induce repellency for the whitefly Bemisia tabaci and the thrips species F. occidentalis. In contrast, the whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosa was significantly attracted to O. laevigatus-punctured plants. The plant responses to O. laevigatus punctures include the release of an altered blend of volatiles ….”, it should say:

“….. These O. laevigatus plant-induced defenses are then shown to contribute to the repellence of pests. Specifically, O. laevigatus-punctured sweet pepper plants induce repellency for the whitefly Bemisia tabaci and the thrips species F. occidentalis. The plant responses to O. laevigatus punctures include the release of an altered blend of volatiles ….”

• In the Results section; in “Frankliniella occidentalis and B. tabaci plant selection mediated by O. laevigatus” where it says:

“In the Y-tube experiment, females of F. occidentalis showed preference for the odor emitted from intact plants over that from O. laevigatus-punctured plants (χ² = 19.931; P < 0.0001) (Fig. 3). In the case of B. tabaci, tested females were also attracted to the odor emitted by intact sweet pepper plants in comparison to O. laevigatus-punctured plants (χ² = 17.071; P < 0.0001) (Fig. 3). In contrast to both phytophagous insects, the parasitoid E. formosa significantly chose O. laevigatus-punctured plants over intact plants in the olfactometer assay (χ² = 6.250; P = 0.0124) (Fig. 3).”, it should say:

“In the Y-tube experiment, females of F. occidentalis showed preference for the odor emitted from intact plants over that from O. laevigatus-punctured plants (χ² = 9.966; P = 0.0016) (Fig. 3). In the case of B. tabaci, tested females were also attracted to the odor emitted by intact sweet pepper plants in comparison to O. laevigatus-punctured plants (χ² = 8.533; P = 0.0035) (Fig. 3). In contrast to both phytophagous insects, the parasitoid E. formosa did not show a significant preference (χ² = 3.125; P = 0.0771) when given a choice between O. laevigatus-punctured plants or intact plants in the olfactometer assay (Fig. 3).”

• In the first paragraph of the Discussion; where it says

“Furthermore, the modulated behavior of both pest species (B. tabaci and F. occidentalis) and a natural enemy (E. formosa) associated with sweet pepper, in response to….”, it should say:

“Furthermore, the modulated behaviour of both pest species (B. tabaci and F. occidentalis) associated with sweet pepper, in response to….”

• In the paragraph of the Discussion beginning with “Most of the plant defenses…”; where it says

“It is shown here that activation of the JA and SA pathways in O. laevigatus-punctured plants is associated with aversion of both arthropod pests, B. tabaci and F. occidentalis, and by contrast, the whitefly parasitoid E. formosa was significantly attracted to O. laevigatus-punctured plants. Pérez-Hedo et al. (2015a) observed that the ….”, it should say:

“It is shown here that activation of the JA and SA pathways in O. laevigatus-punctured plants is associated with aversion of both arthropod pests, B. tabaci and F. occidentalis. Pérez-Hedo et al. (2015a) observed that the….”

• In Discussion, in the first paragraph of the las page; where it says

“Therefore, the responses of B. tabaci, F. occidentalis and E. formosa were a direct consequence to the odor emitted from the O. laevigatus-punctured sweet pepper plants.”, it should say:

“Therefore, the responses of B. tabaci and F. occidentalis were a direct consequence to the odor emitted from the O. laevigatus-punctured sweet pepper plants.”

• In Discussion, in the second paragraph of the las page; where it says

“In this paper, it has been shown that the particular volatile profile emitted by the O. laevigatus-punctured plant repelled B. tabaci and F. occidentalis and attracted E. formosa.”, it should say:

“In this paper, it has been shown that the particular volatile profile emitted by the O. laevigatus-punctured plant repelled B. tabaci and F. occidentalis.”,

• In the Fig. 3 caption, where it says:

“Fig. 3 Response in Y-tube olfactometer of females of F. occidentalis (n = 33), B. tabaci (n = 33) and E. formosa (n = 34) to the odor emitted by intact sweet pepper and by sweet pepper plants previously exposed to O. laevigatus. Significant differences based on a χ²-test are marked using * (P < 0.05).”, it should say.

“Fig. 3 Response in Y-tube olfactometer of females of F. occidentalis (n = 33), B. tabaci (n = 33) and E. formosa (n = 34) to the odor emitted by intact sweet pepper and by sweet pepper plants previously exposed to O. laevigatus. “n” indicates the number of individuals tested, “nc” indicates the number of individuals that did not make a choice and “n.s.” indicates non-significance. Significant differences based on a χ²-test are marked using * (P < 0.05).

• From the new corrected statistical values, Fig. 3 should read: