Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us


Latest comments

Correction to Table 2 (Richard Cronn, 14 March 2014)

After publication, we discovered that the degrees of freedom in Table 2 are listed incorrectly. The correct values should be 34 for "within populations" (as opposed to 24), and 39 for "total" (as opposed to 29). All other values in this table are correct, and this transcription error does not change our inferences. read full comment

Comment on: Knaus et al. BMC Ecology, 11:10

Hummingbirds, not insects, pollinate sub-alpine Castilleja (Robert Colwell, 23 April 2013)

We offer a small correction, regarding Benjamin Blonder's photo of summer wildflowers in an subalpine meadow in Colorado. You... read full comment

Comment on: Harold et al. BMC Ecology, 13:6

Editor's Note - errors in provisional PDF (Simon Harold PhD, 21 February 2013)

It has been brought to our attention that the provisional PDF of this article originally published on 20th February 2013 contains a number of errors that had not been approved for release by the authors.

Unfortunately, an earlier version of the submitted manuscript was inadvertently published. We would like to sincerely apologise for this error, and are working toward rectifying the situation as quickly as possible.

We apologise for any inconvenience or confusion caused by this error.

Simon Harold
Executive Editor
BMC Ecology read full comment

Comment on: Ruiter et al. BMC Ecology, 13:5

errors in publication (Dave Ruiter, 21 February 2013)

Unfortunately BMC has introduced numerous errors during the editorial/publication process for this article and has published the error filled version. The editors are aware of these BMC errors and the authors are currently working with the editor to correct these errors and develop an acceptable version. The authors request that readers do not rely on this draft version.

David E. Ruiter - senior author read full comment

Comment on: Ruiter et al. BMC Ecology, 13:5

Labeling of sound files (Daniel Mietchen, 15 November 2012)

The description of Additional files 3 and 4 states "giggle bout from Kombo. Wave file of an example giggle bout from Ursa." Based on the other descriptions, one can assume that Kombo would be correct. Can you please confirm? read full comment

Comment on: Mathevon et al. BMC Ecology, 10:9

From the Editor - Award winning research in BMC Ecology (Simon Harold PhD, 15 May 2012)

This research was a category winner at the 2011 BioMed Central Research Awards.

For further details, please see our blog "Recognition of ant chemical cues research"

Many congratulations to the authors.

Simon Harold
Executive Editor
BMC Ecology read full comment

Comment on: von Beeren et al. BMC Ecology, 11:30

Corrigendum (John-James Wilson, 07 December 2011)

The additional files listing DNA barcode sequences, Additional file 1: Full reference library and Additional file 2: Query dataset, do not contain GenBank Accession numbers for all the barcodes. These are provided below.

Full reference library: AF170855, DQ275912, DQ275931, DQ275962, DQ276143, DQ276250, DQ276382, DQ276428, DQ276435, DQ276559, DQ276563, DQ276652, DQ276685, DQ276719, DQ276771, DQ291196, DQ291629, DQ291665, EU646625, FJ026855, FJ026872, FJ026888, GU089986, GU091060, GU091153, GU091575, GU439065, JN677557, JN677636, JN677646 - JN678714.

Query dataset: DQ275904, DQ275911, DQ275936, DQ275948, DQ275956, DQ275969, DQ276059, DQ276145, DQ276158, DQ276229, DQ276236, DQ276249, DQ276369, DQ276377, DQ276385, DQ276421, DQ276430, DQ276432, DQ276453, DQ276505... read full comment

Comment on: Wilson et al. BMC Ecology, 11:18

Blog Coverage (Gerardo Zardi, 27 October 2010)

See Blog Coverage in Research Blogging: read full comment

Comment on: Nicastro et al. BMC Ecology, 10:17

Erratum (Michael C. Fontaine, 21 March 2007)

1. Result section / Inter-site variation / §4 / 3rd and 4th sentences. An error has been introduced in the third and fourth sentences. This should be read as follow:"The second discriminant function significantly separated Finnmark and southern harbour porpoises from all other groups, while southwest and Nordland were not significantly different from each other (ANOVA on DF2 scores, F3, 24: 20.1, p < 0.001, Table 6)."2. Reference # [65] has to be replaced by the following: Andersen LW, Ruzzante DE, Walton M, Berggren P, Bjorge A, Lockyer C: Conservation genetics of harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, in eastern and central North Atlantic. Conserv Genet 2001, 2:309-324. read full comment

Comment on: Fontaine et al. BMC Ecology, 7:1