Correction to: Prediction of the minimum effective size of a population viable in the long term

Correction to: Biodiversity and Conservation, 31, 2022

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02456-z

In original article, the supplementary link consisted of only two figures.

The updated supplementary link (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02456-z) will contain the following information,

Table A1 Mutational model assumed by Pérez-Pereira et al. (2021a).

Fig. A1

(analogous to Fig. S1) Distribution of homozygous selection coefficients of mutations (s) for the mutational model of Table A1. The first row shows a histogram for the percentage of loci per value of s. The second row shows the relationship between selection coefficients (s) and dominance coefficients (h)

Fig. A2

(analogous to Fig. 1 of the main text) a) Probability of extinction, represented as percentage of extinct lines after 40 generations (first row) or 1000 generations (second row) for different effective population sizes (N_e) and reproductive rates (K) under the mutational model of Table A1. b) Mean times to extinction (in generations) for different effective population sizes (N_e) and reproductive rates (K)

Fig. A3

(analogous to Fig. 2 of the main text) Relative fitness (W) and realized effective population size (N_e) in the first 100 generations. Results correspond to a reproductive rate of K = 4 under the mutational model of Table A1

Fig. A4

(analogous to Fig. 3 of the main text) Minimum reproductive rate (K) necessary for a population of effective size N_e to persist in the long term (40 or 1000 generations) with a 99% probability under the mutational model of Table A1. The absence of a solid line for a particular N_e indicates that no K value was found that ensured the persistence of that line for the time t considered (evaluated up to a maximum of K = 60)

Fig. A5

(analogous to Fig. 4 of the main text) Observed mean heterozygosity (H) for neutral alleles as a function of effective population size (N_e) of the lines at generations t = 40 (first row) and t = 1000 (second row) under the mutational model of Table A1. Black lines indicate simulations with selection, the solid red line indicates simulations without selection (neutral) for comparative purposes, the horizontal dashed blue line indicates the initial mean heterozygosity at generation 0 (H₀), and the horizontal dashed red line indicates a 90% threshold in genetic diversity to be retained

Fig. A6

(analogous to Fig. 5 of the main text) Mean heterozygosity (H) for deleterious alleles as a function of effective population size (N_e) at generations t = 40 (first row) and t = 1000 (second row) under the mutational model of Table A1. Black lines indicate simulations with selection, the solid red line indicates simulations without selection (neutral) for comparative purposes, the horizontal dashed blue line indicates the initial mean heterozygosity at generation 0 (H₀), and the horizontal dashed red line indicates a 90% threshold in genetic diversity to be retained

Fig. S1

Distribution of homozygous selection coefficients of mutations (s) for two mutational models (see Table 1 of the main text). The first row shows a histogram for the percentage of loci with different s values. The second row shows the relationship between selection coefficients (s) and dominance coefficients (h)

Fig. S2

Reproductive rates collected from Vance et al. (2003), Brook et al. (2006), Traill et al. (2007), Rytwinski and Fahrig (2011), and Quesnelle et al. (2014). Reproductive rates were measured as total number of eggs laid (mean clutch size × mean number of clutches) or young born (mean litter size × mean number of litters) per female per year. Boxes indicate the interquartile range (50% of the estimates), and the median is indicated by the horizontal thick line and its corresponding value above. Whiskers show the minimum and maximum values within 1.5 times the interquartile range and black dots correspond to outliers

The original article has been updated.