Correction to: 'Dolphin social phenotypes vary in response to food availability but not the North Atlantic Oscillation index' (2023), by Fisher and Cheney

We recently discovered a mistake in [1] with the use of one of the R functions for the social network analysis. One of the variables analysed was ‘closeness’, which we used to represent how well dolphins are connected to distant parts of the network (based on an individual’s direct and indirect connections). The function used to calculate closeness came from the igraph R package [2]. Since publication we have determined that this function treats the interaction strengths between individuals as distances or costs, where higher values mean more distant/less well connected. This interpretation of interaction strengths is opposite to how they are interpreted for most other social network metrics, where higher values indicate closer and more well-connected individuals, and opposite to how our interaction strengths are coded, where higher values indicate stronger associations. The consequences are that the closeness values we analysed in the original version of the article are incorrect, and so the results and conclusions around closeness are erroneous. We have re-calculated closeness using a different R package, tnet [3], which treats interaction strengths in the manner expected, i.e. higher values mean a stronger association, and re-ran all analyses involving closeness. The differences between the new (and correct) analyses and the previous (incorrect) set are shown in the table below. To summarize: • There are now no relationships between salmon availability and closeness at the yearly or monthly scale (previously there was a negative relationship at the yearly and positive at the monthly). • There is now no clear individual variation in slopes for closeness and the NAO index at the yearly or monthly scale. • There is now a negative intercept–slope correlation for closeness and salmon availability at the yearly scale (previously positive). Compared to the original version, the Correction has some changed text in the abstract, results, discussion, tables 1 and 2 and figures 2 and 3. The majority of our conclusions remain the same: dolphin social behaviour does not respond to the NAO index at either monthly or yearly scales, that dolphin social behaviour responds to monthly variation in food availability and different trait–environmental variable combinations show different degrees of amongindividual variation in both means and slopes. What has changed is that dolphins no longer respond to yearly variation in any way (addressed in the discussion) and that only gregariousness responds to monthly food availability. Additionally, while revising the correction, some very small further additional changes were made to the abstract and discussion. We have also updated the supporting data to reflect the revised dataset and included the datasets prior to filtering for the number of observations, allowing those interested to explore the effect this filtering has. The following table summarizes the changes in results for closeness and the consequences these have had for the conclusions of the paper.