Corrigendum: Differences in predicted catch composition between two widely used catch equation formulations

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 01 Sep 2009 English Publisher:Canadian Science PublishingJournal:Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, volume 66, pages 1,631-1,631 (issn: 0706-652X, eissn: 1205-7533,

Copyright policy )

Authors: Trevor A. Branch;

doi: 10.1139/f09-107

Corrigendum: Differences in predicted catch composition between two widely used catch equation formulations

- Summary
- Metrics

Abstract

Ref.: Ref: Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66: 126–132, 2009. I correct three related typographical errors in the introduction of this paper, which were brought to my attention by T. Garrison (University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Seattle, WA 98195, USA). In each case the e–X term should have been 1 – e–X: Eq: 2:Original : Ct 1⁄4 F M þ F Nte M F Corrected : Ct 1⁄4 F M þ F Ntð1 e M Þ

Related Organizations

University of Washington
United States
University of Mary
United States

Impact byBIP!

	selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	2
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Average
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Average
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Average