CORRECTION Correction: Trap Configuration and Spacing Influences Parameter Estimates in Spatial Capture-Recapture Models

The authors would like to provide corrections to several of the values reported in this paper. Specifically, throughout the text, tables, and Supporting Information, the trap spacing should be 10.67 km instead of 9.60 km, due to correcting the spatial extent in the y-direction of the configurations with J = 32, necessitating re-simulations for J = 32. The authors have also recal-culated the mean normalized bias (MNB). Revisions due to these changes can be found in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 below, as well as sections B-I in Supporting Information file S1 File. Please see S1 Appendix for descriptions of additional, supporting simulations. The authors have provided a corrected explanation of the calculation in the second para-graph of the “Objectives ” subsection of the Methods here: To evaluate trap spacing over the study area, we increased trap spacing from 4.7 km to 10.67 km by decreasing the number of traps from J = 128 traps to 96, 64, and 32 traps over the same spatial extent in the regular trap configuration (Table 1, Figure 4). This also resulted in differ-ent effective trap spacings, trap spacings relative to each value of σ, ranging from 0.47σ, when σ = 10 km, to 10.67σ when σ = 1 km (Table 2). Decreasing the number of traps resulted in a trap density of 0.049/km2 with 128 traps, 0.037/km2 with 96 traps, 0.024/km2 with 64 traps