402 
Fishery Bulletin 111(4) 
Errata 
Fishery Bulletin 109:394-401 (2011). 
O'Connell, Craig P., Daniel C. Abel, Eric M. Stroud, and 
Patrick H. Rice 
Analysis of permanent magnets as elasmobranch by- 
catch reduction devices in hook-and-line and longline 
trials 
Corrections 
Page 397. Last paragraph of left column 
Please note that the original article included typo- 
graphical errors in the catch statistics between the 
control and procedural control (i.e. , sham magnet) 
treatments for 4 species of elasmobranch (i.e., S. acan- 
thias, M. canis, R. eglanteria, and C. limbatus). These 
values are corrected here; however, these errors did not 
influence the associated conclusions made in this ar- 
ticle. The paragraph that begins at the bottom of the 
left column should read as follows: 
For all species combined, no statistical significance 
in capture was found between control and procedur- 
al control hooks: R. terraenovae (x 2 =0.419, P=0.518); 
S. acanthias (% 2 =0.000, P=1.000); M. canis (% 2 =0.000, 
P=1.000); R. eglanteria (% 2 =0.077, P=0.719); C. limbatus 
(5C 2 =0.143, P=0.706); and S. lewini (x 2 =0.000, P=1.000). 
Therefore, direct comparison between combined control 
and magnetic treatments was statistically warranted. 
Page 397. Table 2 caption 
Please note that the original caption for this table con- 
tained an error in the accepted P-value that denotes 
significance (i.e., P<0.005). This value was a typograph- 
ical error for P<0.05. All text in this manuscript was 
prepared originally with a P-value of P<0.05; therefore, 
this typographical error had no effect on the text of 
this article. The caption for Table 2 should read: 
Table 2. Elasmobranch catch composition from 
longline gear with barium-ferrite magnets in 54 sets. 
Asterisks indicate significant (P<0.05) differences be- 
tween control and magnetic treatments in chi-square 
analyses. 
Page 397, Table 3 
Please note that this table contained 2 errors. The first 
error was the accepted P-value that was used to denote 
significance (i.e., P<0.005). This was a typographical er- 
ror for P<0.05; however, the manuscript was prepared 
originally with a P-value of P<0.05, and, therefore, this 
typographical error had no effect on the text of this ar- 
ticle. The second error pertained to the number of “To- 
tal elasmobranchs” captured. The value entered, “147,” 
was a typographical error and should have been “300.” 
The corrected Table 3 is presented below: 
Table 3. Elasmobranch catch composition from hook- 
and-line gear with neodymium-iron-boron magnets in 
660 trials. Procedural control data were not included 
because no significant difference in catch for control 
and procedural control was observed. Asterisks indi- 
cate significant (P<0.05) differences between control 
and magnetic treatments in chi-square analyses. 
Table 3 
Species 
n 
Control 
Magnets 
Rhizoprionodon terraenovae * 169 
67 
30 
Mustelus canis * 
21 
10 
1 
Squalus acanthias 
85 
31 
23 
Raja eglanteria 
16 
6 
3 
Carcharhinus limbatus 
7 
4 
0 
Sphyrna lewini 
2 
1 
0 
Total elasmobranchs* 
300 
119 
57 
Total teleosts 
16 
6 
5 
