\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Corrigendum: Distinguishing genomic homogenization from parapatric
speciation in an elevationally replacing pair of Ramphocelus tanagers}



\author[1]{Vanessa Luzuriaga-Aveiga}%
\author[2]{Mauricio Ugarte}%
\author[3]{Jason Weir}%
\affil[1]{University of Toronto}%
\affil[2]{Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa}%
\affil[3]{University of Toronto Scarborough}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 27, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Geographically connected species pairs with weakly differentiated
genomes could either represent cases of genomic homogenization in
progress or of incipient parapatric speciation. Discriminating between
these processes is difficult because intermediate stages of either may
produce weakly differentiated genomes that diverge at few locations. We
used coalescent modelling applied to a genome-wide sample of SNPs to
discriminate between speciation with gene flow and genomic
homogenization in two phenotypically distinct but genomically weakly
diverged species of elevationally replacing Ramphocelus tanagers,
forming a hybrid zone in the Andean foothills. We found overwhelming
support for a model of genomic homogenization following secondary
contact. Simulating under this model suggested that our species pair was
differentiated (FST = 0.30) at secondary contact but that most of the
genome has rapidly homogenized during 254 Ky of high gene flow towards
the present (FST = 0.02). Despite extensive genome-wide homogenization,
plumage remains distinctive with a narrower than expected geographic
cline width, indicating divergent selection on colour. We found two SNPs
significantly associated with plumage colour, which retain moderately
high FST. We conclude that the majority of the genome has fused, but
that divergent selection on select loci probably maintains the
geographically structured colour differences between these incipient
species.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Corrigendum:} ``Distinguishing genomic homogenization from
parapatric speciation in an elevationally replacing pair
of\emph{Ramphocelus} tanagers''

The authors would like to correct an error in the calculation of the
number of migrants per generation reported for the best fit demographic
model. The demographic model estimates migration rates backwards in time
under a coalescent process. These rates represent a per capita rate back
in time. We incorrectly multiplied this rate by the effective population
size of the recipient population to calculate the number of migrants per
generation. Instead, the effective population size of the source
population should have been used. This error had no impact on model fit
(i.e. AIC and Akaike Weights) and model choice, because the error does
not affect any of the parameters estimated by the model. Instead, the
error simply impacts the number of migrants per generation calculated
from per capita migration rate and effective population size parameters
of the model. Also, we now divide these migration rates by two,
reflecting the number of diploid individual migrants, whereas we
previously reported the number of haploid migrants.

Corrected version of Figure 4:\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image1/image1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

Our results remain largely unchanged. The number of migrants per
generation remain much higher than one between \emph{Ramphocelus
melanogaster} and \emph{R. carbo} , as expected if these populations are
merging genomically. Previously, our incorrectly calculated number of
migrants had suggested much higher movement of individuals into \emph{R.
melanogaster} from \emph{R. carbo} than in the reverse. Instead, we now
find that the number of migrants moving into \emph{R. carbo}
from\emph{R. melanogaster} is slightly higher than in the reverse. Here
we show an updated Figure 4 with the correct number of migrants per
generation, and we update Table S4 to have the correct parameter values
for this model. Coded model files used for demographic analyses
deposited in Figshare (dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14981556) have
also been updated.

The authors apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

