Correction: The release rate of environmental DNA from juvenile and adult fish (PLoS ONE (2019) 14:2 (e0212145) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114639)

There is an error in Table 1. The correct N₀ and β values for the fifth individual (corresponding to the blue individual in Fig 1) are 2.81 ± 0.37^∗∗∗ and 0.039 ± 0.015^∗, respectively. Please see the corrected Table 1 here. Table 1. Initial eDNA concentration and degradation constant (N₀ and β respectively; ± SE) estimated by non-linear models fitted to the change in the eDNA concentration after fish removal and fish body wet weight. (Table Persented) As a result of this error, the following sentences should be corrected in the article: • There is an error in the penultimate sentence of the Abstract section. The correct sentence is: eDNA degradation rates (copies l^-1 h^-1), calculated by curve fitting of time-dependent changes in eDNA concentrations after fish removal, were 3.9-15.9% per hour (half-life: 7.0 h). • In the Results, there are errors in the second and third sentences of the "eDNA degradation" subsection. The correct sentences are: All non-linear model fittings were statistically significant and the N₀ and β values were calculated as 3.01 × 10⁷ ± 1.81 × 10⁷l^-1 (mean ± SD, n = 5) and 0.099 ± 0.052 h^-1, respectively (Table 1 and Fig 1). Using the mean β value, the eDNA degradation rate (copies l^-1 h^-1) can be estimated by Equation (2) as follows: dN dN/dt = 0:099 x N and the eDNA half-life was calculated by Equation (3) to be 7.0 h. • In the Discussion, there is an error in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "eDNA degradation" subsection. The correct sentence is: Our non-linear model fitting showed a 3.9-15.9% reduction in eDNA concentration per hour (Table 1 and Fig 1). • In the Discussion, there is an error in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "eDNA degradation" subsection. The correct sentence is: The eDNA half-life was calculated to be 7.0 h, which indicates that more than 90% of eDNA copies degraded within 24 hours. In addition, as a result of the errors in Table 1, there are errors in Fig 3. Please see the corrected Fig 3 here.