Correction: Combined use of systematic conservation planning, species distribution modelling, and connectivity analysis reveals severe conservation gaps in a megadiverse country (Peru).

There are errors in Table 2. The complete, correct Table 2 can be viewed here.

Table 2

Species representation in the current protected area network of continental Peru based on the conservation goals defined in this study. Results are classified by taxonomic group, IUCN category and region.

Category		species protected (conservation goals met)	species under protected (conservation goals not met)
Group	Amphibians	93 (70%)	40 (30%)
	Birds	909 (78%)	254 (22%)
	Butterflies	51 (58%)	37 (42%)
	Mammals	148 (80%)	37 (20%)
	Reptiles	37 (50%)	37 (50%)
	Plants	788 (64%)	438 (36%)
UICN	CR	0 (0%)	10 (100%)
	EN	4 (14%)	24 (86%)
	VU	26 (38%)	42 (62%)
	NT	37 (53%)	33 (47%)
	LC	1106 (83%)	233 (17%)
	DD	16 (67%)	8 (33%)
	NE	837 (63%)	493 (37%)
Region	Coast	174 (40%)	257 (60%)
	Andes	757 (64%)	435 (36%)
	Amazon	1387 (86%)	226 (14%)
Total		2026 (71%)	843 (29%)

CR: Critically Endangered, EN: Endangered, VU: Vulnerable, NT: Near Threatened, LC: Least Concern, DD: Data Deficient, NE: Not evaluated

There are errors in the second sentence in the Results subsection titled “Achievement of conservation goals in the current protected area system.” The correct sentence is: Reptiles, butterflies, and plants are the groups less satisfactorily protected with 50%, 42%, and 36%, of their species under protected, respectively.