Corrigendum to “Genetic forensics for ocean protection: A meta-review of DNA-based identification methods to combat seafood fraud in the Eastern South Pacific” [Biological Conservation, Volume 315, March 2026, 111706] (Biological Conservation (2026) 315, (S0006320726000145), (10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111706))

Marín A. · Biological Conservation (2026) · DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111806

Resumen

The author regrets the following errors identified in the article: CASE A: The author regrets to inform that an error was identified in the geographical classification of one study in the original version of this article. Due to an incorrect country assignment in Table 1, the summary statistics in Section 3.1 also require updating. The corrections are as follows: 1. Table 1:In Table 1 (page 6), for the entry N° 35 Jilberto et al. (2017), the column “Country” should read CHILE instead of SPAIN. 2. Section 3.1. Data collection overview:As a direct consequence of the correction in Table 1, the study distribution counts in the first paragraph of Section 3.1 (page 4) are corrected to: • Original text: “Out of the 75 studies, 30 were conducted entirely in ESPO countries: Chile (14 studies), Peru (12 studies), Colombia (3 studies), and Ecuador (1 study). The remaining 45 studies analyzed seafood samples collected around the world, including those from the ESPO region. These were conducted in Spain (17 studies).”• Corrected text: “Out of the 75 studies, 31 were conducted entirely in ESPO countries: Chile (15 studies), Peru (12 studies), Colombia (3 studies), and Ecuador (1 study). The remaining 44 studies analyzed seafood samples collected around the world, including those from the ESPO region. These were conducted in Spain (16 studies).”The author wishes to clarify that this correction does not alter the scientific conclusions, figures, statistical results, or the global meta-analysis of the paper. Since the work of Jilberto et al. (2017) utilized wild samples, it did not meet Criteria 2 and 3 for the mislabeling meta-analysis. Therefore, it was already excluded from the meta-analysis, which strictly considered samples of commercial origin. CASE B: In the original article, the term “cured” was used erroneously in place of “curated” in two instances. This correction is necessary to avoid technical ambiguity, as “cured” in a seafood context incorrectly implies food preservation (e.g., salting or smoking) rather than the intended process of data selection and organization. The corrections are as follows: 1. Section 2.4. Mislabeling meta-analysis (Page 3, 4th paragraph):• Original text: "Cured samples from selected articles were pooled across studies."• Corrected text: "Curated samples from selected articles were pooled across studies."2. Section 3.7. Mislabeling meta-analysis in ESPO seafood species (page 39, 1st paragraph):• Original text: ".which included a total of 1806 cured samples purchased."• Corrected text: ".which included a total of 1806 curated samples purchased."The author would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Instituciones: Universidad Nacional del Santa