Corrigendum to “Mammal diversity and composition are not affected by certified timber extraction in Suriname” [For. Ecol. Manage., 541 (2023) 121080] (Forest Ecology and Management (2023) 541, (S0378112723003146), (10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121080))

The authors regret to inform that information concerning the borders of Surname was missing from Fig. 1 (page 2) and Fig. 2 (page 5). The missing elements are included in the revised figures, and revised captions. The missing information does not affect the results or conclusions of this article. We would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. [Formula presented] Fig 1. Location of the camera traps at the logging concessions in Suriname depicting the main land use classes (MapBiomas Amazonia Project 2021). Colored symbols depict the location of the camera traps in logged (triangles) and unlogged parts (circles) per sampling campaign. Dashed lines indicate disputed borders. [Formula presented] Fig. 2. A) Richness of mammal species among different sites in Suriname depicting the main land use classes (MapBiomas Amazonia Project 2021). Central and West concessions are highlighted in blue. Dashed lines indicate disputed borders. [1] Lim et al. (2005) and Ouboter et al. (2021); [2a-b] Ouboter et al. (2011); [3a-c] Gajapersad et al. (2012); [4a-b] Solari and Pinto (2007); [5a] Schuttler et al. (2021); [5b] Ahumada et al. (2011) and Vath (2008); [6a-d] van Kuijk et al. (2022). Small case letters indicate the different sites assessed per study. B) Relationship between mammal richness and sampling effort (trap-days in log) for studies that used camera trapping. Dot size indicates the species richness of each site. The shaded area represents the 95% confidence interval of the regression. More details on study sites are in Table A.1. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)