Front. Insect Sci. Frontiers in Insect Science Front. Insect Sci. 2673-8600 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/finsc.2026.1794283 Correction Correction: Evaluating the nutrient and fatty acid profiles of black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens) raised on various diets in Thailand PittarateSarayut 1 2 3 4 † Formal analysis Writing – original draft Software Methodology Data curation Conceptualization Investigation Writing – review & editing ArjinChaiwat 4 5 † Writing – original draft Formal analysis Data curation Writing – review & editing Conceptualization Investigation Methodology Software VivekanandhanPerumal 1 2 4 Formal analysis Software Writing – original draft Data curation Investigation Methodology Conceptualization Writing – review & editing SwathyKannan 2 Writing – review & editing Methodology Data curation Software Writing – original draft Investigation ChiuChun-I 2 4 Software Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Investigation Formal analysis Data curation Conceptualization MekchaySupamit 3 4 5 Conceptualization Writing – original draft Methodology Investigation Data curation Writing – review & editing HnokaewPatipan 5 Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review & editing Software Writing – original draft Investigation Data curation SartsookApinya 1 Formal analysis Methodology Validation Data curation Software Writing – review & editing SiripanThanandon 2 Data curation Validation Formal analysis Writing – review & editing Methodology SringarmKorawan 4 5 * Writing – review & editing Conceptualization Writing – original draft Visualization Investigation Resources Validation Supervision KrutmuangPatcharin 2 3 4 * Investigation Writing – review & editing Conceptualization Visualization Resources Funding acquisition Project administration Office of Research Administration, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Center of Excellence on Agricultural Biotechnology: (AG-BIO/MHESI), Bangkok, Thailand Center of Omics for High-Value Agriculture (AgOmics-CMU), Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Department of Animal and Aquatic Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Correspondence: Korawan Sringarm, korawan.s@cmu.ac.th; Patcharin Krutmuang, patcharin.k@cmu.ac.th

†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

 12 02 2026 2026 6 1794283 23 01 2026 30 01 2026 23 01 2026 Copyright © 2026 Pittarate, Arjin, Vivekanandhan, Swathy, Chiu, Mekchay, Hnokaew, Sartsook, Siripan, Sringarm and Krutmuang. 2026 Pittarate, Arjin, Vivekanandhan, Swathy, Chiu, Mekchay, Hnokaew, Sartsook, Siripan, Sringarm and Krutmuang https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. A Correction on Evaluating the nutrient and fatty acid profiles of black soldier fly larvae (Hermetia illucens) raised on various diets in Thailand By Pittarate S, Arjin C, Vivekanandhan P, Swathy K, Chiu C-I, Mekchay S, Hnokaew P, Sartsook A, Siripan T, Sringarm K and Krutmuang P (2026) Front. Insect Sci. 5:1692096. doi: 10.3389/finsc.2025.1692096 black soldier fly larvae fatty acid profile nutritional value Hermetia illucens zero hunger responsible consumption and production life on land section-at-acceptance Insect Economics

There was a mistake in the caption of Figure 1 as published. This read: “The Pearson correlation between dietary chemical composition and BSFL growth performance.”

The correct caption of Figure 1 appears below:

“The Pearson correlation between dietary chemical composition and BSFL growth performance, An asterisk indicates a statistically significant difference (*p < 0.05).”

There was a mistake in the caption of Figure 3 as published. This read: “Principal component analysis (PCA) biplots were used to illustrate the correlation between the fatty acids in larvae and their dietary type. In the X- axis, PC1 accounted for 76.09% of the total variability, whereas PC2 accounted for 17.86% on the Y-axis.”

The corrected caption of Figure 3 appears below:

“Principal component analysis (PCA) biplots were used to illustrate the correlation between the fatty acids in larvae and their dietary type. In the X- axis, PC1 accounted for 75.93% of the total variability, whereas PC2 accounted for 18.01% on the Y-axis.”

There was a mistake in the caption of Figure 4 as published. This read: “The Pearson correlation between the fatty acid composition of the diet and that of the BSFL.”

The corrected caption of Figure 4 appears below:

“The Pearson correlation between the fatty acid composition of the diet and that of the BSFL, Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01).”

There was a mistake in Table 1 as published. In row 5, “Ether extract”, the letters of difference “3.44 ± 0.54b, 9.50 ± 0.03c, 10.20 ± 1.20c, 27.28 ± 0.12d, 10.52 ± 0.04b” should read: “3.44 ± 0.54a, 9.50 ± 0.03b, 10.20 ± 1.20b, 27.28 ± 0.12c, 10.52 ± 0.04b”

There was a mistake in Table 3 as published. “Feed cost/TH bath*” should read “Feed cost, THB†”. The footnote, “* Cost of feed per 100 g of larva,” should read, “†THB, Thai Baht; Feed cost was calculated per 100 g of larva,”.

In the Abstract, the Results section originally contained the sentence, “Favorable growth performance was observed, with larvae reaching 0.22 ± 0.01 g in weight, 20.38 ± 0.36 mm in length, and 5.08 ± 0.05 mm in width.” This has been deleted so that the section now reads:

“Results: Significant differences in nutritional composition were observed among substrates. Crude protein content was high in larvae fed chicken feed (50.55 ± 0.07%), pig feed (52.10 ± 0.14%), soy milk residue (52.15 ± 0.78%), and perilla cake (47.20 ± 0.00%). Crude fiber was highest in larvae fed soy milk residue (7.19 ± 1.48%) and perilla cake (5.38 ± 0.25%). Fatty acid analysis revealed substantial levels of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, including palmitic, oleic, and linoleic acids. Larvae reared on coconut press cake showed the highest saturated fatty acid content (74.91 ± 0.03%), while those fed soy milk residue exhibited the highest oleic (26.68 ± 0.06%) and linoleic acid (38.44 ± 0.07%) contents, resulting in increased polyunsaturated fatty acids (38.57 ± 0.03%).”

In Section 3.2, “Chemical composition of the BSFL after feeding diets”, the sentence “The DM and crude fiber of all diets show no significant differences (p < 0.005).” has been corrected to read:

“The DM and crude fiber of all diets show no significant differences (p > 0.05).”

In the same section, the sentence “We found that the CP and ether extract show the highest percentage from larvae fed on chicken feed and coconut press cake, respectively.” has been corrected to read:

“We found that the CP and ether extract show the highest percentage from larvae fed on soy milk residue and coconut press cake, respectively.”

Also in the same section, the sentence “Larvae reared on coconut press cake contained a higher proportion of ether extract but lower CP content, whereas those fed chicken feed exhibited the greatest pupal weight, length, and width (p < 0.05).” has been corrected to read:

“Larvae reared on coconut press cake contained a higher proportion of ether extract but lower CP content, whereas those fed chicken feed exhibited the greatest pupal weight, length, and width (data not shown, p < 0.05).”

In Section 3.3, “Fatty acid profiles in BSFL”, the sentence “Dietary sources contributed substantially to the variation in fatty acid profiles, as evidenced by the first two principal components (PC1 = 75.93% and PC2 = 18.01%), which together explained 93.95% of the total variance.” has been corrected to read:

“Dietary sources contributed substantially to the variation in fatty acid profiles, as evidenced by the first two principal components (PC1 = 75.93% and PC2 = 18.01%), which together explained 93.94% of the total variance.”

The original version of this article has been updated.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Edited and reviewed by: Oscar Abel Sánchez-Velázquez, University of Leeds, United Kingdom