In the published article, there were errors in reporting the highest concentration in Lake Manatee and correlation results between nutrient and cyanotoxin concentrations.

Corrections have been made to the Abstract. The sentences previously stated:

“The highest toxin concentration (0.46 μg/L) was reported in Lake Manatee at Site 15, a location where other toxin concentrations demonstrated statistical significance with toxins detected at Sites 6 (p = 0.014) and 8 (p = 0.011).”

“Furthermore, phosphate and nitrite concentrations strongly correlated with total MCs and NODs in each lake (p < 0.01).”

The corrected sentences appear below:

“The highest toxin concentration (0.47 μg/L) was reported in Lake Manatee at Site 15, a location where other toxin concentrations demonstrated statistical significance with toxins detected at Sites 6 (p = 0.014) and 8 (p = 0.011).”

“Furthermore, phosphate and nitrite concentrations showed no significant relationships with total MCs and NODs in each lake (p > 0.05).”

Corrections have been made to the Introduction, Paragraphs 7 and 9. The sentences previously stated:

“ELISA can track relative changes in MC concentrations and serve as an indication to control algae blooms (Guo et al., 2005).”

“Two years later, the adjacent Manatee River was endured algal blooms scattered along riverbanks as blue and green hues.”

The corrected sentences appear below:

“ELISA can track relative changes in MC concentrations and serve as an indicator to control algae blooms (Guo et al., 2005).”

“Two years later, the adjacent Manatee River endured algal blooms scattered along riverbanks as blue and green hues.”

Corrections have been made to the Materials and Methods, Nutrient Measurement. The detection range of the Griess Reagent Kit ab234044 was missing. Also, the final concentrations of nutrients were incorrectly converted and reported as μg/L. The sentences previously stated:

“They assessed concentrations between 0.001 and 1 mM.”

“Final concentrations were converted and reported in μg/L.”

The corrected sentences appear below:

“They assessed concentrations between 0.001 and 1 mM and between 0.1 and 1 mM, respectively.”

“Final concentrations were converted and reported in mg/L.”

Corrections have been made to the Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis. The units of concentration for nutrients (nitrite and phosphate) were misrepresented as μg/L. The sentences previously stated:

“Two-tailed Pearson correlations measured the strength of associations between nutrients and cyanotoxins.”

“For nutrients, 11 samples (nitrite) returned non-detectable concentrations (<0.01 μg/L).”

The corrected sentences appear below:

“Two-tailed Spearman rank correlations measured the strength and direction of associations between nutrients and cyanotoxins.”

“For nutrients, 11 samples (nitrite) returned non-detectable concentrations (<0.01 mg/L).

Corrections have been made to Results, Measurement and Frequency of Nitrite and Phosphate Concentration. The sentences previously stated:

“Nitrite concentrations occurred in 49 (81.66%) samples and ranged from 0.005 to 0.845 μg/L. In Lake Manatee, nitrite concentrations largely measured at 0.13 μg/L or 0.29 μg/L (Figure 4). Nitrite concentrations in Lake Washington varied considerably, with three samples having a concentration of 0.19 μg/L (Figure 5). Phosphate concentrations occurred in 60 (100 %) and ranged from 0.12 μg/L to 0.58 μg/L. Most samples had a concentration of 0.19 μg/L, with two samples attaining a maximum concentration of 0.52 μg/L (Figure 6).”

The corrected statements appear below:

“Nitrite concentrations occurred in 49 (81.66%) samples and ranged from 0.005 to 0.845 mg/L. In Lake Manatee, nitrite concentrations largely measured at 0.13 or 0.29 mg/L (Figure 4). Nitrite concentrations in Lake Washington varied considerably, with three samples having a concentration of 0.19 mg/L (Figure 5). Phosphate concentrations occurred in 60 (100%) and ranged from 0.12 to 0.58 mg/L. Most samples had a concentration of 0.19 mg/L, with two samples attaining a maximum concentration of 0.52 mg/L (Figure 6).”

Corrections have been made to Results, Associations Between Nutrients and Cyanotoxins. The sentences previously stated:

“Associations between nutrient and cyanotoxin concentrations in Lake Manatee and Lake Washington were measured by two-tailed Pearson correlations. Correlation results indicated strong associations between total MC and NODs and nutrients in the drinking water systems (p < 0.01). Correlation coefficients were higher for associations between nutrients and total MCs and NODs in Lake Manatee (Table 3).”

The corrected statements appear below:

“Associations between nutrient and cyanotoxin concentrations in Lake Manatee and Lake Washington were measured by two-tailed Spearman rank correlations. Correlation results indicated no significant relationships between total MCS and NODs and nutrients in the drinking water systems (p > 0.05). Correlation coefficients were similar for associations between nutrients and total MCs and NODs in Lake Manatee and Lake Washington (Table 3).”

Corrections have been made to Discussion, Paragraph 4. The sentences previously stated:

“Strong positive associations occurred between nutrient and cyanotoxin concentrations in each lake, suggesting increased nitrite and phosphate concentrations influence increased total MC and NOD concentrations. The observed associations supported multiple studies on nutrients and cyanobacterial growth (Smith et al., 2006; Dodds et al., 2009; Paerl et al., 2011; O'Neil et al., 2012). Total phosphorus demonstrated a weak relationship with MC concentrations in the Harris Chain of Lakes in Florida (Bigham et al., 2009), contradictory of the observed relationship between soluble phosphorus and total MCs and NODs in Lake Manatee and Lake Washington.”

The corrected statements appear below:

“No significant associations occurred between nutrient and cyanotoxin concentrations in each lake, suggesting nutrient availability alone may not directly influence total MCs and NODs during the sampling period. The observed associations differed from multiple studies on nutrients and cyanobacterial growth (Smith et al., 2006; Dodds et al., 2009; Paerl et al., 2011; O'Neil et al., 2012). Total phosphorus demonstrated a weak relationship with MC concentrations in the Harris Chain of Lakes in Florida (Bigham et al., 2009), which is consistent with the weak relationship observed between phosphate and total MCs and NODs in Lake Manatee and Lake Washington.”

In the published article, there was an error in the units of concentration in Figures 4, 5, and 6 as published. In addition, the presentation of Figure 5 was representative of phosphate as opposed to nitrite. The corrected Figures 4, 5, and 6 are presented below.

There was an error in the presentation of results in Table 3. These originally stated r 0.955 and 0.986, N 24 and 30, and p < 0.01 and < 0.01 for nitrite and phosphate, respectively, in Lake Manatee, and r 0.876 and 0.988, N 25 and 30, and p < 0.01 and < 0.01 for nitrite and phosphate, respectively, in Lake Washington.

The corrected Table 3 appears below.

In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Table 3. The units of concentration were missing, as well as the nutrient concentration levels for Sample ID 30 in Lake Manatee and Lake Washington. The correct material statement appears below.

The original article has been updated.