After being alerted by commenters on PubPeer, we identified an error in the body size data we initially used for our analyses: body size values were inadvertently assigned to the wrong individuals.From our documentation, we retained the original body size data and re-ran our analysis with the corrected data.While there were no changes in our main findings or conclusions drawn, we here report the corrected analyses.As in the original manuscript, there was no evidence for differences in body size among treatments (0-day treatment size estimate: 23.61 mm with 95% CI 22.58, 24.64; 7-day treatment: 23.18 mm 22.14, 24.20; 28-day treatment: 22.67 mm 21.65, 23.77), or interactions between treatment and body size (inclusion of the interaction did not improve model fit DIC = +1.29;where smaller DIC values are considered better fit) or treatment and observation (inclusion of the interaction did not improve model fit DIC = +2.11).The corrected analysis reveals a slight effect of body size on behaviour smaller fish are more active than larger fish (see updated Table 1 in Supplementary Information).Importantly, however, inclusion of the corrected body sizes does not alter our main findings and conclusions drawn: (i) substantial individual variation in behaviour emerges among genetically identical individuals isolated directly after birth into highly standardized environments and (ii) increasing levels of social experience during ontogeny do not affect levels of individual behavioural variation.The corrected data along with our analysis code have been uploaded to Dryad (see https://doi.org/10.
Bierbach et al. (Tue,) studied this question.