Unfortunately, we noticed that in our published paper [1] the numbers of ticks co-infected with Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato) (s.l.) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum were partly incorrect as one adult female tick was detected false-positive for A. phagocytophilum infection. Corrected data showed that none of the female or adult ticks was co-infected with Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Among all tick stages, only six instead of seven out of 2,100 ticks were infected with both pathogens, but the prevalence of 0.3 % reported in [1] remained unchanged. The corrected Table 4 is included below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

	No. of collected ticks	No. of B. burgdorferi (s.l.) positive ticks	Total co-infections	Rickettsia spp. co-infections	A. phagocytophilum co-infections	Co-infections with Rickettsia spp. and A. phagocytophilum
		No. (%)	No. (%)	No. (%)	No. (%)	No. (%)
Adults	372	124 (33.3)	43 (11.6)	42 (11.3)	0 (na*)	0 (na*)
Males	196	58 (29.6)	22 (11.2)	22 (11.2)	0 (na*)	0 (na*)
Females	176	66 (37.5)	21 (11.9)	20 (11.4)	0 (na*)	0 (na*)
Nymphs	1697	344 (20.3)	120 (7.1)	111 (6.5)	6 (0.4)	3 (0.2)
Larvae	31	8 (25.8)	0 (na*)	0 (na*)	0 (na*)	0 (na*)
All stages	2,100	476 (22.7)	163 (7.8)	153 (7.3)	6 (0.3)	3 (0.1)

*na, not applicable