Erratum to: Photosynth Res (2016) 128:169–181 DOI 10.1007/s11120-015-0215-9

The original publication contained the following errors:

  1. 1.

    Page 177, 1st column, 13th line from the top: The spectral range should be corrected to 540–580 nm (540–540 nm in the original):

    “The range where the two states interconnect—540–580 nm, as distinguished by the SADS in Fig. 6a,—contains a reasonable contribution from both excited state species, thus elucidating why the 555 nm PDP traces in Fig. 4d do not show an obvious gain or loss tendency (as opposed to ones exemplified in the neighboring regions).”

  1. 2.

    Page 177, 2nd column, 1st line: The provided average reciprocal interstate equilibrium rate is calculated incorrectly—it should be evaluated as the difference of the two resolved rates (and not the reciprocal rates τ). The equation should be corrected from the original \( \Delta \tau = \tau_{{S_{1} \to ICT}} - \tau_{{ICT \to S_{1} }} = 1.7\;{\text{ps}} \) to:

    $$ \Delta \tau = \left( {\tau_{{S_{1} \to ICT}}^{ - 1} - \tau_{{ICT \to S_{1} }}^{ - 1} } \right)^{ - 1} \approx 5.8\;{\text{ps}} $$

    A correction should also be made in the Concluding remarks, regarding this value (page 179, 1st column, 5th row from the bottom):

    “This equilibrium is restored with an average reciprocal rate of 5.8 ps after an ultrafast stimulated emission is imposed upon the ICT.”

These corrections do not change the results, interpretations, and the overall conclusions of the original paper. The numeric value of ∆τ is a by-product from the globally fit parameters describing the interstate equilibrium that are correctly presented in Table 1 in the article; therefore, the model used to describe the data remains unchanged.