Advertisement

Correction to: Biochemical determinants of litter quality in 15 species of Sphagnum

  • Fia BengtssonEmail author
  • Håkan Rydin
  • Tomáš Hájek
Correction
  • 148 Downloads

Correction to: Plant Soil (2018) 425, 161–176

  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-018-3579-8

There were mistakes in the data of three variables used in this study. The corrections listed below have minor effects on statistics and p-values, but do not change any conclusions. Correct data are stored in the Dryad repository ( https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.4f8d2.2).

Loss in the lab

Most samples of the variable “labloss2b” differed 0.6–0.7% from the correct values. The errors in two samples were larger (MG2 decrease 1.3%, and TE3 increase 4.9%).

Loss in the field

One sample of S. fuscum, FU13, had a value for “lossfield” that should have been excluded due to ingrowth of roots in the litterbag.

CN ratio

Some C:N ratio values had been sorted wrongly within species. Because some numbers have moved between the bog and fen samples of S. fuscum, and between the open bog and pine bog samples of S. magellanicum, these have changes in averages (S. fus. Bog 27.1; S. fus. Fen +27.1; S. mag. Open 1.1; S. mag. Pine +1.1).

Specific changes in the text:

Abstract, right column, line 9 “0.57” should read “0.56”

p. 167

left column, line 44 “0.57” should read “0.56”.

right column, line 2 “0.48” should read “0.38”.

line 3 “0.006” should read “0.009”, and “59” should read “57”.

line 28 “93” should read “96” and “−1.67” should read “−1.74”.

line 36 “0.56” should read “0.55”, “0.59” should read “0.58”.

line 45 “0.005” should read “0.002”, “0.5” should read “0.7”.

line 47 “0.003” should read “0.0004”, and “0.6” should read “0.9”.

line 48- “…carbon concentration, CN ratio and phosphorus concentration (r = 0.33, 0.28, 0.31, respectively).” should read “carbon concentration and phosphorus concentration (r = 0.31 and 0.32, respectively).”

p. 168left column, line 3 “0.004” should read “0.008”.

p. 169right column, line 1″ 0.47″ should read “0.49”.

p. 171left column, line 50.38” should read0.37”.

Figures with changes:
Fig. 3

The variance explained for PC1 is 36% (not 35%), for PC2 22% (not 23%). The noticeable change in the figure is that FU_1 and FU_2 come closer together

Fig. 4

Two samples have moved along the y-axis, but R2- and p-values did not change

Changes in Table 3. The correlations between lab mass loss and other variables were practically the same using the correct data. There were more changes in correlations with CN ratio. Correlations with KL and Total KL changed from positive to negative, but remained insignificant; the correlation with soluble phenolics that was reported not significant (r = 0.082), became significant (r = 0.23); other changes were with HC (from r = 0.31 to r = 0.21), CEC (from r = 0.32 to r = 0.21) and N (from r = 0.94 to r = 0.70). Other changes were even smaller.

Corrected values for C:N ratio and Lab litter mass loss in Supplementary Table 1.

Species

C:N ratio

Lab litter mass loss %

S. angustifolium

70.8 ± 4

63.2 ± 1.6

S. balticum

99.3 ± 1.5

44.4 ± 3.9

S. capillifolium

88.8 ± 5.2

17.2 ± 3.7

S. contortum

64 ± 4.9

27.2 ± 0.5

S. cuspidatum

63.6 ± 7.6

63.1 ± 1.6

S. fallax

80.7 ± 3.5

47.1 ± 3.3

S. fuscum - bog

87.2 ± 4.5

9.0 ± 2.1

S. fuscum - fen

115 ± 4.6

17.4 ± 1.2

S. girgensohnii

49 ± 4.9

45.9 ± 3.5

S. lindbergii

71.1 ± 6

29.1 ± 2.3

S. magellanicum -open bog

76.2 ± 4.6

24.2 ± 2.5

S. magellanicum -pine bog

68.3 ± 6.4

18.0 ± 2.5

S. magellanicum -spruce forest

48.3 ± 2.4

39.4 ± 6.6

S. majus

74 ± 7.5

48.1 ± 5.2

S. papillosum

73.8 ± 6.7

29.8 ± 3.3

S. rubellum

97.1 ± 4.8

38.7 ± 2.2

S. tenellum

89 ± 4.8

45.3 ± 7.4

S. warnstorfii

74.9 ± 1.8

20.3 ± 2

Corrected models and R2-values in Supplementary Table 3. Models predicting decomposition of Sphagnum litter (mass loss (%) after 14 months incubation in lab).

Predictors*

Model (intercept+predictor coefficients)

R2

sphagnan

80.21.13x

R2 = 0.38

soluble phenolics

66.43.88x

R2 = 0.32

total Klason lignin

76.50.14x

R2 = 0.36

sphagnan+soluble phenolics+total KL

95.90.65 × 11.74 × 20.071 × 3

R2adj = 0.53

sphagnan+soluble phenolics

88.20.82 × 12.49 × 2

R2adj = 0.48

sphagnan+total KL

93.60.78 × 10.10 × 2

R2adj = 0.49

sphagnan+soluble phenolics+total KL + N

86.00.62 × 11.69 × 20.074 × 3 + 1.47 × 4

R2adj = 0.55

sphagnan+soluble phenolics+total KL + P

92.10.71 × 11.55 × 20.073 × 3 + 15.3 × 4

R2adj = 0.58

CEC

94.40.083x

R2 = 0.38

CEC + soluble phenolics+total KL

101.50.046 × 11.92 × 20.062 × 3

R2adj = 0.51

CEC + soluble phenolics

99.00.061 × 12.48 × 2

R2adj = 0.48

CEC + total KL

99.40.055 × 10.088 × 2

R2adj = 0.46

CEC + soluble phenolics+total KL + N

90.10.039 × 11.92 × 20.069 × 3 + 1.36 × 4

R2adj = 0.53

CEC + soluble phenolics+total KL + P

97.90.051 × 11.72 × 20.062 × 3 + 16.25 × 4

R2adj = 0.57

Sum of sphagnan, soluble phenolics and total KL (each scaled and centered and used as one predictor)

35.35.1x

R2 = 0.54

*Predictor units: CEC in μeq g−1, all other predictors in mg g−1

Table 3

Correlations (showing r =) among variables describing lab mass loss and concentrations of metabolites and nutrients; bold denotes significant correlation (P < 0.05)

 

Sphagnan mg g−1

Soluble phenolics mg g−1

Klason lignin mg g−1

Soluble KL% of total KL

Total Klason lignin mg g−1

CEC μeq g−1

C mg g−1

N mg g−1

C:N ratio

PO4–P μg g−1

Lab litter mass loss %

Holocellulose mg g−1

0.268

−0.071

−0.027

0.113

−0.004

0.268

−0.103

−0.330

0.210

−0.160

−0.074

Sphagnan mg g−1

 

0.448

0.459

−0.400

0.471

0.568

0.152

−0.088

0.087

0.085

−0.614

Soluble phenolics mg g−1

  

0.518

−0.489

0.524

0.457

0.490

−0.050

0.230

−0.048

−0.568

Klason lignin mg g−1

   

−0.940

0.998

0.573

0.468

0.012

−0.038

0.046

−0.588

Soluble KL% of total KL

    

−0.927

−0.504

−0.389

−0.108

0.133

−0.140

0.488

Total KL mg g−1

     

0.586

0.480

−0.003

−0.019

0.026

−0.601

CEC μeq g−1

      

0.279

−0.229

0.213

0.093

−0.619

C mg g−1

       

−0.233

0.263

−0.429

−0.539

N mg g−1

        

−0.698

0.699

0.237

C:N ratio

         

−0.546

−0.280

PO4–P μg g−1

          

0.223

Notes

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology CentreUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Experimental Plant Biology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Functional EcologyInstitute of Botany of the Czech Academy of SciencesTřeboňCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations