Correction to: Plant Molecular Biology (2014) 84:19–36 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-013-0115-3

Due to an error in combining the figure, an incorrect version of Fig. 9e was presented in the original publication. The photograph of induced expression line IE-4 treated by PEG was accidentally duplicated from Fig. 7d. The adjusted Fig. 9e with the correct photograph of IE-4 treated with PEG is published here as well as the corrected figure legend.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Inducible expression of OsbZIP71 under the control of an inducible promoter RD29A enhanced drought tolerance but sensitive to salt in rice. a The expression of OsbZIP71 in transgenic lines by real-time PCR analysis under drought treatment for 3 h. b The expression of OsbZIP71 in transgenic lines by real-time PCR analysis under salt treatment for 3 h. The error bars indicate standard deviation, values are derived from three independent biological experiments. WT wild type Zhonghua11; IE-3 and IE-4 were independent inducible expression lines. c The survival rates of wild type and transgenic lines after recovery from drought and salt treatment. All experiments were performed with three biological replicates (n = 120 each). d, e OsbZIP71 inducible expression lines exhibited more tolerance to drought stress (e) but sensitivity to salt (d) compared to wild type plants. Statistical analysis by Student’s t-test indicated significant difference (**P < 0.01)

Full size image

The ‘Materials and methods’ section was also adjusted accordingly. On page 21, line 5 of the first paragraph, in ‘Stress tolerance assays’ should read: For the salt treatment, 14-day-old seedlings were transferred to IRRI solution containing NaCl (150 mM) for 8–9 days, and then plants were recovered under normal conditions for another 7–9 days. For PEG treatment, 14-day-old seedlings were transferred to culture solution containing 20% (w/v) PEG 6000 for 5–6 days and then returned to normal conditions for another 7–9 days.

In the ‘Results’ section, on page 28, line 3 from the bottom of the left-hand column should be corrected as ‘was 35% after salt treatment for 8 days’.

The original results and conclusions are unaffected by these corrections. The authors apologize and accept responsibility for not detecting the error prior to publication. All the authors approve these corrections.