Wetlands

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 419–421 | Cite as

Erratum to: Magnitude and Trophic Fate of Black Needlerush (Juncus Roemerianus) Productivity: Does Nutrient Addition Matter?

  • Amy Hunter
  • Just Cebrian
  • Jason P. Stutes
  • David Patterson
  • Bart Christiaen
  • Celine Lafabrie
  • Josh Goff
Erratum

Erratum to: Wetlands

DOI 10.1007/s13157-014-0611-5

Table 2 in the paper Magnitude and Trophic Fate of Black Needlerush (Juncus Roemerianus) Productivity: Does Nutrient Addition Matter? is missing the heading for the variables “Rhizome Biomass”, “Root Biomass”, “Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in live leaf biomass” and “Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in dead leaf biomass”. This heading should be located following the “Within Subjects” “Error” row for the variables “Porewater N concentration”, “Porewater P concentration”, “Aboveground live biomass” and “Aboveground dead biomass”. The “Within Subjects” “Error” row for the variables “Rhizome Biomass”, “Root Biomass”, “Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in live leaf biomass” and “Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in dead leaf biomass” is also missing. We now provide the correct version of Table 2.

Table 2. Results of repeated-measures ANOVA
 

Porewater N concentration

Porewater P concentration

Aboveground live biomass

Aboveground dead biomass

Source of variation

df

F

p

df

F

p

df

F

p

df

F

p

Between subjects

Site

1

2.3

0.16

1

15.5

≤0.05

1

0.9

0.36

1

1.6

0.23

Treatment

1

9.7

≤0.05

1

8.3

≤0.05

1

0.0

0.95

1

0.5

0.51

Site × treatment

1

0.3

0.60

1

0.0

0.95

1

0.3

0.60

1

0.4

0.53

Error

11

  

11

  

10

  

10

  

Within subjects

Time

14

17.8

≤0.05

14

10.6

≤0.05

6

6.5

≤0.05

6

2.7

≤0.05

Time × site

14

1.5

0.10

14

1.5

0.11

6

2.7

≤0.05

6

1.8

0.12

Time × treatment

14

4.3

≤0.05

14

2.8

≤0.05

6

0.8

0.57

6

0.8

0.57

Time × site × treatment

14

0.6

0.84

14

0.8

0.64

6

1.2

0.33

6

1.1

0.36

Error

154

  

154

  

60

  

60

  
 

Rhizome biomass

Root biomass

Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in live leaf biomass

Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in dead leaf biomass

Source of variation

df

F

p

df

F

p

df

F

p

df

F

p

Between subjects

Site

1

10.7

≤0.05

1

4.0

0.07

1

4.0

0.07

1

9.9

≤0.05

Treatment

1

3.9

0.07

1

0.3

0.62

1

3.2

0.10

1

8.1

≤0.05

Site × treatment

1

0.1

0.73

1

0.2

0.68

1

0.3

0.60

1

0.7

0.41

Error

11

  

11

  

12

  

12

  

Within subjects

Time

6

7.1

≤0.05

6

28.8

≤0.05

2

113.1

≤0.05

2

58.2

≤0.05

Time × site

6

1.6

0.16

6

2.0

0.08

2

5.6

≤0.05

2

1.5

0.25

Time × treatment

6

0.7

0.64

6

1.2

0.32

2

1.3

0.28

2

2.7

0.09

Time × site × treatment

6

1.2

0.34

6

1.7

0.12

2

1.5

0.23

2

1.6

0.22

Error

66

  

66

  

24

  

24

  
 

Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in rhizome biomass

Carbon to Nitrogen ratio in root biomass

Carbon to Phosphorus ratio in live leaf biomass

Carbon to Phosphorus ratio in dead leaf biomass

Source of variation

df

F

p

df

F

p

df

F

p

df

F

p

Between subjects

Site

1

2.1

0.18

1

37.4

≤0.05

1

13.8

≤0.05

1

15.5

≤0.05

Treatment

1

0.0

0.85

1

0.8

0.40

1

1.9

0.19

1

2.0

0.18

Site × treatment

1

1.5

0.24

1

8.2

≤0.05

1

0.0

0.91

1

0.1

0.82

Error

10

  

11

  

12

  

12

  

Within subjects

Time

2

13.5

≤0.05

2

33.3

≤0.05

2

14.4

≤0.05

2

3.1

0.07

Time × site

2

1.7

0.21

2

9.7

≤0.05

2

2.2

0.13

2

0.0

0.98

Time × treatment

2

0.9

0.43

2

1.2

0.32

2

0.5

0.64

2

0.1

0.93

Time × site × treatment

2

0.3

0.74

2

0.1

0.90

2

0.7

0.52

2

0.2

0.84

Error

20

  

22

  

24

  

24

  
 

Carbon to Phosphorus ratio in rhizome biomass

Carbon to Phosphorus ratio in root biomass

Leaf productivity

Herbivory

Source of variation

df

F

p

df

F

p

df

F

p

df

F

p

Between subjects

Site

1

4.7

0.06

1

0.6

0.47

1

11.5

≤0.05

1

2.1

0.17

Treatment

1

1.8

0.21

1

0.9

0.38

1

2.2

0.16

1

0.1

0.80

Site × treatment

1

0.7

0.42

1

0.7

0.43

1

1.1

0.32

1

1.6

0.24

Error

10

  

10

  

12

  

12

  

Within subjects

Time

2

1. 8

0.19

2

0.3

0.73

5

28.4

≤0.05

5

13.6

≤0.05

Time × site

2

0.3

0.75

2

0.3

0.74

5

7.8

≤0.05

5

2.7

≤0.05

Time × treatment

2

0.3

0.73

2

0.6

0.57

5

0.9

0.49

5

1.0

0.42

Time × site × treatment

2

1.1

0.36

2

0.4

0.68

5

2.0

0.10

5

1.7

0.15

Error

20

  

20

  

60

  

60

  

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Hunter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Just Cebrian
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jason P. Stutes
    • 2
  • David Patterson
    • 2
  • Bart Christiaen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Celine Lafabrie
    • 4
  • Josh Goff
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  2. 2.Dauphin Island Sea LabDauphin IslandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Marine SciencesUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  4. 4.ECOSYM, Ecology of Coastal Marine SystemsMontpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations