Correction to persistence of fire-killed conifer snags in California, USA

Correction to: Fire Ecol 15, 1 (2019).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-018-0007-7

After publication of the original article Grayson et al. (2019) the authors noticed the following errors:

• 1. In Table 3, the white fir model should have a CI:DBH interaction, not CI:PGC as listed. The values are correct, but they are on the wrong line.

• 2. In Fig. 4 the curves are incorrect and so is the caption where the description of a and b panels are switched. The model is correct, but the curves were plotted incorrectly.

Table 3 Coefficient estimates of regressions (from Eqs. 1–3: α₁, α₂, etc., are the covariate coefficients corresponding to x₁, x₂, etc.; μ is the intercept; and σ is the scale); coefficient standard error estimate in parentheses. Variable codes are: diameter at breast height (DBH; cm); crown injury percent (CI); years to mortality post fire (YTD), and protected by green conifers (PGC; 0 = no and 1 = yes) by species and status. Species codes are: IC = incense cedar; SP = sugar pine; WF = white fir; and YP = yellow pine. Superscript numbers indicate model-averaged variable importance rank. ΔAIC is the difference between this model and the best AIC model. Those terms that are less than 0.8 in model-averaged importance are noted with an asterisk (*)

Fig. 4

Yellow pine predicted snag persistence once a tree dies from wildfire (1 = standing; 0 = downed or < 3.65 m tall) from covariate model when (a) unprotected by green conifers and (b) protected. Year to death = number of years tree survives a wildfire. CI = crown injury from fire. Fire-killed tree data were collected from five fires in California that were monitored for 10 years after death. In (b), CI = 75% lines overlap for the plotted values

Table 3 and Fig. 4 and the captions have been updated along with the text in the result and discussion sections, which were wrong as a result of Tables 3 and 4. The updated information is available in this correction article. This does not affect the conclusions of the article.

Associated corrected text in result section:

• Larger white fir and yellow pine snags with lower CI stood longest compared to similarly sized snags with high CI. Smaller white fir and unprotected yellow pine snags with higher CI persisted longer than similarly sized snags with low CI (Figs. 3c and 4). These interactions in pattern occurred around 50 cm DBH and 50% CI for white fir and 30 cm DBH and 50% CI for unprotected yellow pine. Yellow pine smaller than 30 cm DBH that were protected by green conifers lasted longer than unprotected snags (Fig. 4a, b); however, protection by green conifers dramatically decreased the probability of persistence of large yellow pine snags as CI increased (Fig. 4a, b).

Associated corrected text in discussion section:

• Higher crown injury in smaller white fir and unprotected yellow pine led to increased persistence.