Corrigendum
2016; Wiley; Volume: 211; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Alemão
10.1111/nph.14055
ISSN1469-8137
Tópico(s)Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
ResumoNew PhytologistVolume 211, Issue 3 p. 1142-1142 CorrigendumFree Access Corrigendum This article corrects the following: Global variability in leaf respiration in relation to climate, plant functional types and leaf traits Owen K. Atkin, Keith J. Bloomfield, Peter B. Reich, Mark G. Tjoelker, Gregory P. Asner, Damien Bonal, Gerhard Bönisch, Matt G. Bradford, Lucas A. Cernusak, Eric G. Cosio, Danielle Creek, Kristine Y. Crous, Tomas F. Domingues, Jeffrey S. Dukes, John J. G. Egerton, John R. Evans, Graham D. Farquhar, Nikolaos M. Fyllas, Paul P. G. Gauthier, Emanuel Gloor, Teresa E. Gimeno, Kevin L. Griffin, Rossella Guerrieri, Mary A. Heskel, Chris Huntingford, Françoise Yoko Ishida, Jens Kattge, Hans Lambers, Michael J. Liddell, Jon Lloyd, Christopher H. Lusk, Roberta E. Martin, Ayal P. Maksimov, Trofim C. Maximov, Yadvinder Malhi, Belinda E. Medlyn, Patrick Meir, Lina M. Mercado, Nicholas Mirotchnick, Desmond Ng, Ülo Niinemets, Odhran S. O'Sullivan, Oliver L. Phillips, Lourens Poorter, Pieter Poot, I. Colin Prentice, Norma Salinas, Lucy M. Rowland, Michael G. Ryan, Stephen Sitch, Martijn Slot, Nicholas G. Smith, Matthew H. Turnbull, Mark C. VanderWel, Fernando Valladares, Erik J. Veneklaas, Lasantha K. Weerasinghe, Christian Wirth, Ian J. Wright, Kirk R. Wythers, Jen Xiang, Shuang Xiang, Joana Zaragoza-Castells, Volume 206Issue 2New Phytologist pages: 614-636 First Published online: January 8, 2015 First published: 10 June 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14055Citations: 1AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL New Phytologist 206 (2015), 614–636. Since its publication the authors of Atkin et al. (2015) have brought to our attention a number of typographical errors in the PFT-specific equations derived from the linear mixed-effects models as laid out in Table 6 of the main text and in the continuation to Supporting Information Table S4. These are corrected below, and in the revised Supporting Information file associated with the article. Table 6. Plant functional type (PFT)-specific equations (formulated from the ‘best’ mixed-effects models shown in Table 5) that can be used to predict variability in area-based (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1) (a) and mass-based (nmol CO2 g−1 s−1) (b) leaf respiration at 25°C (Rdark, a25 and Rdark,m25, respectively) (a) PFT-specific equations to predict variability in Rdark,a25 (‘best’ model) BlT: Rdark,a25 = 1.2636 + (0.0728 × ¢[N]a) + (0.0015 × ¢[P]a) + (0.0095 × ¢Vcmax,a25) – (0.0358 × ¢TWQ) C3H: Rdark,a25 = 1.7344 + (0.4122 × ¢[N]a) + (0.0015 × ¢[P]a) + (0.0095 × ¢Vcmax,a25) – (0.0358 × ¢TWQ) NlT: Rdark,a25 = 0.9041 + (0.1489 × ¢[N]a) + (0.0015 × ¢[P]a) + (0.0095 × ¢Vcmax,a25) – (0.0358 × ¢TWQ) S: Rdark,a25 = 1.5926 + (0.1415 × ¢[N]a) + (0.0015 × ¢[P]a) + (0.0095 × ¢Vcmax,a25) – (0.0358 × ¢TWQ) (b) PFT-specific equations to predict variability in Rdark,m25 (‘best’ model) BlT: Rdark,m25 = 8.5341 – (0.1306 × ¢[N]m) – (0.5670 × ¢[P]m) – (0.0137 × ¢Ma) + (0.0111 × ¢Vcmax,m25) + (0.1876 × ¢[N]m × ¢[P]m) C3H: Rdark,m25 = 2.9068 + (0.5946 × ¢[N]m) – (4.7978 × ¢[P]m) – (0.0137 × ¢Ma) + (0.0111 × ¢Vcmax,m25) + (0.1876 × ¢[N]m × ¢[P]m) NlT: Rdark,m25 = 15.3427 – (0.8589 × ¢[N]m) – (0.1539 × ¢[P]m) – (0.0137 × ¢Ma) + (0.0111 × ¢Vcmax,m25) + (0.1876 × ¢[N]m × ¢[P]m) S: Rdark,m25 = 5.6092 + (0.0299 × ¢[N]m) + (1.7663 × ¢[P]m) – (0.0137 × ¢Ma) + (0.0111 × ¢Vcmax,m25) + (0.1876 × ¢[N]m × ¢[P]m) Explanatory variables are: PFTs according to the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES; Clark et al., 2011): BlT (broadleaved trees), C3H (C3 metabolism herbs and grasses), NlT (needle-leaved trees) and S (shrubs); leaf nitrogen ([N]) and phosphorus ([P]) concentrations (g m−2 for area-based values and mg g−1 for mass-based values); leaf mass per unit area (Ma); Rubisco CO2 fixation capacity at 25°C (Vcmax25; μmol CO2 m−2 s−1 and nmol CO2 g−1 s−1 for area- and mass-based values, respectively); and mean temperature of the warmest quarter (TWQ, °C) (Hijmans et al., 2005). Note: equations refer to untransformed values of each response and explanatory variable; the continuous explanatory variables have been centred on their respective mean values (prefix ¢). The authors also present revised notation for the continuous explanatory variables to emphasize that these have been centred on the dataset mean value (prefix ¢ in the equations below). The step of centring continuous variables, in order to provide realistic intercept respiration terms, is explained in the paper's Materials and Methods section and also appears in the footnotes to Table 5 of the main text and Supporting Information Table S4. Some readers – particularly those interested in predicting variations in leaf respiration in existing modelling frameworks – may find it useful to consider the PFT-specific predictive equations in absolute form; here, we provide those absolute form equations for the first time. To illustrate how centred and absolute equation forms differ, we can consider the case of leaf nitrogen (N) where the intercept term for the centred equation represents respiration for broadleaved trees, with leaf N being set to the dataset mean value (in our case 2.13 g m−2); by contrast, for the absolute form, the intercept represents a notional respiration for broadleaved trees when leaf N is set to zero. When comparing equations under the two forms, the only term that differs is the PFT-specific intercept; coefficients relating to slopes and interactions are unaffected. We apologize to our readers for these mistakes. See the corrected Supporting Information Table S4: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/nph.13253/suppinfo. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr Ethan Butler for drawing their attention to the need for specifying that the predictive formulae as published adopt centred continuous variables. References Atkin OK, Bloomfield KJ, Reich PB, Tjoelker MG, Asner GP, Bonal D, Bönisch G, Bradford MG, Cernusak LA, Cosio EG et al. 2015. Global variability in leaf respiration in relation to climate, plant functional types and leaf traits. New Phytologist 206: 614– 636. Clark DB, Mercado LM, Sitch S, Jones CD, Gedney N, Best MJ, Pryor M, Rooney GG, Essery RLH, Blyth E et al. 2011. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2: carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics. Geoscientific Model Development 4: 701– 722. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25: 1965– 1978. Author for correspondence: Owen K. Atkin Tel +61 0 2 6125 5046 Email: [email protected] Citing Literature Volume211, Issue3August 2016Pages 1142-1142 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)