Changes in biocrust cover drive carbon cycle responses to climate change in drylands

In the paper by Maestre et al. Changes in biocrust cover drive carbon cycle responses to climate change in drylands, 19, 3835–3847, some values reported in Fig. 5 (panel d) and Figure S8 (panel f) are incorrect. We have detected a numerical error in the calculation of the fungi : bacteria ratio values obtained 46 months after the beginning of the study. This error affects to aforementioned figures, and to three sentences of our manuscript where these results are presented and/or discussed. The sentence ’46 months later, the fungal : bacterial ratio increased with warming in both low (F_1,13 = 14.23, P = 0.002) and high (F_1,12 = 15.27, P = 0.002) biocrust cover plots, albeit the magnitude of the increase was substantially lower when both warming and RE treatments acted together (F_{Warming × RE} >5.44, P < 0.040 in all cases)’ (page 3839) should be reads as ‘46 months later, the fungal : bacterial ratio increased with warming in both low (F_1,13 = 16.97, P = 0.001) and high (F_1,13 = 12.04, P = 0.004) biocrust cover plots, albeit the magnitude of the increase was substantially higher when both warming and RE treatments acted together in the low biocrust cover plots (F_Warming × _RE = 5.23, df = 1,13, P = 0.040).’. The sentence ‘Increases in the fungal : bacterial ratio were also observed in those plots that experienced reductions in biocrust cover (Fig. 5d)’ (page 3839) should be deleted, as the relationship shown in the original Fig. 5d no longer holds true once the correct data are used. The sentence ‘It is interesting to note that this ratio was associated with recalcitrant C sources 46 months after the beginning of the experiment in Aranjuez (phenols, ρ = 0.526, P = 0.002; aromatic compounds, ρ = 0.567, P = 0.001, n = 33)’ (page 3844) should be replaced by ‘It is interesting to note that this ratio was associated with recalcitrant C sources 46 months after the beginning of the experiment in Aranjuez (phenols, ρ = 0.471, P = 0.005; aromatic compounds, ρ = 0.475, P = 0.005, n = 34)’. The corrected Fig. 5 is reproduced below, and the corrected version of Figure S8 has been included in the Supporting Information of the article. The general discussion based on these figures remains, however, valid, and no other conclusion drawn from our data and analyses is affected by this error. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.