SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

In the paper by Subke et al. Trends and methodological impacts in soil CO2 efflux partitioning: a meta-analytical review, 12, 921–943, some values reported in Table 1 are incorrect. All RH/RS ratios reported from Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006) are in fact RA/RS ratios, so that the correct values should read as printed here (Table 1).

Table 1. 
BiomeEcosystemMethodAgeStepRSRH/RSReference
TemperateConiferous forestr regMa6700.84Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)
r regMa6480.60Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)
r regMa5760.48Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)
r regMa6440.74Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)
r regMa7730.53Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)
r regMa10150.42Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)
Deciduous forestr regMa10790.49Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)

This change affects the mean flux ratios calculated for the root regression technique to an extent that the data no longer support a consistent underestimation compared with other techniques, as we state in the original article (p. 937 and Table 4). The updated Fig. 5 of the original paper is reproduced here. However, the general discussion of assumptions underlying this technique remains valid, and no other conclusion drawn from the analysis is affected by this error. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

image

Figure 5.  Weighted means of total soil CO2 efflux (RS) and heterotrophic flux contributions (RH/RS) for studies reporting annual fluxes, with the number of studies per technique indicated in the legend. Means are weighted by reciprocal of the variance of ln(RH/RS), and error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. The regression line is calculated for all ecosystem types, and includes all techniques.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Reference

  1. Top of page
  2. Reference