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).
|Temperate||Coniferous forest||r reg||M||a||670||0.84||Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)|
|r reg||M||a||648||0.60||Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)|
|r reg||M||a||576||0.48||Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)|
|r reg||M||a||644||0.74||Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)|
|r reg||M||a||773||0.53||Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)|
|r reg||M||a||1015||0.42||Rodeghiero & Cescatti (2006)|
|Deciduous forest||r reg||M||a||1079||0.49||Rodeghiero & 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.