Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance

Authors

Errata

This article corrects:

  1. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance Volume 17, Issue 6, 2134–2144, Article first published online: 11 January 2011

Corrigendum for Medlyn et al. 2011, Global Change Biology 17: 2134–2144.

A factor of 1.6 (converting from conductance to CO2 to conductance to water vapour) was inadvertently missed in the derivation of the model (see revised Appendix). The model as derived therefore applies to stomatal conductance to CO2 rather than stomatal conductance to water vapour. The parameter values presented in the paper were incorrectly derived by fitting the model to values of conductance to water vapour.

The model for stomatal conductance to water vapour is (replacing Eqn 11):

display math(1)

where gs* is the optimal stomatal conductance to water vapour and g0 is the residual conductance to water vapour. Note that it was also incorrectly stated that g1 is dimensionless; when D is expressed in kPa then g1 has units of kPa0.5.

Equation (13) should then read

display math(2)

and Equation (14) should read

display math(3)

where P is atmospheric pressure in kPa.

The parameter values obtained by fitting Eqn (11) to data (Table 2) should read:

Dataset g 0 g 1 R 2
Sitka A0.031 (0.003)0.87 (0.09)0.736
Sitka B0.020 (0.008)1.24 (0.27)0.728
Duke Pine−0.011 (0.013)*2.82 (0.31)0.523
Alpine Ash−0.007 (0.014)*3.48 (0.29)0.794
Macchia0.027 (0.01)3.11 (0.56)0.605
Fagus−0.049 (0.025)*3.94 (0.58)0.780
Savanna−0.007 (0.021)*6.55 (0.61)0.677
Red Gum0.008 (0.007)*6.88 (0.61)0.681

The values of g1 listed in the caption to Figure 3 (obtained by fitting Eqn 11 without the intercept g0) should read: Sitka A, 1.7; Sitka B, 1.8; Duke Pine, 2.6; Fagus, 2.8; Alpine Ash, 3.3; Macchia, 4.5; Savanna, 6.4; Red Gum, 7.4.

Ancillary