Corrigendum

Errata

This article corrects:

  1. Chlorophyll content and fluorescence responses cannot be used to gauge reliably phytoplankton biomass, nutrient status or growth rate Volume 169, Issue 3, 525–536, Article first published online: 24 November 2005

New Phytologist (2006), 169: 525–536

Since its publication, the authors of Kruskopf & Flynn (2006) have brought to our attention corrections that need to be made to Figs 1–3 and 8 in their paper. In Fig. 1 and 2 the x-axis values of the graphs relating to Scrippsiella trochoidea should read 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 d; the corrected Figs 3 and 8 are reprinted below.

Figure 3.

Changes in the normalized values of the initial slope of the rapid light curve (RLC), α, and the plateau value, ETRmax (maximum electron transport rate). Measurements were made during the final batch growth cycles of nitrogen (N)-limited Dunaliella primalecta, Emiliania huxleyi, Thalassiosira weissflogii and Scrippsiella trochoidea (Fig. 1) and P-limited S. trochoidea (S. trochoidea-P; Fig. 2).

Figure 8.

Changes in the pulse amplitude modulation (PAM)-derived ratio of variable to maximum fluorescence (FV/FM) after spiking with NO3[final additional concentration of 100 m nitrogen (N)] plus PO43–[final concentration of 6.25 m phosphorus (P)]. Measurements were made during the final batch growth cycles of N-limited Dunaliella primalecta, Emiliania huxleyi, Thalassiosira weissflogii and Scrippsiella trochoidea (Fig. 1) and P-limited S. trochoidea (S. trochoidea-P; Fig. 2). The initial value is indicated by an open circle; different line types indicate different series of incubations.

We apologize to our readers for these mistakes.

Ancillary