Article first published online: 30 JUL 2010
© The Authors (2010). Journal compilation © New Phytologist Trust (2010)
Special Issue: Featured papers on ‘The Ectocarpus genome sequence’
Volume 188, Issue 1, page 302, October 2010
How to Cite
(2010), Corrigendum. New Phytologist, 188: 302. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03435.x
- Issue published online: 2 SEP 2010
- Article first published online: 30 JUL 2010
Vol. 186, Issue 4, 879–889, Article first published online: 19 MAR 2010
- leaching resistance;
- nutrient resorption;
- organ senescence;
- plant economics;
New Phytologist186 (2010), 879–889
Since its publication, the authors of Freschet et al. (2010) have brought to our attention that there is an error in the Materials and Methods section of their article. Under the subheading ‘Nutrient resorption measurements’, in the second sentence of the second paragraph, the ratio for correcting the litter nutrient content was incorrectly stated (the words ‘mature material lignin content’ and ‘litter lignin content’ were reversed). The correct sentence is as follows:
Litter nutrient content was corrected for fractional change in the measurement basis (FCMB) using lignin content as a reference value (van Heerwaarden et al., 2003), that is, it was multiplied by the ratio of mature material lignin content to litter lignin content.
We apologize to our readers for this mistake.
- 2010. Substantial nutrient resorption from leaves, stems and roots in a subarctic flora: what is the link with other resource economics traits? New Phytologist 186: 879–889. , , , .
- 2003. Current measures of nutrient resorption efficiency lead to a substantial underestimation of real resorption efficiency: facts and solutions. Oikos 101: 664–669. , , .