This corrigendum corrects two mistakes in the original publication. (1) The research presented in this article relied on measurements of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) using eddy covariance over a no-till corn (Zea mays L.)/soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) agricultural ecosystem. The estimates were extracted from previous reports from this eddy covariance experiment located near Bondville, IL (Hollinger et al., 2005). A corrigendum has been issued for the Hollinger et al. (2005) estimates of NEE for this experiment, which in turn alters the figure and tables presented here. The corrected value for NEE+grain C removed from the field (Cgr) for soybean is 1241 kg ha−1 yr−1 (Table 1), instead of 938 kg ha−1 yr−1 as was previously reported. This correction reduced the estimate for the current C sink associated with no-till agriculture from 2.17 to 1.28 Tg of C fixed annually, and increases the estimated contribution of C into the atmosphere of the corn/soybean agricultural ecosystem. Finally, the error reduces the net C sequestration potential of corn/soybean agriculture from 28.86 to 20.77 Tg assuming a complete conversion of this ecosystem to no-till cultivation (Table 2). The correction of these errors leads to a lower cumulated NEE as shown in Fig. 1. Cumulative net ecosystem exchange of carbon (NEE) measured using eddy covariance over a 6-year period (1997–2003) in which maize and soybean were grown in rotation. Data shows a large carbon sink after 6 years (solid line). However, the large quantity of carbon removed from the field as grain yields accounts for much of this sink (cross-hatched area). Inclusion of the carbon costs of agriculture associated with fossil fuel emissions from planting, harvests, and application of inputs, along with carbon costs of fertilizers, herbicides, and other inputs results in the system becoming less of a C sink (shaded area). Although the correction diminishes the sink by about 30% it does not change the overall conclusions of the original paper.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bernacchi et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: