Correction: Crop rotation patterns affect the growth, soil properties, and rhizosphere microbiome of cut chrysanthemums

The funding statement was incorrect as published and did not include the grant number.The incorrect Funding statement is below: "The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication."The corrected Funding statement is below: "This work was supported by the Key Research and Development Program of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (2026BBF02015), and Key Laboratory of Biology and Genetic Improvement of Flower Crops (North China), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs."The Author Contribution section did not include all appropriate contributions as published.The incorrect Author Contribution statement is below: The Data Availability statement was incorrect as published.The incorrect Data Availability statement is below: "Sequencing raw data is available on the NCBI, with the accession number PRJNA1468310."The correct Data Availability statement is below: "The high-throughput sequencing data related to this study can be accessed through NCBI with the accession number PRJNA1468310. All other data are included in this article and its additional files. for further inquiries, please contact the corresponding author."In the published article, Figures 1 and2 were not published with the corrected image provided.The correct Figures 1 and2 Numerous references did not include correct page ranges. These references have been updated accordingly.A correction has been made to the Results section of the Abstract, page 1.The incorrect sentence is below: "At 60 days of growth, cut chrysanthemums under crop rotation systems exhibited significant increases stem in diameter, as well as fresh and dry weights of both aboveground and underground biomass, compared to continuous cropping."The correct sentence is below: "At 60 days of growth, cut chrysanthemums under crop rotation systems exhibited significant increases in stem diameter, as well as fresh and dry weights of both aboveground and underground biomass, compared to continuous cropping."A correction has been made to the Conclusion section of the Abstract, page 1.The incorrect sentence is below: "Maize rotation excels in regulating soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities, whereas cabbage rotation is more effective in promoting nutritional growth period plant biomass, accumulating soil phosphorus, and inhibiting pathogenic fungi."The corrected sentence is below: "Maize rotation excels in regulating soil enzyme activities and bacterial communities, whereas cabbage rotation is more effective in promoting plant biomass during the vegetative growth stage, accumulating soil phosphorus, and inhibiting pathogenic fungi."The original version of this article has been updated.