Correction to: Morphological variation of fine root systems and leaves in primary and secondary tropical forests of Hainan Island, China

1 Correction to: Annals of Forest Science (2020) 77:76 https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s13595-020-00977-7

This correction stands to correct the listed errors in the original article:

• 1 In the Abstract, under the Results subheading, a sentence reads: “From secondary to primary forests, mean root system diameter increased 0.4 mm, mean specific root length decreased 3.5 m kg⁻¹, and mean root system branching intensity decreased by 0.3 tips cm⁻¹."

The authors request this be changed and noted as: “From secondary to primary forests, mean root system diameter increased 0.4 mm, mean specific root length decreased 0.35 m g⁻¹, and mean root system branching intensity decreased by 0.3 tips cm⁻¹.

• 2. An error in the calculation of Specific Root Length (SRL) was identified, which resulted in the wrong units being presented in the published version. Thus, for the following paragraph found in the Results:

  “Regarding root morphology, the predicted-marginal mean difference in SRL was on average about 3.5 m kg⁻¹ greater in secondary than in primary forest (Fig. 4b). For example, in the secondary forest, values ranged from 26.0 (± 1.9) m kg⁻¹ for species in the Annonaceae to 78.3 (± 1.1) for the Juglandaceae. In the primary forest, values ranged from 23.8 (± 1.1) m kg⁻¹ for species in the Annonaceae to 71.9 (± 1.1) for the Juglandaceae.”

The authors request this be changed and noted as:

“Regarding root morphology, the predicted-marginal mean difference in SRL was on average about 0.35 m g⁻¹ greater in secondary than in primary forest (Fig. 4b). For example, in the secondary forest, values ranged from 2.60 (± 0.06) m g⁻¹ for species in the Annonaceae to 7.83 (± 0.06) for the Juglandaceae. In the primary forest, values ranged from 2.36 (± 0.06) m g⁻¹ for species in the Annonaceae to 7.17 (± 0.06) for the Juglandaceae.”

• 3. The analysis of variance model for SRL was re-run, resulting in very minor changes. Thus, changes to the statistics for SRL in Table 2 are requested. The table in the published version reads:

Trait (units)	Source	df	F	p	ω 2
Specific root length (m kg−1)	Species	71	10.26	***	0.238
	Forest type	1	7.10	**	0.002
	Species × Forest type	58	3.58	***	0.054
	Residuals	1818	–	–	–

The authors request this be changed and noted as:

Table 2 Analysis of variance table for linear models in the form: trait ~ species|family × forest type. Prior to model fitting, traits were log₁₀ transformed in the case of leaf area, root diameter, SRL, root tissue density, and root branching intensity to improve data normality

• 4. The units in Fig. 4b for SRL are incorrect in the published version. There was also an error in the units label for Fig. 4c, however this was just a typo, and not calculation error. The authors request this be changed to this revised figure (filename: “Fig. 4_ERRATUM.tiff”):

• 5. Linear regression models presented in Table 3 were re-run, again, resulting in very minor changes. Model slopes (β), standard error (se), and root-mean-squared error, all changed by a factor or 10. Thus the following minor changes to the statistics for SRL in Table 3 are requested. The table in the published version reads:

Trait (units)	Forest type	Variable (units)	β	se	P	F(1,148)	R 2	RMSE
Specific root length (m kg−1)	Secondary	Soil BS (%)	0.262	0.188	n.s	1.94	0.01	31.14
	Primary		1.171	0.551	*	4.53	0.03	33.79
	Secondary	Soil P (g kg−1)	23.42	84.80	n.s	0.08	< 0.01	31.33
	Primary		324.07	128.32	*	6.38	0.04	33.58

The authors request this be changed and noted as:

Table 3 Regression results from least-squares linear models in the form of trait ~ variable. Table to accompany Fig. 5. Models were fit separately by forest type

• 6. The units in Fig. 5c for SRL are incorrect in the published version. The authors request this be changed to this revised figure (filename: “Fig. 5_ERRATUM.tiff”)

• 7. In the List of abbreviated terms:

The units for SRL (Specific Root Length) were given as “m kg⁻¹”, which is incorrect.

The authors request this be changed to: “m g⁻¹”.