Corrigendum: Role of Hydraulic Signal and ABA in Decrease of Leaf Stomatal and Mesophyll Conductance in Soil Drought-Stressed Tomato

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.653186.].


Role of Hydraulic Signal and ABA in Decrease of Leaf Stomatal and Mesophyll Conductance in
Soil Drought-Stressed Tomato by Li, S., Liu, J., Liu, H., Qiu, R., Gao, Y., andDuan, A. (2021) Front. Plant Sci. 12:653186. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.653186 In the original article, there was an error in The associated text in the Results section Dynamic of Soil Water Status has also been updated to reflect the correction to Figure 1, as described below.
The originally published sentence "By withholding irrigation from 27 to 33 DAT during the progressive drying process, RSWC in the drought treatment decreased gradually from 82.90 to 37.27% and Ψ soil decreased by 1.12 MPa correspondingly." has been corrected to read "By withholding irrigation from 27 to 33 DAT during the progressive drying process, RSWC in the drought treatment decreased gradually from 82.90 to 37.27% and Ψ soil decreased by 1.04 MPa correspondingly." In the original article, there was an error in The associated text in the Results section Quantitative Analysis of Photosynthetic Limitation in Response to Soil Drying has also been updated to reflect the correction to Figure 3, as described below.
FIGURE 1 | Dynamics of RSWC and Ψ soil in the well-watered (CK) and drought-stressed tomato seedlings during 27-33 DAT. Mean values and SD were presented (n = 6). ns indicated no significant difference and ** indicated significant difference at P < 0.01 level between drought and well-watered treatment.
TABLE 2 | Sensitivity analyses of the effects of ±20% error of light mitochondrial respiration (R d ), chloroplast CO 2 compensation point (Γ * ), electron transport rate (J f ), and intercellular CO 2 concentration (C i ) on calculation of g m in well-watered and severe drought tomato at Ψ soil = −1.44 MPa as compared with the original value of g m . Data were mean ± SD (n = 6). ns indicated no significant difference and ** indicated significant difference at P < 0.01 level between drought and well-watered treatment.
The originally published sentence "Thirdly, with Ψ soil decreasing to −1.54 MPa, l m contributed to 41.99% reduction in photosynthesis, followed by l s (36.93%) and l b (21.08%), showing that g m was the most important limiting factor to photosynthetic capacity under the severe drought condition." has been corrected to read "Thirdly, with Ψ soil decreasing to −1.44 MPa, l m contributed to 41.99% reduction in photosynthesis, followed by l s (36.93%) and l b (21.08%), showing that g m was the most important limiting factor to photosynthetic capacity under the severe drought condition." In the original article, there were errors in Table 2 as published. Owing to a miscalculation, the values of the parameters were incorrect. The corrected Table 2 appears here.
The associated text has also been updated to reflect to reflect the correction to Table 2, as described below.
FIGURE 3 | Effect of soil water potential (Ψ soil ) on the relative contribution of the photosynthesis capacity limiting factors: limitations of A n resulting from g s (l s ), g m (l m ), and biochemical photosynthetic capacity (l b ) after transplanting. Data were means. Different letters indicated statistically significant difference between well-watered (CK) and drought plants at P < 0.05 level.
In the Results section Sensitivity Analyses of Parameters in the Estimation g m , the originally published sentence "20% variation of R d , Γ * did not affect g m significantly ( Table 2)." has been corrected to read "10% variation of R d and J f did not affect g m significantly, whereas Γ * has a significantly effect on g m in well-watered plants ( Table 2)." In the Results section Sensitivity Analyses of Parameters in the Estimation g m , the originally published sentence "20% underestimation of C i resulted in an overestimation of g m , while g m was unaffected by overestimation of C i in both the wellwatered and drought treatments." has been corrected to read "Variation of C i resulted in an overestimation of g m in wellwatered plants, whereas g m in drought treatment was unaffected by overestimation of C i ." In the Discussion section Response of g m to Ψ leaf and ABA Under Soil Drought, the originally published sentence "However, the sensitivity analyses showed that an overestimation of C i did not induce g m decline neither in the well-watered nor droughtstressed plants ( Table 2)." has been corrected to read "However, the sensitivity analyses showed that an overestimation of C i did not induce g m decline in drought-stressed plants ( Table 2)." In the original article, there were errors (incorrect P-values) in the following sentence from the Results section Ψ leaf and ABA in the Regulation of g s , g m , g t , and A n : "In summary, ABA was negatively related to g m (r = −0.64, P < 0.001) and g s (r = −0.55, P < 0.001) ( Table 1)." The sentence should have read "In summary, ABA was negatively related to g m (r = −0.64, P < 0.01) and g s (r = −0.55, P < 0.01) ( Table 1)." The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.