In the original article, there was an error. In Table 2 the units shown for chlorides (Cl) are not correct. To solve this problem, we include the Table transforming the units to those of the rest of the elements.
Table 2
| Factors | Treatment | LAI (m2 m-2) | N (g 100g-1) | Cl (g 100g-1) | Ca (g 100g-1) | K (g 100g-1) | Na (g 100g-1) | Mg (g 100g-1) | K/Ca | K/Na |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | 1P | 1.8 | 2.26b | 0.75a | 2.01a | 0.73 | 0.003a | 0.41ab | 0.37b | 353.0b |
| M1 | 1.8 | 2.12ab | 1.35b | 2.36b | 0.65 | 0.004b | 0.39a | 0.28a | 185.5a | |
| M4 | 1.9 | 2.07a | 1.24b | 1.94a | 0.66 | 0.003a | 0.46b | 0.35ab | 260.8ab | |
| WQ | Control | 2.0b | 2.15 | 0.67a | 1.93a | 0.74b | 0.003 | 0.40a | 0.40 | 287.7a |
| Saline | 1.7a | 2.15 | 1.54b | 2.28b | 0.61a | 0.003 | 0.44b | 0.44 | 245.1b | |
| Interaction R × WQ | 1P C | 1.8 | 2.33 | 0.54 | 1.9 | 0.77 | 0.004abc | 0.40 | 0.42 | 313.7 |
| 1P S | 1.8 | 2.19 | 0.94 | 2.1 | 0.68 | 0.002a | 0.42 | 0.32 | 392.3 | |
| M1 C | 2.1 | 2.08 | 0.79 | 2.2 | 0.72 | 0.004bc | 0.36 | 0.33 | 235.3 | |
| M1 S | 1.5 | 2.16 | 1.89 | 2.5 | 0.59 | 0.005c | 0.43 | 0.24 | 135.6 | |
| M4 C | 2.0 | 2.04 | 0.68 | 1.7 | 0.74 | 0.003ab | 0.44 | 0.44 | 314.2 | |
| M4 S | 1.8 | 2.10 | 1.79 | 2.2 | 0.58 | 0.003abc | 0.48 | 0.27 | 207.3 | |
| Rootstock | 0.89 | 0.04 | <0.01 | <0.001 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.05 | |
| Water Quality | 0.03 | 0.99 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.01 | 0.98 | 0.04 | <0.001 | 0.42 | |
| R × WQ | 0.08 | 0.33 | 0.09 | 0.49 | 0.72 | 0.05 | 0.61 | 0.49 | 0.27 | |
Leaf area index (LAI) and leaf nutritional status in leaf blades from Vitis vinifera (L.) cv. Tempranillo grafted onto M1, M4 and 1103-Paulsen (1P) rootstocks subjected to different water quality (C; control and S; saline irrigation) on DOY 233 of 2019 in Valencia, Spain.
Data are averages of 6, 9 and 3 determinations per rootstock, water quality and rootstock per water quality respectively. For each parameter, letters denote significant differences between treatments at p < 0.05 (Duncan test). The statistical significance effect of the rootstock (R), water quality (WQ) and their interaction are also indicated by means of the p-values from the ANOVAs. Significance of effects in bold denotes statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.
A correction has been made to Table 2:
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
osmotic adjustment, gas exchange, gene expression, water relations, Vitis vinifera L. (grapevine), salinity tolerance
Citation
Buesa I, Pérez-Pérez JG, Visconti F, Strah R, Intrigliolo DS, Bonet L, Gruden K, Pompe-Novak M and de Paz JM (2022) Corrigendum: Physiological and transcriptional responses to saline irrigation of young ‘Tempranillo’ vines grafted onto different rootstocks. Front. Plant Sci. 13:1011533. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.1011533
Received
04 August 2022
Accepted
09 September 2022
Published
26 September 2022
Volume
13 - 2022
Edited and reviewed by
Tommaso Frioni, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Piacenza, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Buesa, Pérez-Pérez, Visconti, Strah, Intrigliolo, Bonet, Gruden, Pompe-Novak and de Paz.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ignacio Buesa, igbuepue@gmail.com
This article was submitted to Plant Abiotic Stress, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.