Correction: Phenology analysis for trait prediction using UAVs in a MAGIC rice population with different transplanting protocols

Shoji Taniguchi^1*Toshihiro Sakamoto²Haruki Nakamura³Yasunori Nonoue³Di Guan³Akari Fukuda³Hirofumi Fukuda³Kaede Christina Wada³Takuro Ishii³Jun-Ichi Yonemaru³Daisuke Ogawa^3*

• ¹Research Center for Agricultural Information Technology, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO), Tsukuba, Japan
• ²Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO), Tsukuba, Japan
• ³Institute of Crop Science, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO), Tsukuba, Japan

Correction on: Taniguchi S, Sakamoto T, Nakamura H, Nonoue Y, Guan D, Fukuda A, Fukuda H, Wada KC, Ishii T, Yonemaru J-I and Ogawa D (2025) Phenology analysis for trait prediction using UAVs in a MAGIC rice population with different transplanting protocols. Front. Artif. Intell. 7:1477637. doi: 10.3389/frai.2024.1477637. In the published article, there was an error in Figure 9B and Figure 10B as published. The CH and CIg parameter data for the 2023 dataset were incorrectly labeled: the transplanting protocols Regular (R) and Delayed (D) were mistakenly swapped. The corrected Figure 9B and Figure 10B appear below.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. In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Table 13, Table 15 and Data 1. The CH and CIg parameter data for the 2023 dataset were incorrectly labeled: the transplanting protocols Regular (R) and Delayed (D) were mistakenly swapped. The correct material statement appears in Table 1_250905.xlsx.The corrected Supplementary Data 1 is provided as "Data Sheet 1 rev250828.xlsx", in which the CH and CIg parameter labels for the 2023 dataset have been revised. This dataset was used for reanalysis and supports the updated results presented in the corrected figures, tables and text.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. In the published article, there was an error. The CH and CIg parameter data for the 2023 dataset were incorrectly labeled: the transplanting protocols Regular (R) and Delayed (D) were mistakenly swapped. "The calibration also reduced the RMSE values for the prediction of ADW, SLW, and PW (Supplementary Table 14). In terms of type-2 model robustness, calibration reduced the RMSE values for CL, ADW, PW, and DTH (Supplementary Table 15). There were, however, two cases where calibration resulted in a larger RMSE: the prediction of CL under the delayed transplanting protocol (type-1 model robustness) and the prediction of SLW of the delayed protocol in 2023 (type-2 model robustness). In these two cases, the phenotypic data of the four parental cultivars did not cover the full range of phenotypic variance of the JAM2 lines."The corrected sentence appears below: "The calibration also reduced the RMSE values for the prediction of ADW, SLW, and PW (Supplementary Table 14). There was one case where calibration resulted in a larger RMSE: the prediction of CL under the delayed transplanting protocol. In terms of type-2 model robustness, calibration reduced the RMSE values for PW (Supplementary Table 15), but the calibration did not always work well for CL, ADW, DTH and SLW. In these cases, the phenotypic data of the four parental cultivars did not cover the full range of phenotypic variance of the JAM2 lines."A correction has been made to Discussion, Paragraph Number 6. This sentence previously stated:"Only in the two cases did the calibration not work well. This may be because the phenotypic data …"The corrected sentence appears below: "The calibration did not work well for some cases. This may be because the phenotypic data …"