The authors wish to include the following correction based on updated di-nitrogen (N2) gas flux values for three cores included in the original paper (the N2 flux values for the other 38 cores remain unchanged). This update was made in order to be consistent in our N2 flux calculations across all cores. In the three aforementioned cores we originally used a different method to account for the instrument drift of the mass spectrometer during sample analysis. Importantly, the correction of the flux values for these three cores is small and does not change any of our data interpretations. However, in an effort to be as accurate as possible, we would like to provide the corrected values and the associated averages, statistics, and text that also need to be corrected as a result of the flux value adjustments.
For simplicity and clarity, corrections are listed below in bold and underlined font. The page numbers, section heading and paragraph numbers correspond to the paper's downloadable .pdf.
Page 1. Abstract.
◦ 36 μmol N2-N m−2 h−1 changed to 38 μmol N2-N m−2 h−1
Page 5. Table 2.
◦ Metoxit Point (MP), 7-Jul-2011, N2-N flux, −19 (±7.2) changed to −22 (±10.0)
◦ Metoxit Point (MP), 11-Jul-2012, N2-N flux, −19 (±39) changed to −30 (±45)
◦ Childs River Estuary (CRE), 11-Jul-2012, N2-N flux, 62 (±3.0) changed to 69 (±4.4)
Page 7. Figure 3. Panel D, N2-N fluxes.
◦ MP changed from −18 (±11) to −21 (±12)
◦ CRE changed from 30 (±8.4) to 32 (±9.5)
Page 8. Results. Direct Measure of Sediment Net N2 Flux. Paragraph 1.
◦ p = 0.012 changed to p = 0.010
◦ p = 0.042 changed to p = 0.032
◦ p = 0.021 changed to p = 0.014
◦ 14 (±8.3) μmol N2-N m−2 h−1 changed to 14 (±8.9) μmol N2-N m−2 h−1
◦ R2 = 0.002, p = 0.766 changed to R2 = 0.001, p= 0.844
◦ 33 (±7.5) μmol N2-N m−2 h−1 changed to 34 (±8.0) μmol N2-N m−2 h−1
◦ −16 (±4.3) μmol N2-N m−2 h−1 changed to −18 (±5.3) μmol N2-N m−2 h−1
◦ Sentence beginning with: “Overall, the N2 fluxes…” changed to: “Overall, wemeasured a high mean N2flux from Sage LotPond but the variability between coreswas the highest compared to other stations.”
◦ Sentence beginning with: “The highest mean net N fixation rate…” changed to: “The highest net N fixation rate (−89μmolN2-N m−2h−1) was measured in a sedimentcore collected from Metoxit Point inJuly 2012.”
◦ p = 0.863 changed to p = 0.881
Pages 10–11. Discussion. Historic Comparisons. Paragraph 5.
◦ p = 0.012 changed to p = 0.013
◦ 34 (±14) μmol N2-N m−2 h−1 changed to 36 (±16) μmol N2-N m−2 h−1
◦ p = 0.102 (SLP) and p = 0.059 (CRE) changed to p = 0.084 (SLP)andp = 0.089 (CRE)
◦ p = 0.012 changed to p = 0.013
Page 10. Figure 4. Panel C, N2-N fluxes.
◦ CRE changed from 34 (±14) to 36 (±16)
Page 11. Discussion. Historic Comparisons. Paragraph 6.
◦ 551 (±227) kg N y−1 changed to 583 (±275) kg N y−1
◦ 10% (±4%) changed to 11% (±5%)
Page 13. Conclusions. Paragraph 1.
◦ p = 0.012 changed to p = 0.013
Table 2
| Station (Abbr.) | Date | Sal | Temp | O2 | NH | NO | N2-N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ppt | °C | μmol m−2 h−1 | μmol m−2 h−1 | μmol m−2 h−1 | μmol N m−2 h−1 | ||
| Sage Lot Pond (SLP) | 29-Jul-2011 | 30.0 | 25.2 | −2394 (±652) | 11 (±60) | −2.0 (±0.2) | 16 (±8.0) |
| 24-Aug-2011 | 29.3 | 24.5 | −3016 (±206) | 306 (±86) | −2.4 (±1.6) | 64 (±64) | |
| 6-Aug-2012 | 30.5 | 30.0 | −2120 (±124) | 310 (±68) | 0.0 | n.m. | |
| South Basin (SB) | 7-Jul-2011 | 31.9 | 26.0 | −2551 (±452) | 170 (±96) | −0.3 (±0.3) | 9.1 (±9.1) |
| 24-Aug-2011 | 31.5 | 24.5 | −1164 (±229) | 3.0 (±10) | −1.7 (±0.3) | −7.6 (±23) | |
| 11-Oct-2011 | 29.9 | 19.5 | −1664 (±268) | 0.0 (±0.0) | −0.2 (±0.2) | 28 (±16) | |
| 11-Jul-2012 | 31.6 | 29.0 | −1561 (±277) | 27 (±21) | −0.2 (±0.4) | 44 (±34) | |
| 2-Oct-2012 | 31.4 | 20.0 | −1117 (±115) | 29 (±22) | −1.0 (±0.2) | n.m. | |
| Metoxit Point (MP) | 7-Jul-2011 | 30.5 | 26.0 | −3053 (±378) | 225 (±15) | 1.6 (±1.6) | −22 (±10) |
| 24-Aug-2011 | 30.1 | 24.5 | −2233 (±122) | 167 (±56) | −0.8 (±0.6) | −28 (±12) | |
| 11-Oct-2011 | 29.5 | 19.5 | −2908 (±134) | 231 (±97) | −1.0 (±0.4) | −4.0 (±26) | |
| 11-Jul-2012 | 31.3 | 29.0 | −1538 (±144) | 38 (±38) | −0.0 (±0.3) | −30 (±45) | |
| 6-Aug-2012 | 29.5 | 30.0 | −2456 (±281) | 106 (±30) | −0.8 (±0.1) | n.m. | |
| 2-Oct-2012 | 30.0 | 20.0 | −1838 (±182) | 365 (±76) | −0.3 (±0.3) | n.m. | |
| Childs River Estuary (CRE) | 7-Jul-2011 | 27.7 | 26.0 | −1589 (±202) | 193 (±60) | 0.0 (±0.0) | 22 (±11) |
| 29-Jul-2011 | 28.5 | 25.2 | −1609 (±205) | 99 (±34) | −4.6 (±1.3) | 18 (±9.8) | |
| 11-Jul-2012 | 30.1 | 29.0 | −1614 (±318) | −2 (±61) | −0.7 (±0.2) | 69 (±4.4) |
Summary of sediment oxygen (O2), ammonium (NH), nitrite (NO) and di-nitrogen gas per mole nitrogen (N2-N) flux rates measured across the sediment-water interface in Waquoit Bay, MA in 2011 and 2012 (July–October).
O2 fluxes are from the first dissolved inorganic nutrient incubation. Positive fluxes represent a net efflux of the analyte from the sediments into the water column, and negative fluxes represent a net influx of the analyte into the sediments from the water column. A net zero flux represents either a balance between analyte production and consumption process in the sediments and/or rates that are below our detection limit. Stations are listed from low to high N loading. Values represent the station means (±standard error) from triplicate or quadruplicate cores. Note that n.m. signifies parameter fluxes for which there is no measurement.
Figure 3
Figure 4
Statements
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Summary
Keywords
benthic nitrogen cycling, sediment oxygen demand, net denitrification, Waquoit Bay, historic variability, spatial variability
Citation
Foster SQ and Fulweiler RW (2015) Corrigendum: Spatial and historic variability of benthic nitrogen cycling in an anthropogenically impacted estuary. Front. Mar. Sci. 2:70. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00070
Received
14 August 2015
Accepted
31 August 2015
Published
07 October 2015
Volume
2 - 2015
Edited by
Paul E. Renaud, Akvaplan-niva AS, Norway
Reviewed by
Moritz Felix Lehmann, University of Basel, Switzerland
Updates
Copyright
© 2015 Foster and Fulweiler.
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) or licensor 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: Robinson W. Fulweiler rwf@bu.edu
This article was submitted to Global Change and the Future Ocean, a section of the journal Frontiers in Marine 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.