In the original article, there were mistakes in Tables 2–4 and associated legends and text as published. The original article contained errors in the reported modeled macroalgal distribution area in the pan-Arctic and its subregions because the polygons used to calculate the areas were not correctly defined.
A correction has been made to Tables 2–4 and their associated legends:
The Table legends missed the word “brown” and an explanatory note. The corrected Tables 2–4 and associated legends appear below (corrections marked in bold).
Table 2
| Arctic sector | Past area (km2) | Present area (km2) | Area increase (%) | Polar migration (km decade–1) | Warming rate avg/max (°C decade–1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pan-Arctic region | 129,964 | 140,433 | 8.1 | 23.1 | 0.009/0.154 |
| Alaska | 36,936 | 37,464 | 1.4 | – | 0.028/0.119 |
| Canada | 779 | 779 | 0.0 | – | 0.002/0.023 |
| W. Greenland | 24,151 | 29,018 | 20.2 | 41.6 | 0.020/0.154 |
| E. Greenland | 3,959 | 3,959 | 0.0 | – | 0.009/0.119 |
| Iceland | 20,714 | 20,714 | 0.0 | – | 0.030/0.135 |
| Svalbard | 1,008 | 4,416 | 338.0 | 23.1 | 0.006/0.052 |
| N. Norway | 26,928 | 26,928 | 0.0 | – | 0.088/0.138 |
| Russia | 15,490 | 17,156 | 10.8 | 106.4 | 0.007/0.017 |
Past (period 1940–1950) and present (period 2000–2017) potential pan-Arctic intertidal brown macroalgal distribution areas (km2), and associated area increase and polar migration rate of key habitat-forming macrovegetation, assessed based on niche modeling for the pan-Arctic region and by Arctic sector (based on the Arctic Council definition of the Arctic, Huntington, 2001).
Intertidal areas typically represent upper bounds as the cell size of the model is often larger than the belt of intertidal algae. The associated warming rate is computed overall and by sector and listed as average/maximum by region.
Table 3
| Arctic sector | Past area (km2) | Present area (km2) | Area increase (%) | Polar migration (km decade–1) | Warming rate avg/max (°C decade–1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pan-Arctic region | 355,932 | 514,679 | 44.6 | 18.3 | 0.009/0.154 |
| Alaska | 76,197 | 89,005 | 16.8 | 15.4 | 0.028/0.119 |
| Canada | 90,263 | 164,296 | 82.0 | 89.4 | 0.002/0.023 |
| W. Greenland | 40,025 | 54,297 | 35.7 | 43.2 | 0.020/0.154 |
| E. Greenland | 10,576 | 23,164 | 119.0 | 78.6 | 0.009/0.119 |
| Iceland | 20,714 | 20,714 | 0.0 | – | 0.030/0.135 |
| Svalbard | 3,407 | 9,262 | 171.9 | 18.5 | 0.006/0.052 |
| N. Norway | 26,928 | 26,928 | 0.0 | – | 0.088/0.138 |
| Russia | 87,823 | 127,014 | 44.6 | 33.9 | 0.007/0.017 |
Past (period 1940–1950) and present (period 2000–2017) potential pan-Arctic subtidal brown macroalgal distribution areas (km2), and associated area increase and polar migration rate of key habitat-forming macrovegetation, assessed based on niche modeling for the pan-Arctic region and by Arctic sector (based on the Arctic Council definition of the Arctic, Huntington, 2001).
The associated warming rate is computed overall and by sector and listed as average (avg)/maximum (max) by region.
Table 4
| Arctic sector | Coastal cliffs (% of coastline) | Modeled present macroalgal area (km2) | Substrate-adjusted modeled present macroalgal area (km2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pan-Arctic region | 52 | 655,111 | 340,658 |
| Alaska | 52 | 126,469 | 65,764 |
| Canada | 63 | 165,075 | 103,997 |
| W. Greenland | 62 | 83,315 | 51,655 |
| E. Greenland | 62 | 27,122 | 16,816 |
| Iceland | 52 | 41,427* | 21,542* |
| Svalbard | 21 | 13,678 | 2,872 |
| N. Norway | 56 | 53,853* | 30,159* |
| Russia | 41 | 144,170 | 59,110 |
| Sum of national estimates | 655,111 | 351,915 |
Information on substrate conditions for Arctic coastlines and potential total distribution area of brown macroalgae, and distribution areas adjusted by substrate conditions.
Substrate conditions are reported as percentage of cliffs by nation or, where no national data was available (Alaska, Iceland), based on global average (52%) (Young and Carilli, 2019). Total macroalgal areas, calculated as the sum of intertidal and subtidal areas, represent upper bounds because of overlap between the two due to the coarse resolution of the model. This was most pronounced for Norway and Iceland (marked by*) where the model could not distinguish between intertidal and subtidal areas.
A correction has been made to the Abstract (corrected text marked in bold):
“[..] Species distribution modeling was challenged by limited observations and lack of information on substrate, but suggested a current (2000–2017) potential pan-Arctic brown macroalgal distribution area of 655,111 km2 (140,433 km2 intertidal, 514,679 km2 subtidal), representing an increase of about 45% for subtidal- and 8% for intertidal macroalgae since 1940–1950, and associated polar migration rates averaging 18–23 km decade−1. Adjusting the potential macroalgal distribution area by the fraction of shores represented by cliffs halves the estimate (340,658 km2). [..]”
A correction has been made to the Results, subsection ‘Modeled Potential Past and Present Pan-Arctic Macroalgal Distribution Area’, paragraphs 3 and 4 (corrected text marked in bold):
“Within the geographic boundaries defined by the Arctic Council, models developed for present conditions (2000–2017) predicted 140,433 km2 and 514,679 km2 of suitable habitats for intertidal and subtidal species, respectively, i.e., a total potential distribution area of 655,111 km2 (Figure 6 and Tables 2, 3). [..] The models inferred a gain in suitable habitats between 1950 and present times of 10,468 km2 (8.1%) and 158,747 km2 (44.6%) for intertidal and subtidal species, respectively (Figure 6 and Tables 2, 3). Across Arctic sectors, Canada represents the largest potential macroalgal distribution area followed by Russia, Alaska, and Greenland, however, Svalbard shows the largest relative gain in potential distribution area and N. Norway and Iceland the smallest (Figure 6 and Tables 2, 3).
[..] On this basis, the substrate-adjusted modeled potential pan-Arctic distribution area of macroalgae represents about half of the overall modeled area (340,658-351,915 km2, Table 4).”
A correction has been made to the Discussion, paragraph 1 and 2 (corrected text marked in bold):
“[..] Our distribution model quantified the potential current suitable habitat at 655,111 km2 within the Arctic Council definition of the Arctic, based on sea ice, temperature, nutrients, and salinity but not substrate conditions (Figure 6 and Tables 2, 3). Demarcation of the modeled area that solely incorporates shorelines with coastal cliffs reduces the potential distribution area to about half (340,658 km2). [..]
[..] Our macroalgal habitat model assessed, based on modeled changes in key habitat conditions, that the potential suitable area for Arctic macroalgae has expanded by about 8.1% for intertidal algae and 44.6% for subtidal algae over the past 60–70 years, with the largest relative increase in Svalbard and the smallest in N. Norway and Iceland (Figure 6 and Table 2).”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article. The original article has been updated.
References
1
Young A. P. Carilli J. E. (2019). Global distribution of coastal cliffs. Earth Surf. Process Landf.44, 1309–1316. 10.1002/esp.4574
Summary
Keywords
distribution, abundance, trends, Arctic, sea-ice, warming, Eelgrass (Zostera marina), macroalgae
Citation
Krause-Jensen D, Archambault P, Assis J, Bartsch I, Bischof K, Filbee-Dexter K, Dunton KH, Maximova O, Ragnarsdóttir SB, Sejr MK, Simakova U, Spiridonov V, Wegeberg S, Winding MHS and Duarte CM (2021) Corrigendum: Imprint of Climate Change on Pan-Arctic Marine Vegetation. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:701634. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.701634
Received
28 April 2021
Accepted
04 May 2021
Published
13 July 2021
Volume
8 - 2021
Edited and reviewed by
Paul F. J. Wassmann, Arctic University of Norway, Norway
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Krause-Jensen, Archambault, Assis, Bartsch, Bischof, Filbee-Dexter, Dunton, Maximova, Ragnarsdóttir, Sejr, Simakova, Spiridonov, Wegeberg, Winding and Duarte.
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: Dorte Krause-Jensen dkj@bios.au.dk
This article was submitted to Global Change and the Future Ocean, a section of the journal Frontiers in Marine Science
†Deceased
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.