In the published article, there was an error in Table 2 as published. Stomatal size should have been calculated as π × stomatal length × stomatal width/4, therefore, all stomatal size values reported in this table (i.e. SSab and SSad) should have been divided by four. The corrected Table 2 and its caption “Definition, unit, maximum, minimum, mean and coefficient of variation (CV) for dynamic, steady-state, anatomical and physiological traits across 19 horticultural genotypes. Maximum and minimum values are average values of 6-9 replicates” appears below.
Table 2
| Trait | Definition | Unit | Max. (genotype) | Min. (genotype) | Mean | CV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic traits | ||||||
| T20 | Time to reach 20% of full A induction | min | 1.2 (CHB) | 0.2 (RAP) | 0.5 | 55 |
| T50 | Time to reach 50% of full A induction | min | 7.6 (CHB) | 0.6 (RAP) | 3.4 | 61 |
| T90 | Time to reach 90% of full A induction | min | 28.8 (LGI) | 3.4 (RAP) | 19.2 | 42 |
| Aavg,300 | Average A during the first 300 s of induction | μmol m-2 s-1 | 10.9 (TB) | 4.7 (RAP) | 7.7 | 22 |
| gs,avg,300 | Average gs during the first 300 s of induction | mol m-2 s-1 | 0.143 (TS) | 0.052 (CHB) | 0.099 | 22 |
| iWUEavg,300 | Average intrinsic water-use efficiency during the first 300 s of induction (Aavg,300/gs,avg,300) | μmol CO2 (mol H2O)-1 | 117 (CHB) | 42 (RAP) | 84 | 21 |
| k | Time constant for gs response to irradiance change 1 | min | 16.2 (LGI) | 7.6 (CUH) | 10.8 | 23 |
| Slmax | Maximum rate of gs response to irradiance change 1 | mmol m-2 s-2 | 0.28 (CUH) | 0.03 (CHA) | 0.13 | 68 |
| λ | Initial time lag of gs response to irradiance change 1 | min | 7.4 (CUP) | 0.1 (BR) | 3.9 | 62 |
| f | Weighting factor (between 0-1) for the fast and slow phase of Vcmax induction | – | 0.7 (LGA) | 0.4 (CHY) | 0.5 | 18 |
| τfast | Time constant for fast phase of maximum Rubisco carboxylation rate (Vcmax) induction | min | 1.1 (CHA) | 0.5 (LC) | 0.7 | 22 |
| τslow | Time constant for slow phase of Vcmax induction | min | 6.5 (TM) | 3.1 (RAV) | 4.8 | 22 |
| Steady-state traits | ||||||
| Ai | Steady-state A at low irradiance | μmol m-2 s-1 | 2.2 (TS) | 0.7 (BR) | 1.9 | 21 |
| Af | Steady-state A at high irradiance | μmol m-2 s-1 | 20.8 (TM) | 5.7 (RAP) | 14.4 | 30 |
| ΔA | Difference between Af and Ai | μmol m-2 s-1 | 18.8 (TM) | 4.5 (RAP) | 12.5 | 33 |
| Vmi | Vcmax at the start of photosynthetic induction | μmol m-2 s-1 | 8.6 (CUP) | 4.9 (BR) | 7.0 | 16 |
| Vmf | Vcmax 15 min after start of photosynthetic induction | μmol m-2 s-1 | 65.9 (TB) | 20.6 (RAP) | 49.9 | 29 |
| gs,i | Steady-state gs at low irradiance | mol m-2 s-1 | 0.12 (RRN) | 0.05 (CHB) | 0.09 | 19 |
| gs,f | Steady-state gs at high irradiance | mol m-2 s-1 | 0.51 (TS) | 0.10 (RAV) | 0.25 | 46 |
| Leaf anatomical traits and pigments | ||||||
| SDab | Stomatal density at abaxial leaf side | mm-2 | 340 (CUP) | 40 (LGA) | 124 | 78 |
| SDad | Stomatal density at adaxial leaf side | mm-2 | 267 (CUH) | 0 (RAP, RAV, RRN) 2 | 67 | 133 |
| SSab | Stomatal size at abaxial leaf side | μm2 | 1411 (CHB) | 210 (CUP) | 681 | 57 |
| SSad | Stomatal size at adaxial leaf side | μm2 | 1325 (CHR) | 0 (RAP, RAV, RRN) 2 | 540 | 81 |
| gs,max | Theoretical maximum gs, if all stomates were to open to their maximum extent | mol m-2 s-1 | 5.0 (CUP) | 1.3 (LGI) | 2.5 | 50 |
| Leafchl | Leaf chlorophyll content 3 | mg m-2 | 222.0 (TM) | 78.3 (LGA) | 151.6 | 29 |
| Chl a:b | Ratio of chlorophyll a to chlorophyll b | – | 3.1 (LGA) | 2.3 (BR) | 2.7 | 7 |
| Leafcaro | Leaf carotenoid content | mg m-2 | 28.4 (TM) | 11.8 (BR) | 19.1 | 25 |
| Leafabs | Leaf light absorptance 4 | – | 0.89 (BR) | 0.73 (LGA) | 0.82 | 5 |
Definition, unit, maximum, minimum, mean and coefficient of variation (CV) for dynamic, steady-state, anatomical and physiological traits across 19 horticultural genotypes.
Maximum and minimum values are average values of 6-9 replicates.
In the published article, there was an error in Figure 5 as published. Stomatal size should have been calculated as π × stomatal length × stomatal width/4, therefore, the numbers shown in Figure 5A should have been divided by four. The corrected Figure 5 and its caption “Stomatal size (A; SSab) and density (B; SDab) at the abaxial leaf side, and theoretical maximum stomatal conductance (C; gs,max) of all 19 horticultural genotypes. Colours indicate crop species. Bars show means ± s.e. (n = 7-9). Letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). Statistical test results of SSab, SDab and gs,max were based on log transformation of the data. See Table 1 for full genotype names” appears below.
Figure 5
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 Data Sheet 1. All numbers along the x-axis of Figure S7A-E and along the y-axis of Figure S7E (i.e. stomatal size, which should have been calculated as π × stomatal length × stomatal width/4) in Supplementary Data Sheet 1 should have been divided by four. The correct material statement appears below.
Statements
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
induction, genotypic variation, light fluctuations, modeling, photosynthesis, Rubisco activation, stomatal opening
Citation
Zhang N, Berman SR, Joubert D, Vialet-Chabrand S, Marcelis LFM and Kaiser E (2023) Corrigendum: Variation of photosynthetic induction in major horticultural crops is mostly driven by differences in stomatal traits. Front. Plant Sci. 14:1252101. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1252101
Received
03 July 2023
Accepted
18 July 2023
Published
02 August 2023
Volume
14 - 2023
Edited and reviewed by
Ivan A. Paponov, Aarhus University, Denmark
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Zhang, Berman, Joubert, Vialet-Chabrand, Marcelis and Kaiser.
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: Ningyi Zhang, ningyi.zhang@njau.edu.cn; Elias Kaiser, elias.kaiser@wur.nl
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.