Corrigendum: Imprint of Climate Change on Pan-Arctic Marine Vegetation

A Corrigendum on
Imprint of Climate Change on Pan-Arctic Marine Vegetation

by Krause-Jensen, D., Archambault, P., Assis, J., Bartsch, I., Bischof, K., Filbee-Dexter, K., et al. (2020). Front. Mar. Sci. 7:617324. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.617324

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

Table 2. 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).

TABLE 3

Table 3. 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).

TABLE 4

Table 4. Information on substrate conditions for Arctic coastlines and potential total distribution area of brown macroalgae, and distribution areas adjusted by substrate conditions.

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

Young, A. P., and Carilli, J. E. (2019). Global distribution of coastal cliffs. Earth Surf. Process Landf. 44, 1309–1316. doi: 10.1002/esp.4574

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar