In the original article, there was an error in Figure 1 as published. The value of Ψsoil at 33 DAT should be −1.44 MPa. The corrected Figure 1 appears here.
Figure 1
The associated text in the Results section Dynamic of Soil Water Status has also been updated to reflect the correction to Figure 1, as described below.
The originally published sentence “By withholding irrigation from 27 to 33 DAT during the progressive drying process, RSWC in the drought treatment decreased gradually from 82.90 to 37.27% and Ψsoil decreased by 1.12 MPa correspondingly.” has been corrected to read “By withholding irrigation from 27 to 33 DAT during the progressive drying process, RSWC in the drought treatment decreased gradually from 82.90 to 37.27% and Ψsoil decreased by 1.04 MPa correspondingly.”
In the original article, there was an error in Figure 3 as published. The value of Ψsoil at 33 DAT should be −1.44 MPa. The corrected Figure 3 appears here.
Figure 3
The associated text in the Results section Quantitative Analysis of Photosynthetic Limitation in Response to Soil Drying has also been updated to reflect the correction to Figure 3, as described below.
The originally published sentence “Thirdly, with Ψsoil decreasing to −1.54 MPa, lm contributed to 41.99% reduction in photosynthesis, followed by ls (36.93%) and lb (21.08%), showing that gm was the most important limiting factor to photosynthetic capacity under the severe drought condition.” has been corrected to read “Thirdly, with Ψsoil decreasing to −1.44 MPa, lm contributed to 41.99% reduction in photosynthesis, followed by ls (36.93%) and lb (21.08%), showing that gm was the most important limiting factor to photosynthetic capacity under the severe drought condition.”
In the original article, there were errors in Table 2 as published. Owing to a miscalculation, the values of the parameters were incorrect. The corrected Table 2 appears here.
Table 2
| Factors | gm in CK | gm in drought | Factors | gm in CK | gm in drought |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rd-20% | 0.182 ± 0.006 ns | 0.013 ± 0.002 ns | Jf-20% | 1.208 ± 0.74 ** | 0.014 ± 0.002 ns |
| Rd-10% | 0.189 ± 0.005 ns | 0.013 ± 0.002 ns | Jf-10% | 0.309 ± 0.020 ns | 0.014 ± 0.002 ns |
| Rd+10% | 0.206 ± 0.07 ns | 0.014 ± 0.002 ns | Jf+10% | 0.160 ± 0.005 ns | 0.013 ± 0.002 ns |
| Rd+20% | 0.216 ± 0.08 ns | 0.014 ± 0.002 ns | Jf+20% | 0.141 ± 0.004 ns | 0.013 ± 0.002 ns |
| Γ *-20% | 0.146 ± 0.005 ** | 0.013 ± 0.002 ns | Ci-20% | 0.433 ± 0.025 ** | 0.020 ± 0.003 * |
| Γ *-10% | 0.168 ± 0.009 ** | 0.013 ± 0.002 ns | Ci-10% | 0.270 ± 0.011 ** | 0.017 ± 0.003 ns |
| Γ *+10% | 0.238 ± 0.015 ** | 0.014 ± 0.002 ns | Ci+10% | 0.155 ± 0.005 ** | 0.013 ± 0.002 ns |
| Γ *+20% | 0.301 ± 0.011 ** | 0.014 ± 0.002 ns | Ci+20% | 0.127 ± 0.004 ** | 0.011 ± 0.002 ns |
Sensitivity analyses of the effects of ±20% error of light mitochondrial respiration (Rd), chloroplast CO2 compensation point (Γ*), electron transport rate (Jf), and intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) on calculation of gm in well-watered and severe drought tomato at Ψsoil = −1.44 MPa as compared with the original value of gm.
Data were mean ± SD (n = 6). ns indicated no significant difference and ** indicated significant difference at P < 0.01 level between drought and well-watered treatment.
The associated text has also been updated to reflect to reflect the correction to Table 2, as described below.
In the Results section Sensitivity Analyses of Parameters in the Estimation gm, the originally published sentence “20% variation of Rd, Γ* did not affect gm significantly (Table 2).” has been corrected to read “10% variation of Rd and Jf did not affect gm significantly, whereas Γ* has a significantly effect on gm in well-watered plants (Table 2).”
In the Results section Sensitivity Analyses of Parameters in the Estimation gm, the originally published sentence “20% underestimation of Ci resulted in an overestimation of gm, while gm was unaffected by overestimation of Ci in both the well-watered and drought treatments.” has been corrected to read “Variation of Ci resulted in an overestimation of gm in well-watered plants, whereas gm in drought treatment was unaffected by overestimation of Ci.”
In the Discussion section Response of gmto Ψleafand ABA Under Soil Drought, the originally published sentence “However, the sensitivity analyses showed that an overestimation of Ci did not induce gm decline neither in the well-watered nor drought-stressed plants (Table 2).” has been corrected to read “However, the sensitivity analyses showed that an overestimation of Ci did not induce gm decline in drought-stressed plants (Table 2).”
In the original article, there were errors (incorrect P-values) in the following sentence from the Results section Ψleafand ABA in the Regulation of gs, gm, gt, and An: “In summary, ABA was negatively related to gm (r = −0.64, P < 0.001) and gs (r = −0.55, P < 0.001) (Table 1).” The sentence should have read “In summary, ABA was negatively related to gm (r = −0.64, P < 0.01) and gs (r = −0.55, P < 0.01) (Table 1).”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
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
drought, leaf water potential, abscisic acid, stomatal conductance, mesophyll conductance, intrinsic water use efficiency
Citation
Li S, Liu J, Liu H, Qiu R, Gao Y and Duan A (2021) Corrigendum: Role of Hydraulic Signal and ABA in Decrease of Leaf Stomatal and Mesophyll Conductance in Soil Drought-Stressed Tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 12:710792. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.710792
Received
17 May 2021
Accepted
21 July 2021
Published
13 August 2021
Volume
12 - 2021
Edited by
Iker Aranjuelo, Superior Council of Scientific Investigations, Spain
Reviewed by
Sung Chul Lee, Chung-Ang University, South Korea; Scott McAdam, Purdue University, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Li, Liu, Liu, Qiu, Gao and Duan.
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: Yang Gao gaoyang@caas.cnAiwang Duan duanaiwang@caas.cn
This article was submitted to Plant Abiotic Stress, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant 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.