Correction to “High methane flux from an arctic floodplain (Indigirka lowlands, eastern Siberia)”

Abstract

[1] An error in the transfer of data from measurement equipment to data processing software has unfortunately resulted in erroneous CH4 fluxes published in ‘‘High methane flux from an arctic floodplain (Indigirka lowlands, eastern Siberia)’’ by J. van Huissteden et al. (Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, G02002, doi:10.1029/ 2005J10, 2005). Section 3 (Materials and Methods) reports a 3-min time interval between the concentration measurements in the closed chamber flux measurements. However, most of the flux calculations were erroneously based on a 2-min time interval. Correction of this error results in a reduction of the fluxes by one third. [2] Table 1 lists the correct values for the site group averages in Figure 3 and paragraph 12 of the paper. The highest measured flux on a floodmark reduces to 373 mg CH4 m 2 h . There is no change in the results of the statistical analyses in paragraphs 12 and 14, although some of cited probabilities have changed slightly. Consequently, also the conclusions of the paper remain the same. [3] Two subsequent papers have used the data in this paper: van der Molen et al. [2007] and Petrescu et al. [2007]. The conclusions from these papers do not change by taking the correct values of the CH4 fluxes. In the paper by van der Molen et al. [2007], the net carbon and greenhouse gas balances for 2004 will result in a slightly higher uptake of carbon and a more negative greenhouse gas balance. The CH4 flux model simulations of Petrescu et al. [2007] compare more favorably with the data for 2004. We acknowledge F. J. W. Parmentier for his meticulous reanalysis of the data.