Corrigendum

Abstract

Freshwater BiologyVolume 51, Issue 5 p. 986-987 Free Access Corrigendum First published: 13 April 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01548.xCitations: 4AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat There is an error in eqn 3, Fig. 3 and associated text in Cross et al. (2005). The corrected equation, figure and text are printed below. The corrected text begins with the last paragraph of page 1905 in Cross et al. (2005). Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Hypothetical relationship between stream water column N and P concentrations, uptake rates and uptake lengths (as determined by solute addition experiments) for various scenarios. In scenario I, the water column is the sole source of nutrients for benthic biomass production, assimilation by benthic organisms represents the only nutrient demand, and nutrients are not differentially recycled in the benthic compartment. In scenarios II–IV, these assumptions are altered to assess how each affects nutrient spiralling ratios as determined by solute addition techniques. Solid vertical arrows represent flows of dissolved inorganic N and P. Dotted vertical arrows represent flows of dissolved and/or particulate organic N and P. Correction (corrected text in italics): The utility of beginning with this simplified case is that it helps identify several characteristics of stream ecosystems that can cause UN : UP (and SW–N : SW–P) to vary from the value predicted by BN : BP. For example, the supply of N and P is rarely, if ever, fully provided by dissolved inorganic elements extracted from the water column, although uptake length calculations are almost exclusively determined from these forms. Alternate avenues of nutrient delivery to benthic organisms include local mineralisation of organic matter, perfusion of ground water through stream sediments, and direct use of nutrients in organic matter (Sheibley et al., 2003; Brookshire et al., 2005). Regardless of the mechanism, differential subsidies of N and P will cause UN : UPto vary from BN : BP(Fig. 3). Variable fractions of N and P demand met by flowing water supplies (FNandFP, respectively) will change relative uptake rates such that:(3) For example, if 10% of N demand and 40% of P demand is supplied by non-water column sources (F N and F P equal 0.9 and 0.6, respectively), U N : UPandSW−N : SW−Pwould increase to about 22.5 and 0.5, respectively (Fig. 3, scenario II). In this scenario, gross UN : UP(assimilation of N and P by organisms) has not changed and remains equivalent to BN : BP(=15). However, differential use of N and P from non-water column sources has exaggerated the degree of N limitation. Discrepancies between observed UN : UP and BN : BP could also arise from differential internal recycling of N and P (Fig. 3, scenario III) and non-assimilatory removal of nutrients from the water column (Fig. 3, scenario IV). Denitrification, nitrification, and sorption are a few processes that result in the loss of particular forms of nutrients from solution and are included in tracer-derived estimates of nutrient uptake in streams. Reference Cross W.F., Benstead J.P., Frost P.C. & Thomas S.A. (2005) Ecological stoichiometry in freshwater benthic systems: recent progress and perspectives. Freshwater Biology, 50, 1895– 1912. Wiley Online LibraryCASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume51, Issue5May 2006Pages 986-987 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation