Corrigendum

Abstract

Global Change BiologyVolume 26, Issue 9 p. 5342-5342 CORRIGENDUMFree Access Corrigendum This article corrects the following: A synthesis of methane emissions from shallow vegetated coastal ecosystems Alia N. Al-Haj, Robinson W. Fulweiler, Volume 26Issue 5Global Change Biology pages: 2988-3005 First Published online: March 16, 2020 First published: 22 July 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15192Citations: 1AboutSectionsPDF 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 In the paper by Al-Haj and Fulweiler (2020), global warming potential (GWP) and sustained flux global warming potential (SGWP) were calculated incorrectly. GWP should be calculated using gas emissions in gas mass units (Neubauer & Megonigal, 2015). We thank Judith Rosentreter for bringing the calculation error to our attention and Damien Maher and Patrick Megonigal for consultation on the correction. The updated version of Table 1 includes global flux rate, GWP or SGWP calculated via the following equations for the mean CH4 flux rate of each ecosystem: where r is the mean CH4 flux rate in µmol m−2 day−1 for each ecosystem and A is the area of the ecosystem in km2. where GFR is the mean global CH4 flux rate for each ecosystem and we use the 100 year global warming potential multiplier (32 or 45, respectively) from Neubauer and Megonigal (2015). TABLE 1. Global CH4 emission estimates from vegetated coastal ecosystems (VCEs) and their impact on global carbon cycling. Median CH4 fluxes, global CH4 flux estimates (Supporting Text 3 in Data S1), increase in global marine methane budget (Supporting Text 4 in Data S1), global warming potential (above) and sustained flux global warming potential (above) from VCEs. Values with the same lower case letter are not significantly different Mangrove Salt marsh Seagrass CH4 flux rate (µmol CH4 m−2 day−1) Mean ± SE 4,556.96 ± 1,102.06 3,534.90 ± 1,331.21 108.24 ± 19.72 Median 279.17a 224.44a 64.80b Range −67.33 to 72,867.83 −92.60 to 94,129.68 1.25–401.50 Aerial extent (km2) 137,760–152,361 55,000 788,000–1,646,788 Global CH4 flux rate (Tmol CH4 year−1) Mean ± SE 0.23 ± 0.06 0.25 ± 0.06 0.071 ± 0.027 0.031 ± 0.006 0.065 ± 0.012 Increase in global marine CH4 budget (%) 40.2–44.5 12.5 5.4–11.4 Global C burial (Tg C year−1)* Mean ± SE 31.1 ± 5.4 34.4 ± 5.9 11.99 ± 1.32 108.74 ± 29.90 227.26 ± 62.57 Global warming potential (Tg CO2eq year−1) Mean 117.61–130.08 36.42 15.98–33.39 Sustained flux global warming potential (Tg CO2eq year−1) Mean 165.39–182.92 51.22 22.47–46.96 Global area source McLeod et al. (2011) Mcowen et al. (2017) Jayathilake and Costello (2018), Davidson and Finlayson (2019) * Global C burial rates from McLeod et al. (2011). Subsequently, section 6: Global warming potential is also incorrect. Using the correct calculations for GWP and SGWP, mangroves and salt marshes release ~1–1.5 g of CO2 equivalent CH4 for every gram of CO2-eq C stored when considering the mean CH4 flux rate and seagrasses remain CO2 sinks releasing 1 g of CO2 equivalent CH4 for every 17 g of CO2-eq C stored (Table 1). These results indicate that mangroves and salt marsh ecosystems may be net C storers in some systems and may have net C loss in others. Code detailing step-by-step calculations can be found at https://github.com/aliaalhaj/Al-HajFulweiler2020_MethanefromVCEs_Code. REFERENCE Al-Haj, A. N., & Fulweiler, R. W. (2020). A synthesis of methane emissions from shallow vegetated coastal ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 26, 2988– 3005. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15046 Citing Literature Volume26, Issue9September 2020Pages 5342-5342 ReferencesRelatedInformation