We are providing this correction to clarify and correct several details as originally presented in D'Acunha, Lee, and Johnson (2018). Figure A in D'Acunha et al. (2018) incorrectly presented the locations of the wells and piezometers monitored for groundwater level by the City of Delta. While the geographic coordinates given in Table A of D'Acunha et al. (2018) correctly correspond to the groundwater level measurement locations, the markers in Figure A of D'Acunha et al. (2018) are shifted from their correct placement. We provide an updated figure below (Figure A) to correct this issue. We also wish to highlight that water level monitoring was conducted by the City of Delta, as noted in the Methods section and the Acknowledgements of D'Acunha et al. (2018). The methodology described in section 2.2 should have been specifically attributed to Howie et al. (2009). Also, this information was not conveyed in the figure legends of Figures 2 and 4 in D'Acunha et al. (2018), and we wish to emphasize that the authors of D'Acunha et al. (2018) were not involved in water level monitoring. The statement in D'Acunha et al. (2018) that indicated all water level measurements began in September 2005 is incorrect. Of the 11 piezometers used in D'Acunha et al. (2018), 6 have readings beginning in September 2005, one began in October 2005, and five began in August 2006. We summarize the starting times for each location in Table A of this Correction. We also note that the location identification nomenclature used for groundwater level measurements used by the City of Delta differs from that used in D'Acunha et al. (2018). Table A in this Correction provides a one-to-one correspondence of location codes used in D'Acunha et al. (2018) to the nomenclature used by the City of Delta and other agencies engaged in water level measurements. Location code D'Acunha et al. (2018) The statement in D'Acunha et al. (2018) that “Transects B and E were harvested during World War II” is incorrect. The position of three groundwater monitoring locations along Transect B (B1, B2, and B3) are adjacent to, but outside of, areas that experienced peat harvesting (Hebda, Gustavson, Golinski, & Calder (2000); Figure A). As these locations are 35 m south of the polygonal perimeter of an area defined as experiencing peat harvesting, the remote sensing products with 1 km (MODIS ET) and 250 m (MODIS NDVI) pixel resolutions overlap with areas for which peat was harvested. However, the influence of legacy peat harvesting on groundwater levels is difficult to assess for locations outside of harvest areas. Transect E is located perpendicular to a blocked perimeter drainage ditch in an area which has never had peat harvesting with Locations E3 and E4 near this blocked drainage ditch (Howie et al., 2009). Tree and shrub regrowth has been reported following the 2005 fire, which could be a significant factor driving the ET trends observed for Transect B using the MODIS MOD16A2 product. While it is not possible from the satellite record to determine the relative strengths of regrowth vs. rewetting as potential causal (and interacting) mechanisms leading to changes in ET, vegetative regrowth should be recognized as a potentially important ET component. Future research could use an isotopic approach to segregate ET into evaporation (E) and transpiration (T), where rewetting would presumably increase E for areas more proximal to the blocked ditches, while more and larger trees and shrubs would likely lead to increased T. It should also be noted that vegetative communities in Burns Bog are highly complex and variable over short distances in relation to micro-topography and other features. Remote sensing imagery aggregates optical characteristics of the entire plant community that occurs within each pixel. As such, we recognize the difficulty of identifying changes in vegetative communities from remote sensing imagery, particularly at the 250 m MODIS NDVI pixel size. We acknowledged this difficulty in the Discussion section of D'Acunha et al. (2018) and indicated that we were unable to assess the abundance of mosses using remotely sensed data for the transects. Rather, surveys and an inventory of vegetation cover are needed to fully assess composition of and changes within vegetative communities. Remote sensing data can help to identify areas that may be experiencing changes as screening tool to help plan for field-based measurements. The statement in the Conclusion section of D'Acunha et al. (2018) that ditch blocking was part of the restoration efforts by Metro Vancouver is incorrect. Ditch blocking has been carried out by the City of Delta since 2001. Finally, “Set” in Figure 3 caption, should be “Sept”.
Read full abstract