Restoration EcologyVolume 28, Issue 5 p. 1309-1309 CORRIGENDUMFree Access CORRIGENDUM This article corrects the following: Restoration scenario planning at a Spanish quarry can be informed by assessing ecosystem services Ana Calvo Robledo, Michael A. MacDonald, Charlie Butt, Volume 28Issue 4Restoration Ecology pages: 1006-1013 First Published online: April 27, 2020 First published: 29 September 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13286AboutSectionsPDF 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 Calvo Robledo et al. (2020), the authors would like to correct the following errors. In Abstract section, the values and terms in the seventh sentence should have been ‘€172,942’ instead of ‘€91,409’ and ‘conservation (€115,462) and agricultural (€66,210)’ instead of ‘agricultural (€68,504) and conservation (€48,556)’. The correct sentence should read as: Results indicated that the compromise scenario provided the greatest annual value (€172,942), mainly due to its potential visitors, surpassing both conservation (€115,462) and agricultural (€66,210) scenarios. In Table 5 on page 1011, the price values of ‘Climate regulation services’ and ‘Total (€/year)’ under ‘Conservation’, ‘Compromise’ and ‘Agricultural’ rows should have been ‘€91,994’, ‘€112,108’, ‘€-3,155’ and ‘€115,461.8’, ‘€172,942.34’, ‘€66,209.37’, respectively. Below is the correct table. Table 5. Comparison of monetary value (annual value) from ES considering three alternative scenarios for Soto de Pajares. Conservation Compromise Agricultural Agricultural production €23,467.80 €28,067.34 €69,364.37 Climate regulation services €91,994 €112,108 €-3,155 Recreation services €0 €32,767 €0 Total (€/year) €115,461.8 €172,942.34 €66,209.37 On page 1012, the price values in the third and fourth sentences of the ‘Climate Change Mitigation’ subsection should have been ‘€112,108’, ‘€91,994’ and ‘€3,155’. The correct sentences should read as: This gave an annual value in the compromise scenario of €112,108, and in the conservation scenario of €91,994. The net value of both of these scenarios compared with the agricultural scenario would be increased by €3,155, which is the negative value that applies to the emissions in this scenario. On page 1012, the price values and the terms ‘conservation’ and ‘agricultural’ were incorrectly used in the second sentence of ‘Comparison of Alternative Scenarios’ subsection. The correct sentence should read as: This scenario provides a net annual value of €57,480 compared to the conservation scenario; which in turn provided a net annual value of €49,252 compared to the agricultural scenario (Table 5). The authors apologize for these errors. LITURATURE CITED Calvo Robledo A, MacDonald MA, Butt C (2020) Restoration scenario planning at a Spanish quarry can be informed by assessing ecosystem services. Restoration Ecology 28: 1006– 1,013 https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13145 Volume28, Issue5September 2020Pages 1309-1309 Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from ‘home’. We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don’t have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month. Stephen Murphy, EIC ReferencesRelatedInformation
Read full abstract