{"title":"更正 \"美国耕地的温室气体净平衡:土壤如何成为气候解决方案的一部分?","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/gcb.17538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>You, Y., Tian, H., Pan, S., Shi, H., Lu, C., Batchelor, W. D., Cheng, B., Hui, D., Kicklighter, D., Liang, X.-Z., Li, X., Melillo, J., Pan, N., Prior, S. A., & Reilly, J. (2023). Net Greenhouse Gas Balance in U.S. Croplands: How Can Soils Be Part of the Climate Solution? Global Change Biology, 30, e17109. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17109</p><p>In the article by You et al. (2023), we found an error in the unit of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration rate in Figure 2c. Specifically, the original unit was listed as g C/m<sup>2</sup>/year, but it should be g C/m<sup>2</sup>/experiment_duration. The data shown in Figure 2c represent the changes in SOC amount over the duration of the experimental period. In most of the papers we collected, the experimental duration for implementing specific agriculture practices (e.g., tillage) typically span multiple years (e.g., 5, 10 or 20 years). Consequently, these papers generally report changes in SOC amounts over the corresponding experimental period, rather than reporting an average annual SOC sequestration rate. Therefore, we compared our results (i.e., changes in SOC amount) with those papers over the same periods and experimental durations during model validation process.</p><p>To enhance comparability, we converted the original unit of observed SOC sequestration rates from g C/m<sup>2</sup>/experiment_duration to g C/m<sup>2</sup>/year and redrew Figure 2c. The main message of this article still upholds after correcting this mistake. The corrected version of Figure 2c is provided. Details of the experimental duration of these data points are also attached to this document (Table 1). Relevant changes and corrections related to Figure 2c made in the main text are also provided.</p><p>2.4 Model calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis</p><p><b>Original text:</b> Overall, DLEM can well-simulate emissions of N<sub>2</sub>O and CH<sub>4</sub>, SOC sequestration rates, and SOC stocks compared with field observations from the metadata collection, in which RMSE (NRMSE) values were 0.16 g N m<sup>−2</sup> (9.6%), 1.5 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (4.4%), 156.9 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (19.3%), and 1929.1 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (17.6%), respectively, and the <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> values were 0.6, 0.91, 0.46, and 0.64, respectively (Figure 2).</p><p><b>Correct text:</b> Overall, DLEM can well-simulate emissions of N<sub>2</sub>O and CH<sub>4</sub>, SOC sequestration rates, and SOC stocks compared with field observations from the metadata collection, in which RMSE (NRMSE) values were 0.16 g N m<sup>−2</sup> (9.6%), 1.5 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (4.4%), 17.04 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (9.17%), and 1929.1 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (17.6%), respectively, and the <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> values were 0.6, 0.91, 0.44, and 0.64, respectively (Figure 2).</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":175,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcb.17538","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correction to “Net Greenhouse Gas Balance in U.S. Croplands: How Can Soils Be Part of the Climate Solution?”\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gcb.17538\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>You, Y., Tian, H., Pan, S., Shi, H., Lu, C., Batchelor, W. D., Cheng, B., Hui, D., Kicklighter, D., Liang, X.-Z., Li, X., Melillo, J., Pan, N., Prior, S. A., & Reilly, J. (2023). Net Greenhouse Gas Balance in U.S. Croplands: How Can Soils Be Part of the Climate Solution? Global Change Biology, 30, e17109. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17109</p><p>In the article by You et al. (2023), we found an error in the unit of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration rate in Figure 2c. Specifically, the original unit was listed as g C/m<sup>2</sup>/year, but it should be g C/m<sup>2</sup>/experiment_duration. The data shown in Figure 2c represent the changes in SOC amount over the duration of the experimental period. In most of the papers we collected, the experimental duration for implementing specific agriculture practices (e.g., tillage) typically span multiple years (e.g., 5, 10 or 20 years). Consequently, these papers generally report changes in SOC amounts over the corresponding experimental period, rather than reporting an average annual SOC sequestration rate. Therefore, we compared our results (i.e., changes in SOC amount) with those papers over the same periods and experimental durations during model validation process.</p><p>To enhance comparability, we converted the original unit of observed SOC sequestration rates from g C/m<sup>2</sup>/experiment_duration to g C/m<sup>2</sup>/year and redrew Figure 2c. The main message of this article still upholds after correcting this mistake. The corrected version of Figure 2c is provided. Details of the experimental duration of these data points are also attached to this document (Table 1). Relevant changes and corrections related to Figure 2c made in the main text are also provided.</p><p>2.4 Model calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis</p><p><b>Original text:</b> Overall, DLEM can well-simulate emissions of N<sub>2</sub>O and CH<sub>4</sub>, SOC sequestration rates, and SOC stocks compared with field observations from the metadata collection, in which RMSE (NRMSE) values were 0.16 g N m<sup>−2</sup> (9.6%), 1.5 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (4.4%), 156.9 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (19.3%), and 1929.1 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (17.6%), respectively, and the <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> values were 0.6, 0.91, 0.46, and 0.64, respectively (Figure 2).</p><p><b>Correct text:</b> Overall, DLEM can well-simulate emissions of N<sub>2</sub>O and CH<sub>4</sub>, SOC sequestration rates, and SOC stocks compared with field observations from the metadata collection, in which RMSE (NRMSE) values were 0.16 g N m<sup>−2</sup> (9.6%), 1.5 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (4.4%), 17.04 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (9.17%), and 1929.1 g C m<sup>−2</sup> (17.6%), respectively, and the <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> values were 0.6, 0.91, 0.44, and 0.64, respectively (Figure 2).</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Change Biology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcb.17538\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Change Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.17538\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.17538","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
4%)、17.04 g C m-2 (9.17%)和 1929.1 g C m-2 (17.6%),R2 值分别为 0.6、0.91、0.44 和 0.64(图 2)。
Correction to “Net Greenhouse Gas Balance in U.S. Croplands: How Can Soils Be Part of the Climate Solution?”
You, Y., Tian, H., Pan, S., Shi, H., Lu, C., Batchelor, W. D., Cheng, B., Hui, D., Kicklighter, D., Liang, X.-Z., Li, X., Melillo, J., Pan, N., Prior, S. A., & Reilly, J. (2023). Net Greenhouse Gas Balance in U.S. Croplands: How Can Soils Be Part of the Climate Solution? Global Change Biology, 30, e17109. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17109
In the article by You et al. (2023), we found an error in the unit of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration rate in Figure 2c. Specifically, the original unit was listed as g C/m2/year, but it should be g C/m2/experiment_duration. The data shown in Figure 2c represent the changes in SOC amount over the duration of the experimental period. In most of the papers we collected, the experimental duration for implementing specific agriculture practices (e.g., tillage) typically span multiple years (e.g., 5, 10 or 20 years). Consequently, these papers generally report changes in SOC amounts over the corresponding experimental period, rather than reporting an average annual SOC sequestration rate. Therefore, we compared our results (i.e., changes in SOC amount) with those papers over the same periods and experimental durations during model validation process.
To enhance comparability, we converted the original unit of observed SOC sequestration rates from g C/m2/experiment_duration to g C/m2/year and redrew Figure 2c. The main message of this article still upholds after correcting this mistake. The corrected version of Figure 2c is provided. Details of the experimental duration of these data points are also attached to this document (Table 1). Relevant changes and corrections related to Figure 2c made in the main text are also provided.
2.4 Model calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis
Original text: Overall, DLEM can well-simulate emissions of N2O and CH4, SOC sequestration rates, and SOC stocks compared with field observations from the metadata collection, in which RMSE (NRMSE) values were 0.16 g N m−2 (9.6%), 1.5 g C m−2 (4.4%), 156.9 g C m−2 (19.3%), and 1929.1 g C m−2 (17.6%), respectively, and the R2 values were 0.6, 0.91, 0.46, and 0.64, respectively (Figure 2).
Correct text: Overall, DLEM can well-simulate emissions of N2O and CH4, SOC sequestration rates, and SOC stocks compared with field observations from the metadata collection, in which RMSE (NRMSE) values were 0.16 g N m−2 (9.6%), 1.5 g C m−2 (4.4%), 17.04 g C m−2 (9.17%), and 1929.1 g C m−2 (17.6%), respectively, and the R2 values were 0.6, 0.91, 0.44, and 0.64, respectively (Figure 2).
期刊介绍:
Global Change Biology is an environmental change journal committed to shaping the future and addressing the world's most pressing challenges, including sustainability, climate change, environmental protection, food and water safety, and global health.
Dedicated to fostering a profound understanding of the impacts of global change on biological systems and offering innovative solutions, the journal publishes a diverse range of content, including primary research articles, technical advances, research reviews, reports, opinions, perspectives, commentaries, and letters. Starting with the 2024 volume, Global Change Biology will transition to an online-only format, enhancing accessibility and contributing to the evolution of scholarly communication.