Front. Plant Sci. Frontiers in Plant Science Front. Plant Sci. 1664-462X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpls.2023.1252101 Plant Science Correction Corrigendum: Variation of photosynthetic induction in major horticultural crops is mostly driven by differences in stomatal traits Zhang Ningyi 1 * Berman Sarah R. 1 Joubert Dominique 2 Vialet-Chabrand Silvere 1 Marcelis Leo F. M. 1 Kaiser Elias 1 * 1 Horticulture and Product Physiology, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands 2 Biometris, Department of Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands

Edited and Reviewed by: Ivan A. Paponov, Aarhus University, Denmark

*Correspondence: Ningyi Zhang, ningyi.zhang@njau.edu.cn; Elias Kaiser, elias.kaiser@wur.nl

02 08 2023 2023 14 1252101 03 07 2023 18 07 2023 Copyright © 2023 Zhang, Berman, Joubert, Vialet-Chabrand, Marcelis and Kaiser 2023 Zhang, Berman, Joubert, Vialet-Chabrand, Marcelis and Kaiser

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A Corrigendum on Variation of photosynthetic induction in major horticultural crops is mostly driven by differences in stomatal traits by Zhang N, Berman SR, Joubert D, Vialet-Chabrand S, Marcelis LFM and Kaiser E (2022). Front. Plant Sci. 13:860229. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.860229 induction genotypic variation light fluctuations modeling photosynthesis Rubisco activation stomatal opening section-in-acceptance Crop and Product Physiology

In the published article, there was an error in Table 2 as published. Stomatal size should have been calculated as π × stomatal length × stomatal width/4, therefore, all stomatal size values reported in this table (i.e. SSab and SSad) should have been divided by four. The corrected Table 2 and its caption “Definition, unit, maximum, minimum, mean and coefficient of variation (CV) for dynamic, steady-state, anatomical and physiological traits across 19 horticultural genotypes. Maximum and minimum values are average values of 6-9 replicates” appears below.

Definition, unit, maximum, minimum, mean and coefficient of variation (CV) for dynamic, steady-state, anatomical and physiological traits across 19 horticultural genotypes.

Trait Definition Unit Max.(genotype) Min.(genotype) Mean CV (%)
Dynamic traits
T20 Time to reach 20% of full A induction min 1.2 (CHB) 0.2 (RAP) 0.5 55
T50 Time to reach 50% of full A induction min 7.6 (CHB) 0.6 (RAP) 3.4 61
T90 Time to reach 90% of full A induction min 28.8 (LGI) 3.4 (RAP) 19.2 42
A avg,300 Average A during the first 300 s of induction μmol m-2 s-1 10.9 (TB) 4.7 (RAP) 7.7 22
g s,avg,300 Average g s during the first 300 s of induction mol m-2 s-1 0.143 (TS) 0.052 (CHB) 0.099 22
iWUEavg,300 Average intrinsic water-use efficiency during the first 300 s of induction (A avg,300/g s,avg,300) μmol CO2 (mol H2O)-1 117 (CHB) 42 (RAP) 84 21
k Time constant for g s response to irradiance change 1 min 16.2 (LGI) 7.6 (CUH) 10.8 23
Sl max Maximum rate of g s response to irradiance change 1 mmol m-2 s-2 0.28 (CUH) 0.03 (CHA) 0.13 68
λ Initial time lag of g s response to irradiance change 1 min 7.4 (CUP) 0.1 (BR) 3.9 62
f Weighting factor (between 0-1) for the fast and slow phase of V cmax induction – 0.7 (LGA) 0.4 (CHY) 0.5 18
τ fast Time constant for fast phase of maximum Rubisco carboxylation rate (V cmax) induction min 1.1 (CHA) 0.5 (LC) 0.7 22
τ slow Time constant for slow phase of V cmax induction min 6.5 (TM) 3.1 (RAV) 4.8 22
Steady-state traits
A i Steady-state A at low irradiance μmol m-2 s-1 2.2 (TS) 0.7 (BR) 1.9 21
A f Steady-state A at high irradiance μmol m-2 s-1 20.8 (TM) 5.7 (RAP) 14.4 30
ΔA Difference between A f and A i μmol m-2 s-1 18.8 (TM) 4.5 (RAP) 12.5 33
V mi V cmax at the start of photosynthetic induction μmol m-2 s-1 8.6 (CUP) 4.9 (BR) 7.0 16
V mf V cmax 15 min after start of photosynthetic induction μmol m-2 s-1 65.9 (TB) 20.6 (RAP) 49.9 29
g s,i Steady-state g s at low irradiance mol m-2 s-1 0.12 (RRN) 0.05 (CHB) 0.09 19
g s,f Steady-state g s at high irradiance mol m-2 s-1 0.51 (TS) 0.10 (RAV) 0.25 46
Leaf anatomical traits and pigments
SDab Stomatal density at abaxial leaf side mm-2 340 (CUP) 40 (LGA) 124 78
SDad Stomatal density at adaxial leaf side mm-2 267 (CUH) 0 (RAP, RAV, RRN) 2 67 133
SSab Stomatal size at abaxial leaf side μm2 1411 (CHB) 210 (CUP) 681 57
SSad Stomatal size at adaxial leaf side μm2 1325 (CHR) 0 (RAP, RAV, RRN) 2 540 81
g s,max Theoretical maximum g s, if all stomates were to open to their maximum extent mol m-2 s-1 5.0 (CUP) 1.3 (LGI) 2.5 50
Leafchl Leaf chlorophyll content 3 mg m-2 222.0 (TM) 78.3 (LGA) 151.6 29
Chl a:b Ratio of chlorophyll a to chlorophyll b – 3.1 (LGA) 2.3 (BR) 2.7 7
Leafcaro Leaf carotenoid content mg m-2 28.4 (TM) 11.8 (BR) 19.1 25
Leafabs Leaf light absorptance 4 – 0.89 (BR) 0.73 (LGA) 0.82 5

Maximum and minimum values are average values of 6-9 replicates.

In the published article, there was an error in Figure 5 as published. Stomatal size should have been calculated as π × stomatal length × stomatal width/4, therefore, the numbers shown in Figure 5A should have been divided by four. The corrected Figure 5 and its caption “Stomatal size (A; SSab) and density (B; SDab) at the abaxial leaf side, and theoretical maximum stomatal conductance (C; g s,max) of all 19 horticultural genotypes. Colours indicate crop species. Bars show means ± s.e. (n = 7-9). Letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). Statistical test results of SSab, SDab and g s,max were based on log transformation of the data. See Table 1 for full genotype names” appears below.

Stomatal size (A; SSab) and density (B; SDab) at the abaxial leaf side, and theoretical maximum stomatal conductance (C; g s,max) of all 19 horticultural genotypes. Colours indicate crop species. Bars show means ± s.e. (n = 7-9). Letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). Statistical test results of SSab, SDab and g s,max were based on log transformation of the data. See Table 1 for full genotype names.

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Data Sheet 1. All numbers along the x-axis of Figure S7A-E and along the y-axis of Figure S7E (i.e. stomatal size, which should have been calculated as π × stomatal length × stomatal width/4) in Supplementary Data Sheet 1 should have been divided by four. The correct material statement appears below.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.