Publisher’s note

Front. Plant Sci.

Frontiers in Plant Science

Front. Plant Sci.

1664-462X

Frontiers Media S.A.

10.3389/fpls.2024.1513724

Plant Science

Correction

Corrigendum: Root symbiotic fungi improve nitrogen transfer and morpho-physiological performance in Chenopodium quinoa

Alquichire-Rojas

Shirley

¹ Escobar

Elizabeth

² Bascuñán-Godoy

Luisa

² ^* González-Teuber

Marcia

³ ^*

¹ Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile ² Departamento de Botánica, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Oceanográficas, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile ³ Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Edited and Reviewed by: Néstor Fernández Del-Saz, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain

*Correspondence: Marcia González-Teuber, mgonzat@uc.cl; Luisa Bascuñán-Godoy, lubascun@gmail.com

17 12 2024

2024

1513724

19 10 2024 11 11 2024

2024

Alquichire-Rojas, Escobar, Bascuñán-Godoy and González-Teuber

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 Root symbiotic fungi improve nitrogen transfer and morpho-physiological performance in Chenopodium quinoa By Alquichire-Rojas S, Escobar E, Bascuñán-Godoy L and González-Teuber M (2024). Front. Plant Sci. 15:1386234. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1386234

entomopathogenic fungi nitrogen transfer photosynthesis carbon allocation plant growth symbiosis quinoa

section-in-acceptance

Plant Nutrition

In the published article, there was an error in the unit used for stomatal conductance, we wrote “g_s (nmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1)” where we meant g_s (mmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1). This error occurred in the Y axis title for Figure 4B , the caption for Figure 4 , Table 1 caption and in a sentence of the Materials and methods, section 2.8 Plant photosynthetic and morphological parameters as published. This sentence previously stated:

“Gas exchange measurements of net photosynthesis (A_N) (µmol CO₂ m^-2 s^-1), stomatal conductance (g_s) (nmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1), and transpiration (T) (mmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1) were performed for fully expanded leaves (third leaf from the top) using a portable open gas exchange system (CIRAS-2, PP Systems Amesbury, MA, USA).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Gas exchange measurements of net photosynthesis (A_N) (µmol CO₂ m^-2 s^-1), stomatal conductance (g_s) (mmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1), and transpiration (T) (mmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1) were performed for fully expanded leaves (third leaf from the top) using a portable open gas exchange system (CIRAS-2, PP Systems Amesbury, MA, USA).”

The corrected Figure 4 and Table 1 are below:

Figure 4

Effects of nitrogen (N) level and EIPF inoculation on photosynthetic parameters in C. quinoa (A) net photosynthetic rate (μmol CO₂ m^-2 s^-1) (n = 4-6), (B) stomatal conductance rate (mmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1) (n = 4-6), and (C) transpiration rate (mmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1) (n = 4-6). Error bar labels with different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among treatments. 5 mM, low nitrogen level; 15 mM, high nitrogen level; EIPF-, non-inoculated plants; EIPF1+, inoculated with Beauveria; EIPF2+, inoculated with Metarhizium.

Table 1

Two-way ANOVA of the effects of nitrogen (N) level and EIPF inoculation on physiological and morphological traits in Chenopodium quinoa.

	F-value			Replicates
	N	EIPF	N × EIPF	Replicates
Foliar N(mg N per plant)	1012.70 **	1.12NS	0.89NS	8-9
Root N(mg N per plant)	382.61 **	8.88 **	0.12 NS	6-8
Foliar proteins(mg proteins g^-1 dry weight)	223.12 **	4.50 **	1.56NS	7-8
Root proteins(mg proteins g^-1 dry weight)	16.63 **	15.71 **	0.02NS	5-6
Foliar C(mg C per plant)	723.39 **	6.67 **	2.43NS	8-9
Root C(mg C per plant)	154.61 **	4.02 *	0.56NS	6-8
Foliar NSC(mg g^-1 dry weight)	0.96NS	7.49 **	1.24NS	5-9
Root NSC(mg g^-1 dry weight)	21.62 **	0.35NS	3.95 **	5-10
GS(nmol Glu min^-1 mg^-1 proteins)	5.81 *	8.49 **	7.37 **	4-6
GDH-NADH(nmol NADH min^-1 mg^-1 proteins)	13.55 **	2.02NS	0.13NS	4
GDH-NAD⁺ (nmol NAD⁺ min^-1 mg^-1 proteins)	23.02 **	0.28NS	0.06NS	4
Net photosynthesis(µmol CO₂ m^-2 s^-1)	49.02 **	5.59 **	2.49NS	4-6
Stomatal conductance(mmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1)	11.36 **	17.73 **	1.48NS	4-6
Transpiration(mmol H₂O m^-2 s^-1)	7.38 *	18.57 **	2.24NS	4-6
Above-ground biomass(g dry weight)	508.23 **	9.43 **	1.51NS	11-15
Below-ground biomass(g dry weight)	184.37 **	2.34NS	0.23NS	11-15
Total biomass(g dry weight)	449.65 ***	6.48 **	1.06NS	11-15

Nitrogen (N) level - LN, low nitrogen: 5 mM and HN, high nitrogen: 15 mM. EIPF-, non-inoculated plants; EIPF1+, inoculated with Beauveria; EIPF2+, inoculated with Metarhizium). F values are shown; * indicates significance at the 0.05 level, ** indicates significance at the 0.01 level, whereas *** indicates significance at the 0.001 level. NS indicates no significant difference. Bold values denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level.

In the published article, there was also an error in the Funding statement; “Other funding was provided by ANID-Subdirección Capital Humano/Doctorado Nacional/2021-21210677 (SA-R)” was omitted.

The correct Funding statement appears below:

“The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by grants ANID Fondecyt Regular N° 1230282 (MG-T) and ANID Fondecyt Regular N° 1211473 (LB-G). Other funding was provided by ANID-Subdirección de Capital Humano/Doctorado Nacional/2021-21210677 (SA-R)”.

In the published article, there was an error, in the reagent’s name used for Glutamine Synthetase assay; we wrote “hydroxyamide” where we meant “hydroxylamine”.

A correction has been made to Materials and methods, 2.7 Measurements of Glutamine Synthetase (GS) and Glutamate Dehydrogenase (GDH) activities, paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“The mixture for the GS essay contained 500 µL of reaction buffer (80 mM glutamic acid, 20 mm MgSO₄, 8 mM ATP, 6 mM hydroxyamide, 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 0.1 mM Tricine, pH 7.8).”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“The mixture for the GS essay contained 500 µL of reaction buffer (80 mM glutamic acid, 20 mm MgSO₄, 8 mM ATP, 6 mM hydroxylamine, 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 0.1 mM Tricine, pH 7.8).”

The authors apologize for these errors 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 the Conflict of Interest statement. A correction has been made to the Conflict of Interest statement:

“The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The handling editor [NFS] is currently organizing a Research Topic with the author [LBG].”

The Field Chief Editor Dr. Chun-Ming Liu has assessed the original manuscript, the correction, and the review process, and certifies the integrity of the review process.

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.