Corrigendum to “Mesophotic bioerosion: Variability and structural impact on U.S. Virgin Island deep reefs” [Geomorphology 222 (2014) 14–24] (S0169555X14001172) (10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.03.005))

David K. Weinstein, Tyler B. Smith, James S. Klaus

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

Abstract

The authors regret various oversites published in the original article. These oversites do not change the main results, conclusions, or flow of the paper. However, in an effort to provide the most accurate information possible, we would like to correct the following issues. 1. We did not originally include how many points were used for Coral Point Count analysis. After factoring out blank areas, at least 200 points were included in the analysis of each rubble slice. The number was deemed adequate based on methods cited in the paper (Perry, 1998; Macdonald and Perry, 2003).2. In the first sentence of Section 3.2 (Bioerosion grazer abundances), Mumby (2006) is not a good reference for the particular statement.3. To avoid confusion, we would like to emphasize that the term “biomass” may be misleading. Specifically, from the last sentence of Section 3.2 (Bioerosion grazer abundances) until the end of the paper (including Figs. 6 and 9), the term “biomass” actually refers to “bioerosion-adjusted biomass.” The reason for this distinction is that biomass values were scaled to account for behavioral bioerosion trends (as explained in Section 3.2).4. In Section 4.2 (Parrotfish and Diadema antillarum abundance), Diadema antillarum was incorrectly stated to occur at three study sites but was actually only reported at one of the sites (as evident by the values correctly included in the original text). These data were obtained from the cited source and unpublished data in 2003, 2005, and 2011, where n represents the number of transects.5. In Section 4.3 (Substrate bioerosion), we mistakenly wrote that the year was and was not a significant factor. Obviously, the factor cannot be both. Year was significantly different among groups. We have clarified this by adding the actual p-value in Table 2 (which was incorrectly removed by the copy editors). We also rewrote “Quadrat” as “Quadrat(site)” because, as we stated in Section 4.3, the factor was nested. See the corrected table below.6. The symbols for site 1 and site 4 were mixed up on the original graph in Fig. 7. They have now been corrected in the figure below.7. The first sentence of Section 5.2 (Macroboring) is not fully supported by the references provided. As such, we suggest removing that sentence. We also acknowledge that the second sentence in that section should state that coral rubble is only “likely” the best long-term record.The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. [Figure presented]

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)234-235
Number of pages2
JournalGeomorphology
Volume317
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 15 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Earth-Surface Processes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum to “Mesophotic bioerosion: Variability and structural impact on U.S. Virgin Island deep reefs” [Geomorphology 222 (2014) 14–24] (S0169555X14001172) (10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.03.005))'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this