Next Article in Journal
Radiometric Cross-Calibration of HJ-2A/CCD3 Using the Random Forest Algorithm and a Spectral Interpolation Convolution Method with Sentinel-2/MSI
Previous Article in Journal
The Performance of GPM IMERG Product Validated on Hourly Observations over Land Areas of Northern Hemisphere
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluating Data Inter-Operability of Multiple UAV–LiDAR Systems for Measuring the 3D Structure of Savanna Woodland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Remote Sensing
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/rs16224335
remotesensing-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
Correction to Remote Sens. 2022, 14(12), 2920.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Correction

Correction: Wolswijk et al. Can Mangrove Silviculture Be Carbon Neutral? Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2920

by
Giovanna Wolswijk
1,2,*,†,
Africa Barrios Trullols
1,†,
Jean Hugé
1,3,4,5,
Viviana Otero
1,
Behara Satyanarayana
1,2,
Richard Lucas
6 and
Farid Dahdouh-Guebas
1,3,7,8
1
Systems Ecology and Resource Management, Department of Organism Biology, Faculté des Sciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, CPi 264/1, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
2
Mangrove Research Unit (MARU), Institute of Oceanography and Environment (INOS), Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), Kuala Nerus 21030, Terengganu, Malaysia
3
Laboratory of General Botany and Nature Management, Biocomplexity Research Focus, Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences and Bio-Engineering Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), VUB-APNA-WE Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
4
Centre for Environmental Science, Hasselt University, Martelarenlaan 42, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
5
Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Open University of The Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands
6
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth SY23 2EJ, Ceredigion, UK
7
Mangrove Specialist Group (MSG), Species Survival Commission (SSC), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 1196 Gland, Switzerland
8
Interfaculty Institute of Social-Ecological Transitions—IITSE, Université Libre de Bruxelles—ULB, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(22), 4335; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224335
Submission received: 19 August 2024 / Accepted: 13 September 2024 / Published: 20 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Belgian Earth Observation Research for the Environment)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Error in Figure/Table

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. In the last row of the table, a mistake was made in the calculation of the total for carbon BGB and soil. The corrected Table 2 appears below.
Another error was present in Figure 5. In the legend inside the figure, the carbon emission and carbon stock colours were reversed. The corrected Figure 5 appears below.

Text Correction

In relation to the error in Table 2, the same values reported in the text were also affected.
A correction has been made to the Abstract, Section 3.1, and Section 4.1.
Abstract:
The total soil carbon of ca. 19 TgC shows the potential of the MMFR as a carbon sink.
Section 3.1:
Considering the total areas occupied by different forest zones (productive, restrictive productive, and protective), the total C stock for the MMFR (AGB, BGB, and soil combined) would be equal to 23,038,322.9 Mg C.
Section 4.1:
By extrapolating soil carbon values for all forest ages and linking them to the areal extent of each forest zone, we estimated that the total carbon storage in the soil can reach 19,395,575.1 Mg C. Hence the carbon storage in the soil seems to be much greater than the carbon stock in the vegetation biomass, with this estimated to be 2,698,331.7 Mg C.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.

Reference

  1. Wolswijk, G.; Barrios Trullols, A.; Hugé, J.; Otero, V.; Satyanarayana, B.; Lucas, R.; Dahdouh-Guebas, F. Can Mangrove Silviculture Be Carbon Neutral? Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Remotesensing 16 04335 g001
Figure 5. Comparison of AGB carbon stock and emissions from both pole and charcoal production for the productive forest zones and the total MMFR.
Figure 5. Comparison of AGB carbon stock and emissions from both pole and charcoal production for the productive forest zones and the total MMFR.
Remotesensing 16 04335 g001
Table 2. Total carbon stock (C) in AGB, BGB, and top 1 m of soil for the productive, restrictive productive, and protective forest zones in the MMFR. For the protective forest the biomass and carbon per ha was considered at least equal to a 30-year-old stand, as these forest areas are in many cases older than that; hence, the values reported for the protective forest are an underestimation of the real carbon stock.
Table 2. Total carbon stock (C) in AGB, BGB, and top 1 m of soil for the productive, restrictive productive, and protective forest zones in the MMFR. For the protective forest the biomass and carbon per ha was considered at least equal to a 30-year-old stand, as these forest areas are in many cases older than that; hence, the values reported for the protective forest are an underestimation of the real carbon stock.
Area (ha)Total C AGB (Mg)Total C BGB (Mg)Total C Soil (Mg)
Productive forest
Age 0–1515,170.2552,151.6193,253.16,624,517.1
Age 15–204435.2384,578.1134,602.32,158,387.3
Age 20–308786.5465,915.5163,070.43,900,523.9
TOTAL28,391.91,402,645.3490,925.812,683,428.4
Restrictive productive forest2068.093,147.432,601.6910,401.2
Protective forest11,661.81,202,539.0420,888.75,801,745.5
TOTAL MMFR42,121.72,698,331.7944,416.119,395,575.1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wolswijk, G.; Barrios Trullols, A.; Hugé, J.; Otero, V.; Satyanarayana, B.; Lucas, R.; Dahdouh-Guebas, F. Correction: Wolswijk et al. Can Mangrove Silviculture Be Carbon Neutral? Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2920. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 4335. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224335

AMA Style

Wolswijk G, Barrios Trullols A, Hugé J, Otero V, Satyanarayana B, Lucas R, Dahdouh-Guebas F. Correction: Wolswijk et al. Can Mangrove Silviculture Be Carbon Neutral? Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2920. Remote Sensing. 2024; 16(22):4335. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224335

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wolswijk, Giovanna, Africa Barrios Trullols, Jean Hugé, Viviana Otero, Behara Satyanarayana, Richard Lucas, and Farid Dahdouh-Guebas. 2024. "Correction: Wolswijk et al. Can Mangrove Silviculture Be Carbon Neutral? Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2920" Remote Sensing 16, no. 22: 4335. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224335

APA Style

Wolswijk, G., Barrios Trullols, A., Hugé, J., Otero, V., Satyanarayana, B., Lucas, R., & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2024). Correction: Wolswijk et al. Can Mangrove Silviculture Be Carbon Neutral? Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2920. Remote Sensing, 16(22), 4335. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224335

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop