Research Output per year
Research Output per year
Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/Letter to the editor › Academic
The authors regret < To the editor of Soil Biology and Biochemistry, While reviewing the data for another manuscript I found an error in the calculation of the decomposition measured by the tea bag method that was included in the article: “Soil suppressiveness to Pythium ultimum in ten European long-term field experiments and its relation with soil parameters” by Bongiorno G., Postma J., Bünemann E., Brussaard L., de Goede R., Mäder P., Tamm L., and Thürig B. published in 2019 in Soil Biology and Biochemistry 133: 174–187. The error made was this: to calculate the tea bag decomposition, the final weight of the tea bag instead of the % mass loss (i.e. 1-final weight/initial weight) was taken. Hence, the negative partial correlation originally found should be positive, which actually makes more sense. I am very sorry for this unfortunate error and herewith provide you with the corrected results, see the correct rows in the tables at the end of this message. Below, the consequences for the conclusions of the current manuscript are described. In summary: the error found in the final calculation of tea bag decomposition does not undermine the messages and results of the article. In detail: Text: In the text below, which can be found in the beginning of the result section 3.3, I changed the incorrect text: “Bivariate correlation analysis showed that soil suppressiveness (SSni) (calculated from the management treatment samples) was positively associated with higher values of various chemical (pH, total N, cation exchange capacity (CEC), Ca and K), physical (water holding capacity (WHC), silt, clay, penetration resistance), microbial parameters (microbial biomass C and N (MBC and MBN)), soil respiration (SR), microbial quotient (qMic), earthworm number and biomass, and labile carbon fractions (hydrophilic dissolved organic carbon (Hy-DOC), permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC) and hot water extractable carbon (HWEC)) (Table S4). In contrast, we found negative correlations with C to N ratio (C/N), bulk density (BD), sand, tea bag decomposition, dissolved organic carbon and hydrophilic organic carbon specific ultraviolet absorbance (DOC SUVA and Hy SUVA). The partial correlation showed that after normalization for structural differences between the LTEs (i.e. for the pedoclimatic characteristics) higher values of total N, MBC, soil respiration, qMic, earthworm number, tea bag decomposition, Hy SUVA, POXC, HWEC and carbon in the particulate organic matter (POMC) were associated with higher values of SSni, while higher values of C to N ratio, and DOC SUVA were associated with lower values of SSni (Table 4).“ Table 1 (see below): The unit of tea bag decomposition is % mass loss and not g mass loss. Tables 4 and 5 (see below): The now positive partial correlation of tea bag decomposition with soil suppressiveness is similar to that of MBC, soil respiration and qMic, which makes more sense. However, decomposition based on the tea bag method is not one of the most important variables in later analyses (simple mixed linear models in Table 5), so it would not have been used in the structural equation model and it is not at variance with later results. Table S4 (see below): The now negative bivariate correlation of the bag decomposition with soil suppressiveness is due to the fact that the long-term field experiments CH1 and CH2 have high values of soil suppressiveness but low decomposition values. I, therefore, would like to request a correction of the manuscript in the indicated section, and I submit this request together with the corrections in the contact form available on the Elsevier Journal Article Publishing Support Center. Sincerely, Giulia Bongiorno [Table presented] [Table presented] [Table presented] [Table presented] The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review