Correction: Integrated assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in extensive livestock farming systems

Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-32814-0, published online 17 December 2025

The original online version of this Article was revised: The original version of this Article contained errors in the Reference list. Specifically, Reference 61: MAPA. Caprino. Bases Zootécnicas para el Cálculo del Balance Alimentario de Nitrógeno y de Fósforo. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (2021). https://cpage.mpr.gob.es/producto/porcino-blanco/, was erroneously omitted from the Reference list.

Additionally, Reference 78, which read: MAPA. Ovino. Bases Zootécnicas Para El Cálculo Del Balance Alimentario de Nitrógeno y de Fósforo. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ganaderia/temas/ganaderia-y-medio-ambiente/ was removed. This source was already cited as Reference 60, and it was erroneously duplicated.

As a result, the following changes were implemented in the Discussion section to adhere with the corrected Reference list:

‘On the one hand, its nutrient content, particularly organic matter and nitrogen as indicated by the N/C ratio, makes it a valuable fertilizer that enhances soil fertility and contributes to carbon sequestration^59–61,79.’

now reads:

‘On the one hand, its nutrient content, particularly organic matter and nitrogen as indicated by the N/C ratio, makes it a valuable fertilizer that enhances soil fertility and contributes to carbon sequestration^59–61.’

Additionally,

‘These strategies are in general terms associated with lower production intensity and a reduction of the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions^4,71,72,80.’

now reads:

‘These strategies are in general terms associated with lower production intensity and a reduction of the net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions^4,71,72,79.’

Furthermore

‘These results are particularly significant because, if such practices were implemented, this type of farm would have greater potential for climate change mitigation within the specific context of the dehesa system⁸¹.’

now reads:

‘These results are particularly significant because, if such practices were implemented, this type of farm would have greater potential for climate change mitigation within the specific context of the dehesa system⁸⁰.’

Lastly

‘However, there are many examples of countries that have already confirmed that, due to the diversity of agricultural sectors and lack of standardized for carbon accountancy, policies still cannot be applied equally to all types of farms^83–85.’

now reads:

‘However, there are many examples of countries that have already confirmed that, due to the diversity of agricultural sectors and lack of standardized for carbon accountancy, policies still cannot be applied equally to all types of farms^82–85.’

The Reference list and original Article have been corrected.