Correction: Effects of experimental canopy openness on wood-inhabiting fungal fruiting diversity across succession

Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67216-1, published online 12 July 2024

The original version of this Article contained errors.

Due to an error during the labelling of the ‘treatment-based alpha diversity’ variable, the group labels for ‘common’, ‘dominant’ and ‘rare’ were inadvertently given as ‘rare’, ‘common’ and ‘dominant’, respectively.

Consequently, in the Results section,

“However, temporal responses of fungal diversity differed when response trends and confidence intervals were considered: treatment-based alpha diversity of rare and common species showed similar trends in the first years but diverging trends in later years between microclimate treatments; in later years, rare and common species showed lower alpha diversity trends in open canopies (Fig. 3). The responses were stronger for communities on fir than beech. Treatment-based alpha diversity of dominant species showed almost non-distinguishable trends between closed and open canopies, with mainly overlapping confidence intervals (Fig. 3).

Communities on fir showed lower treatment-based alpha diversity in open compared to closed canopies throughout the succession, a trend which increased over time for rare and common and remained constant for dominant species (Fig. 3).”

now reads:

“However, temporal responses of fungal diversity differed when response trends and confidence intervals were considered: treatment-based alpha diversity of common and dominant species showed similar trends in the first years but diverging trends in later years between microclimate treatments; in later years, common and dominant species showed lower alpha diversity trends in open canopies (Fig. 3). The responses were stronger for communities on fir than beech. Treatment-based alpha diversity of rare species showed almost non-distinguishable trends between closed and open canopies, with mainly overlapping confidence intervals (Fig. 3)

Communities on fir showed lower treatment-based alpha diversity in open compared to closed canopies throughout the succession, a trend which increased over time for common and dominant and remained constant for rare species (Fig. 3).”

In addition, in the Discussion section,

“Our analyses further revealed that alpha diversity responded more strongly when rare and common species were emphasized than when dominant species were emphasized (Fig. 2). Thus, our results suggest that dominant species may be more tolerant towards microclimatic fluctuations across succession. The Rapoports’s rule might thus only apply to dominant species. We also considered different tree species and wood sizes in our experiment. We found stronger divergence of rare and common species in alpha diversity with time between canopies in branches than logs (Fig. 2).”

now reads:

“Our analyses further revealed that alpha diversity responded more strongly when common and dominant species were emphasized than when rare species were emphasized (Fig. 3). Thus, our results suggest that rare species may be more tolerant towards microclimatic fluctuations across succession. The Rapoports’s rule might thus only apply to rare species. We also considered different tree species and wood sizes in our experiment. We found stronger divergence of common and dominant species in alpha diversity with time between canopies in branches than logs (Fig. 3).”

And,

“However, we observed a trend towards a reduction of alpha diversity of rare and common species in later decay stages.”

now reads:

“However, we observed a trend towards a reduction of alpha diversity of common and dominant species in later decay stages.”

Finally, the labels were incorrect in Figure 3, Table 2, Table 3, Supplementary Figure 3 and Supplementary Table 2.

The original Fig. 3 and accompanying legend appear below.

Fig. 3

Treatment-based alpha diversity of fungal fruiting communities under closed (black) and open (grey) canopy treatments with time (years). Smooth splines are based on generalized additive models. Error bars are the 95% confidence intervals. For statistics, see Table 2.

The original Table 2 and accompanying legend appear below.

Table 2 Statistics table for treatment-based alpha diversity in response to time and the canopy treatment for dead wood logs.

The original Table 3 and accompanying legend appear below.

Table 3 Statistics table for treatment-based alpha diversity in response to time and the canopy treatment for dead wood branches.

The original Article and accompanying Supplementary Information file have been corrected.