Corrigendum to "Technical note: Consistent calculation of aquatic gross production from oxygen triple isotope measurements" published in Biogeosciences, 8, 1793–1811, 2011
Corrigendum to "Technical note: Consistent calculation of aquatic gross production from oxygen triple isotope measurements" published in Biogeosciences, 8, 1793–1811, 2011
复制标题
对“技术说明：根据氧三重同位素测量对水生总产量进行一致计算”的勘误，发表于 Biogeosciences，8，1793–1811，2011 年
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Kaiser
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Kaiser
在图1中，1 S的计算公式为λ = ln（1 + eR）/ ln（1 + eR）= 0.5154，而不是预期的λ = γR = 0.5179。图1的正确版本如下所示。特别地，1 S只等于1 P，f = 1。不适用于λ值的选择。在第1801页上，鹿角珊瑚产生的氧的稳态δS值为−9.66 ‰，但实际上应该是−9.16 ‰。所述1 S和1 P值分别为224 ppm和175 ppm是正确的。气体交换过程中的动力学同位素分馏被假定为eI=−2.8 ‰的O2入侵。然而，该值实际上适用于根据Eq. (8)Knox等人（1992）。Luz et al.（2002）也出现了同样的错误。因此，对于基本情况，eE=−2.8 ‰，eI=（1 + eE）（1 + δsat）−1=−2.1 ‰。如前所述计算eE和eE。更新值以斜体显示在下表2和表3中。这种修正使计算的g值改变了1.4 ‰或更少，因此在图1和图2的更新版本中不明显。下面2和3。在Juranek和Quay（2010年）的表2中，呼吸作用的17 O/16 O分馏系数为0.9896，相当于eR=−10.4 ‰。我之前假设这是计算为eR= 0.518 eR= 0.518（−20 ‰）=−10.370 ‰。然而，它实际上被计算为eR=（1 + eR）−1=−10.410 ‰（L）。Juranek，personal communication，2011）.如果四舍五入为0.1 ‰，则这两个值与−10.4 ‰没有区别。Juranek和Quay（2010年）的表2中列出的18 O/16 O分馏系数为0.979，这是不正确的，因为他们的计算实际上使用了0.980的值，这与
In Fig. 1, 1S was calculated with λ = ln(1 + eR)/ ln(1 + eR) = 0.5154 instead of λ = γR = 0.5179, as intended. A correct version of Fig. 1 is shown below. The sentence “In particular, 1S is only equal to 1P for f = 1.” does not apply for this choice of λ value. On p. 1801, the steady-state δS value of oxygen produced by Acropora was stated as −9.66 ‰, but should be −9.16 ‰. The stated 1S and 1P values of 224 ppm and 175 ppm, respectively, are correct. The kinetic isotope fractionation during gas exchange was assumed to be eI=−2.8 ‰ for O2 invasion. However, this value actually applies to kinetic isotope fractionation during O2 evasion (eE) as per Eq. (8) in Knox et al. (1992). The same error appears in Luz et al. (2002). Consequently, eE=−2.8 ‰ and eI= (1 + eE) (1 + δsat)−1=−2.1 ‰ for the base case. eE and eE are calculated as before. Updated values are show in italics in Tables 2 and 3 below. This correction changes the calculated g values by 1.4 ‰ or less and is therefore not noticeable in the updated versions of Figs. 2 and 3 below. In Table 2 of Juranek and Quay (2010) the 17O/16O fractionation factor for respiration is listed as 0.9896, which is equivalent to eR=−10.4 ‰. I previously assumed that this was calculated as eR= 0.518 eR= 0.518 (−20 ‰)=−10.370 ‰. However, it was actually calculated as eR= (1 + eR)−1=−10.410 ‰ (L. Juranek, personal communication, 2011). Both values are indistinguishable from −10.4 ‰ if rounded to 0.1 ‰. The 18O/16O fractionation factor listed as 0.979 in Table 2 of Juranek and Quay (2010) is incorrect because their calculations actually used a value of 0.980, which is identical to the value of