Erratum
for Bastviken et al., J Environ Qual 32 (6) 2414-2420.
Erratum
for Bastviken et al., J Environ Qual 33 (1) 411.
Published online 5 January 2006
Published in J Environ Qual 35:403 (2006)
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2005.0003er
© 2006 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
ERRATA
Potential Nitrification and Denitrification on Different Surfaces in a Constructed Treatment Wetland
Sofia Kallner Bastviken, Peder G. Eriksson, Irene Martins, João M. Neto, Lars Leonardson, and Karin Tonderski; J. Environ. Qual. 32:2414–2420 (2003) and J. Environ. Qual. 33:411 (2004) (errata).
On pages 2417 and 2419, several of the values in Fig. 3 and 4 were incorrect. Below are Fig. 3
and 4
with corrected values. As a consequence, the following corrections have been made in the text.
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Potential nitrification (black bars), potential denitrification (striped bars), and nitrate removal (white bars) on the surfaces of Eurasian watermilfoil (M. spicatum), twigs, sediment, and macroalgae (biofilm area–1 in A; dry wt.–1 in B). The samples were collected in Basins B and D (n = 5) in Magle wetland, Hässleholm. Error bars show SD.
|
|
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Potential nitrification (black bars) and denitrification (striped bars) on surfaces in the D basin during July estimated per wetland surface area, using maximum and average biomass values for macroalgae and Eurasian watermilfoil (M. spicatum), and surface area for sediment. Error bars show SD.
|
|
On page 2418, left column, eighth line from the bottom of the page, the sentence beginning with "The sediment was..." should be replaced with:
"The sediment was the most important surface for denitrifying bacteria, and the measured rates were similar to or lower than potential denitrification activities noted in other wastewater treatment wetlands (Gale et al., 1993; Kozub and Liehr, 1999; Thompson et al., 2000).
On page 2419, left column, 21st line from the top of the page, the block of text beginning with "The estimated potential..." and ending with "...Martin and Reddy, 1997)." should be replaced with:
"The estimated potential rate of denitrification in relation to the wetland sediment area was lower than the actual total N removal rate in the field in July (5.3 kg total N ha–1 d–1, Table 1) and about the same as in the field in November (1.5–2 kg total N ha–1 d–1, Table 1). The actual nitrate removal in field is usually lower than the potential denitrification rates as denitrification is restricted by temperature, oxygen, and nitrate concentrations (Nielsen et al., 1990; Jensen et al., 1994). The low denitrification potential probably reflects that the acetylene inhibition method underestimated the potential for denitrification, as has also been shown in other studies (e.g. Seitzinger et al., 1993). Furthermore, the wetland actual total N removal in field also includes other nitrogen removal processes (e.g., nitrogen uptake by plants)."
