Author Correction: Economic and biophysical limits to seaweed farming for climate change mitigation

Abstract

In the version of this article initially published, in the Results subsection "Costs and benefits of large-scale seaweed farming", the percentages of ocean area farmed to reach 1 Gt and 3 Gt of CO 2 sequestered by sinking seaweed in the ambient nutrient scenario were incorrect due to typographical errors. As a result, in the sentence beginning "In the optimistic case", "0.85%" is now "0.110%", "310,000 km 2 " is now "400,000 km 2 ", and "Poland" now reads as "Zimbabwe". In the sentence following, "is slightly higher: 0.036% and 0.099%" now reads as "is 0.035% and 0.100%" and "$40" is now "$30". Furthermore, in the penultimate sentence of this paragraph, "ocean areas of 0.09-0.10% and 0.28-0.37%" now reads as "ocean areas of 0.085-0.100% and 0.285-0.410%" and "roughly 320,000-360,000 km 2 and 1,010,000-1,330,000 km 2 " is now "roughly 310,000-360,000 km 2 and 1,030,000-1,480,000 km 2 ".

Reply to: Rectifying misinformation on the climate intervention potential of ocean afforestation

“…Their scale argument is not reasonable. Ocean Afforestation would not go from zero to gigatonnes in one big step but this process would occur gradually with a certain rate of development 5 , as we can observe in sectors where seaweed is grown for products 6 . Thus, Ocean Afforestation would need to eventually pass the megatonne-scale of the GASB.…”