2009
DOI: 10.1139/x09-135
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Erratum: Ontogenetic strategy shift in sapling architecture of Fagus crenata in the dense understorey vegetation of canopy gaps created by selective cutting

Abstract: An error was inadvertently introduced in Table 5 by the Journal at the proof stage. The significance level for the F value for the intercept of total stem length of current-year shoots for a sapling (F = 6.30) was shown as nonsignificant (ns), whereas it should have been presented as significant at P < 0.05. Table 5 is presented below with the correct symbol for significance (i.e., *).The Publisher apologizes to the author and readers for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, the fact that all variables used here to describe GUs depended, to some extent, on the individual plant concerned indicates that each M. spinosum plant exhibits some degree of homogeneity in GU structure. In this respect, the differences between the individual plants studied here concerning these variables could be related to the fact that each plant would have been expressing a different ontogenetic developmental stage at the time of sampling (see Yagi 2009), despite the size evenness among the plants sampled for this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, the fact that all variables used here to describe GUs depended, to some extent, on the individual plant concerned indicates that each M. spinosum plant exhibits some degree of homogeneity in GU structure. In this respect, the differences between the individual plants studied here concerning these variables could be related to the fact that each plant would have been expressing a different ontogenetic developmental stage at the time of sampling (see Yagi 2009), despite the size evenness among the plants sampled for this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%