Journal of Environmental Horticulture 30(3):118-124 September 2012.
The authors have discovered an error that was inadvertently made in the above referenced article published in 2012. The error occurred in the formula used to calculate cumulative efflux of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) presented in Table 1 (page 121). This error resulted in an underestimation of cumulative efflux. Corrected text and a corrected Table 1 are listed below. We apologize to our readers for this error.
Page 120, second column, line 10: Corrected cumulative efflux analysis shows that efflux from media only containers accounted for an estimated 28, 39, 38, and 45% of yearly cumulative efflux from the TG, #1, #2, and #3 containers, respectively as opposed to percentages originally reported on page 120.
Page 123, first column, line 1: Corrected efflux shows that on a 0.4 ha (1 A) production bed, #3 gallon containers spaced 15 cm (6 in) apart (about 26,000 plants) would have approximately 2,500 kg (5,500 lbs) of cumulative CO2 efflux while the same production space filled with TG containers on 5 cm (2 in) spacing (98,000 plants would have an approximate efflux of 4950 kg (10,912 lbs) as opposed to results presented on pages 123.
Page 123, first column, second paragraph, line 20: Subtracting cumulative CO2-C efflux from total C stored in biomass and media (following landscape outplanting) would result in a net C gain of 346.7, 542.6, 849.1, and 1,577.3 g from the TG, #1, #2, and #3 containers as opposed to figures presented on pg. 123.
Pg. 123, second column, first paragraph, line 4: Cumulative N2O efflux from containers with plants indicates that approximately 0.03, 0.04, 0.10, and 0.27 g were lost via N2O of the course of the study in the TG, #1, #2, and #3 containers, respectively, as opposed to figures presented on page 123.