This is a corrigendum to Fernández-Castro et al. (2020), in which a number of editing errors were found. The errors do not affect the results and the conclusions of the work, because the calculations and analyses were correct. A list of corrections is provided here: d The in-line equation for the horizontal vorticity in section 3b, p. 1901, should read qH 5 (›yw 2 ›zy)›xb 1 (2V2cosf 1 ›zu 2 ›xw)›yb. d Equation (11) (section 3e, p. 1904) should be written as v 5 ve 2 k U (11). d Equation (12) (section 3e, p. 1904) should be (Formula Presented) d The symbol labels were swapped in Fig. 12a (p. 1907). The squares represent the properties of eddy core (r < 15 km), and the circles represent the reference properties outside the eddy (r > 80 ...
The original version of this Article contained errors in Fig. 6. In panel a, the grey highlight...
The original version of this Article contained an error in the last sentence of the second paragraph...
The authors regret that Fig. 9b in this article incorrectly repeated the RANS results already shown ...
This is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. There is a sign error in...
The authors regret that there is a small typological error of the empirical constant b1 in Eq. (19)....
This correction leaves unchanged the overall agreement with expectations and the conclusions of the ...
The above article was originally published online in Early View on 20 November 2009, and subsequentl...
International audienceThe above article was originally published online in Early View on 20 November...
Due to an oversight of ours in proofreading and a communication problem with the publisher, the figu...
[1] In the paper “Spatial and temporal dynamics in eddy covariance observations of methane fluxes at...
The authors regret that Figure 4 of McAndrews et al. (2009) has been found to contain three errors: ...
This article was originally published online on 5 April 2022 with errors on page 4, Sec. IV. The thi...
Author Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2010. This article is posted here by permission ...
Change history: In this Letter, the y-axis values in Fig. 3f should go from 4 to -8 (rather than fro...
In the original publication of the article, Eqs. (26)–(28) are incorrect due to a missing ρ symbol, ...
The original version of this Article contained errors in Fig. 6. In panel a, the grey highlight...
The original version of this Article contained an error in the last sentence of the second paragraph...
The authors regret that Fig. 9b in this article incorrectly repeated the RANS results already shown ...
This is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. There is a sign error in...
The authors regret that there is a small typological error of the empirical constant b1 in Eq. (19)....
This correction leaves unchanged the overall agreement with expectations and the conclusions of the ...
The above article was originally published online in Early View on 20 November 2009, and subsequentl...
International audienceThe above article was originally published online in Early View on 20 November...
Due to an oversight of ours in proofreading and a communication problem with the publisher, the figu...
[1] In the paper “Spatial and temporal dynamics in eddy covariance observations of methane fluxes at...
The authors regret that Figure 4 of McAndrews et al. (2009) has been found to contain three errors: ...
This article was originally published online on 5 April 2022 with errors on page 4, Sec. IV. The thi...
Author Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2010. This article is posted here by permission ...
Change history: In this Letter, the y-axis values in Fig. 3f should go from 4 to -8 (rather than fro...
In the original publication of the article, Eqs. (26)–(28) are incorrect due to a missing ρ symbol, ...
The original version of this Article contained errors in Fig. 6. In panel a, the grey highlight...
The original version of this Article contained an error in the last sentence of the second paragraph...
The authors regret that Fig. 9b in this article incorrectly repeated the RANS results already shown ...