Corrigendum to “Holocene sea-level database for the Rhine-Meuse Delta, The Netherlands: Implications for the pre-8.2 ka sea-level jump” [Quat. Sci. Rev. 214 (2019) 68–86](S0277379117310156)(10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.05.001)
When the article was first published there was a decimal error in the reporting of the accuracy of the event-timing of the pre-8.2 ka sea-level jump at the Rotterdam sites, in section 5.2 on page 79–80 (including Fig. 7) and the repeat of the result in the Conclusions (page 83). The onset age uncertainty for the first phase of the jump event was reported as 8.44 ± 0.41, but should have been 8.44 ± 0.041 (twice on page 80, once in Fig. 7, once on page 83). That for the second phase was reported as 8.22 ± 0.65, but should have been of 8.22 ± 0.065 (page 80). The graphical error boxes in the figu... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | Comment |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2019 |
Schlagwörter: | Taverne / Global and Planetary Change / Ecology / Evolution / Behavior and Systematics / Archaeology / Geology |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27611491 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/391486 |
When the article was first published there was a decimal error in the reporting of the accuracy of the event-timing of the pre-8.2 ka sea-level jump at the Rotterdam sites, in section 5.2 on page 79–80 (including Fig. 7) and the repeat of the result in the Conclusions (page 83). The onset age uncertainty for the first phase of the jump event was reported as 8.44 ± 0.41, but should have been 8.44 ± 0.041 (twice on page 80, once in Fig. 7, once on page 83). That for the second phase was reported as 8.22 ± 0.65, but should have been of 8.22 ± 0.065 (page 80). The graphical error boxes in the figures and the data supplement values are correct. The correct Figure 7 is printed below: [Figure presented] The same error was also made in citing the event-onset age uncertainty of our previous assessment (Hijma and Cohen, 2010): was reported as 8.45 ± 0.44, but should have been 8.45 ± 0.044 (page 79). The authors apologise for any inconvenience caused.