Author Correction: Atmospheric CO₂ during the Mid-Piacenzian Warm Period and the M2 glaciation

Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67154-8, published online 09 July 2020

The original version of this Article contained errors.

The data presented in de la Vega, E., Chalk, T.B., Wilson, P.A. et al. (2020) is based on a combination of δ¹¹B-derived CO₂ proxy data from Martínez-Botí, M. et al. (2015)¹ and newly generated data, both from contiguous material gathered from ODP Site 999 in the Caribbean Sea.

The original version of this Article contains an error where the CO₂ data reported from Martínez-Botí, M. et al. (2015) was plotted and calculated on its original age model as published. However, the newly generated high resolution δ¹¹B/CO₂ data was plotted and calculated on an updated age model, leading to a small number of points falling out of strict stratigraphic sequence.

The age model of the data from Martínez-Botí, M. et al. (2015) has now been updated to our new age model and has been corrected in all Figures, calculations, and Tables affected. This has impacted Figures 1 and 2, the Supplementary Figures 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, and Supplementary Table 1, 2 and 3. The original Figures 1 and 2, and Supplementary Information file are provided below.

Figure 1

Top panel: Current CO₂ estimates from boron isotopes across the Plio-Pleistocene boundary. G. ruber data in red circles from site 999 (Martinez-Boti et al.¹³), T. sacculifer in red squares from site 999 (Seki et al.¹⁴), blue squares from site 926 (Sosdian et al.²⁰) and pale red squares from site 999 (Bartoli et al.¹²). Bottom Panel: δ¹⁸O from benthic foraminifer Cibicidoides wuellerstorfi at ODP Site 999 (blue circles) with a 5 point running mean (this study and ref.⁵³) compared to the benthic isotope stack of ref.¹⁹. M2 glacial and early Pleistocene strong glacials are highlighted in blue for context. Interglacial KM5 and KM5c are highlighted in yellow and orange, respectively. Note that there are no estimates for the M2 glacial and very few across the mid-Piacenzian warm period (mPWP), the low resolution of previous studies makes pin-pointing individual interglacials such as the KM5c future analogue difficult. These studies also differ in their estimates of Mid-Piacenzian CO₂^12,13,14,20.

Figure 2

Top panel: Red circles and lines show δ¹¹B-derived CO₂ data from Globigerinoides ruber at ODP Site 999 (this study and Martinez-Boti et al.¹³, Chalk et al.¹⁸), red squares are Trilobatus sacculifer at ODP 999 (this study and Seki et al.¹⁴), purple squares are T. sacculifer from ODP 668 (Honisch et al.²³) and blue squares are T. sacculifer from ODP 926 (Sosdian et al.²⁰). Black solid line shows ice core-derived CO₂ from ref.⁵⁸. Left; Late Pleistocene CO₂ from boron isotopes^14,18,23,52 and ice core data. Also shown are CO₂ projections in line with RCP8.5 at current emission rates to the year 2040 (black broken line). Middle column; MPT CO₂ estimates^18,23 including disturbed ice estimates^24,25 (Note: age adjusted for scale). Right; mPWP estimates of CO₂ (this study combined with Martinez-Boti et al.¹³), new data from T. sacculifer is shown in red squares and shows no offset from G. ruber estimates. Second panel: Time periods as above, LR04 and ODP 999 δ¹⁸O from C. wuellerstorfi^18,19,53. Third panel: Iron mass accumulation rate from the Southern Atlantic ODP Site 1090²⁸. Fourth panel: % Northern Component Water (NCW) estimated from δ¹³C in benthic foraminifera (grey) and ɛ_Nd from fish debris (dark green) in the deep North Atlantic (core U1313³¹). Note the lag of ocean circulation and CO₂ relative to the M2 glaciation³¹.

This change does not impact the overall conclusion of the article, however, the average CO₂ values during KM5c and the CO₂ range during the specific intervals of the study slightly vary from the update.

The original Article and accompanying Supplementary Information files have been corrected.