Correction: Feng et al. Identification of Ecological Sources Using Ecosystem Service Value and Vegetation Productivity Indicators: A Case Study of the Three-River Headwaters Region, Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau, China. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 1258

Error in Figure Legend

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in the legend for Figure 9. Ecological source identification differences between (a) ESV and kNDVI indicators, (b) only the kNDVI indicator, and (c) only the ESV indicator. The correct legend appears below.

• Figure 9. Ecological source identification differences between (a) only the ESV indicator, (b) only the kNDVI indicator, and (c) ESV and kNDVI indicators.

The kNDVI is unable to identify the lakes in ESs, due to the theory of vegetation index (the red solid box in Figure 9). Meanwhile, ES identification emphasizes the northwest ecological function but neglects the middle areas (the black dotted box in Figure 9).

Error in Table

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. The data 6627 and 65,781 in the last line of 2020 are wrong. The corrected values, 39,993 and 32,415 appears below, see

Table 2. Ecological sources in the TRHR from 2000 to 2020.

Year	Potential Area (km2)	Top 30% Area (km2)	Top 20% Area (km2)	Top 10% Area (km2)
2000	319,917	32,061	29,836	29,775
2005	318,850	33,349	30,081	29,288
2010	312,863	35,624	32,622	30,480
2015	315,171	35,437	30,018	30,963
2020	309,338	39,993	32,415	29,749

.

Missing Citation

In the original publication, The newly added reference [75] “Luo, Q.; Xu, Q.; Chen, F.; Hu, D. Evaluation of Resource and Environment Carrying Capacity of Ezhou City from the Perspective of National Territory Spatial Planning. Eng. J. Wuhan Univ. 2023, 56, 807–816. https://doi.org/10.14188/j.1671-8844.2023-07-005” was not cited. The citation has now been inserted in Section 3, Sub-section 3.3, Paragraph 4, and should read as follows:

According to the “buckets effect”, adopt the lower value of two conservation values obtained by applying the zonation model to ABF and CAZ should be adopted as the final level of ecological source areas [75].

Ref 75 is added as needed if the Correction includes referenced data. With this correction, the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly.

Text Correction

There were two errors in the original publication.

• Section 4.2, Paragraph 2: From 2000 to 2015, the ecological patches fluctuated insignificantly and primarily had an interconversion of the top 20% and 30% of areas. Notably, the top 30% of priority areas exhibit a gradual decrease, with about 70% of the areas transforming into the top 20% of ecological source sites from 2015 to 2020.
• Section 4.2, Paragraph 5: Although the potential area still cover huge areas in the TRHR, the top 30% of areas, which mainly consist of grassland, were transferred into the top 20% of areas gradually. According Ning et al. [78], the restoration area far increased during the implementation of the second phase of the Ecological Project. Thus, it is not hard to understand that the top 30% of ESs will change into the top 20% of ESs. However, the degraded top 10% of Ess are distributed in eastern part of the TRHR.

A correction has been made to Section 4, Sub-section 4.2, Paragraph 2:

• From 2000 to 2020, the ecological patches fluctuated insignificantly and primarily had an interconversion of the top 20% and 30% of areas.

A correction has been made to Section 4, Sub-section 4.2, Paragraph 5:

2.

Although the potential area still covers huge areas in the TRHR, some of potential areas, which mainly consist of grassland, were gradually transferred to the top 30% of areas gradually. According to Ning et al. [79], the restoration area greatly increased during the implementation of the second phase of the Ecological Project. Thus, it is not hard to understand that the potential of ESs will change into the top 30% of ESs. However, the degraded top 10% of ESs are distributed in the eastern part of the TRHR.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.