Correction: Lopes Sobrinho et al. How Does Irrigation with Wastewater Affect the Physical Soil Properties and the Root Growth of Sugarcane Under Subsurface Drip? Agronomy 2024, 14, 788

1. Text Correction

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in the objective, and it is important to mention the depth of the drip tape. A correction has been made to Section 1. Introduction, Paragraph 6, which should read as follows:

• “Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of treated sewage effluent (TSE) or surface reservoir water (SRW), both applied at 0.20 and 0.40 m, via subsurface drip irrigation (SDI), on the root development of first ratoon cane (Saccharum officinarum L.) and the physical properties of dystrophic red latosol.”

There was also a minor change, mentioning that the irrigation treatment waters (TSE and SRW) were applied at 0.20 and 0.40 m and a change in order. A correction has been made to Section 2.2. Experimental Design and Treatments, which should read as follows:

• “The plots had the following irrigation treatment water: non-irrigated (NI), irrigated with TSE at 0.20 and 0.40 m, and irrigated with SRW at 0.20 and 0.40 m, being subdivided into the following soil layers: 0–0.20, 0.20–0.40, 0.40–0.60, and 0.60–0.80 m for analysis of soil physical properties and root development in sugarcane plants.”

Throughout the text of the article, there are several changes as follows:

• The term “types of cultivation” was changed to “irrigation treatment water” to meet a request from the reviewers.
• The term “depth” when referring to soil layers was also removed, as the correct term is “soil layer.”
• To use the correct term, “soil area” has been changed to “soil layers” throughout the text.
• The layer dimensions have been changed from centimeters to meters.

Moreover, the following part should be removed: “the soil dimensions for calculating the irrigation depth and dripper flow of 1 L h⁻¹ were 0.6 m depth and 0.4 m lane width.” A correction has been made to Section 2.5. Irrigation System and Management, Paragraph 5, which should read as follows:

• “In the plant cane, the dripper flow of 1.6 L h⁻¹ had a bandwidth of 0.5 m with a line length of 18 m (17 m of line + 0.5 m at each line end, which corresponds to the whip connection between the derivation and the drip tube).”

2. Error in Figures

There was another mistake in Figure 3 as published. The dripline in the figure should be changed to drip tape. The corrected Figure 3 appears below.

There was a small change in the Figure 2 caption, making it necessary to mention the meaning of the acronyms (irrigation treatment water).

To improve the quality, Figure 6 has been replaced with a higher-resolution version. The corrected Figure 6 appears below.

Figure S1 has been replaced with the one in color. The corrected Figure S1 appears below.

Figure S1. Distribution of climate data in the experimental area during the cultivation period of sugarcane under irrigation treatment with TSE or SRW. The data covers the first- and second-year periods of the sugarcane-plant (a) and sugarcane-ratoon (b) cycles, including precipitation, relative air humidity, and average air temperature.

Figure S1. Distribution of climate data in the experimental area during the cultivation period of sugarcane under irrigation treatment with TSE or SRW. The data covers the first- and second-year periods of the sugarcane-plant (a) and sugarcane-ratoon (b) cycles, including precipitation, relative air humidity, and average air temperature.

3. Error in Tables

There was a mistake in Table 1, as published. There was a typo in the text after Table 1, where the layer is 0–40; the correct one is 0.40–0.60 m. Soon after this, the information “root area with ARS (40 cm) was greater at depths of 0 20 and 20 40 cm” was repeated twice. The corrected

Table 1. Soil density, volume, area, and root length of sugarcane under irrigation treatments with TSE or SRW. Evaluations carried out at 0–0.20, 0.20–0.40, 0.40–0.60, and 0.60–0.80 m soil layers. NI = non-irrigated control treatment.

Irrigation Treatment Water	Soil Layers
	0–0.20 m	0.20–0.40 m	0.40–0.60 m	0.60–0.80 m
Root volume (mm3)
TSE(0.20 m)	193.99 ± 129.09 * Aa	100.64 ± 64.36 B	55.48 ± 40.10 BC	37.60 ± 24.86 C
TSE(0.40 m)	135.14 ± 53.30 Aab	105.10 ± 89.80 AB	54.27 ± 28.01 BC	29.73 ± 17.39 C
SRW(0.20 m)	200.44 ± 84.40 Aa	120.45 ± 74.34 B	59.36 ± 29.35 C	23.15 ± 12.36 C
SRW(0.40 m)	74.83 ± 50.30 Bb	85.78 ± 80.15 A	56.70 ± 47.65 AB	21.71 ± 20.45 B
NI	165.98 ± 124.65 Aa	125.28 ± 62.71 A	58.48 ± 38.68 B	44.13 ± 37.21 B
Root area (mm2)
TSE(0.20 m)	1842.46 ± 1018.40 Aa	879.18 ± 536.63 B	512.88 ± 337.18 BC	363.24 ± 172.04 C
TSE(0.40 m)	1245.77 ± 471.19 Aab	840.35 ± 650.80 AB	500.36 ± 167.42 BC	308.91 ± 173.60 C
SRW(0.20 m)	1773.36 ± 663.35 Aa	977.94 ± 484.56 B	510.58 ± 170.11 BC	233.42 ± 84.73 C
SRW(0.40 m)	772.18 ± 498.72 Ab	704.20 ± 597.28 A	455.53 ± 363.78 AB	190.30 ± 137.23 B
NI	1602.06 ± 1047.34 Aa	1041.88 ± 403.19 B	501.95 ± 260.11 C	369.97 ± 230.16 C
Root length (mm)
TSE(0.20 m)	2226.39 ± 1145.07 Aa	994.98 ± 659.46 B	620.75 ± 411.87 B	439.98 ± 197.84 B
TSE(0.40 m)	1386.85 ± 577.65 Abc	876.12 ± 657.91 AB	613.05 ± 200.95 B	405.46 ± 237.62 B
SRW(0.20 m)	1938.48 ± 757.73 Aab	1052.65 ± 421.39 B	577.84 ± 162.11 BC	302.98 ± 105.19 C
SRW(0.40 m)	952.09 ± 567.00 Ac	767.63 ± 578.28 AB	498.72 ± 395.25 AB	222.94 ± 118.72 B
NI	1888.55 ± 1167.21 Aab	1097.96 ± 303.44 B	558.10 ± 272.46 BC	418.46 ± 211.90 C
Soil density (g cm3)
TSE(0.20 m)	1.23 ± 0.09 BC	1.39 ± 0.15 Aa	1.31 ± 0.05 ABa	1.21 ± 0.03 C
TSE(0.40 m)	1.28 ± 0.09 AB	1.29 ± 0.12 Aab	1.19 ± 0.06 BCb	1.11 ± 0.03 C
SRW(0.20 m)	1.27 ± 0.09 A	1.25 ± 0.12 ABb	1.27 ± 0.06 Aab	1.16 ± 0.06 B
SRW(0.40 m)	1.29 ± 0.08 A	1.29 ± 0.16 Aab	1.18 ± 0.08 Bb	1.16 ± 0.07 B
NI	1.27 ± 0.09 AB	1.30 ± 0.12 Aab	1.18 ± 0.08 BCb	1.16 ± 0.06 C

Means followed by the same letter do not differ among themselves by Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05%). Lowercase letters indicate comparison between irrigation treatment water, and uppercase letters indicate comparison between soil layers. * Mean values followed by SD.

appears below.

The data in Tables S1 and S2 have been updated, since some values are incorrect. The corrected Tables S1 and S2 appear below.

Table S1. Pre-cultivation chemical characterization in samples collected in the 0–0.20 m soil layer of a dystroferric Red Oxisol used in the cultivation of sugarcane subjected to irrigation with treated sewage effluent—TSE—or with water from a surface reservoir—SRW.

Properties	Units	Averages	CV (1)	Levels (Raij et al., 1996 [33])
pH (H2O) (2)	-	5.62	4.77	Medium
P (3)	mg dm−3	19.33	24.12	High
S (4)	mg dm−3	15.56	18.81	High
Na (5)	mg dm−3	1.90	30.23	Low
K (6)	cmolc dm−3	0.57	24.66	High
Ca (7)	cmolc dm−3	5.10	23.69	High
Mg (8)	cmolc dm−3	0.94	16.83	Medium
Al (9)	cmolc dm−3	-	-	Low
H + Al (10)	cmolc dm−3	3.25	20.50	Medium
CEC (11)	cmolc dm−3	9.87	9.79	Medium
V (12)	%	66.40	13.22	Medium
OM (13)	g kg−1	37.56	10.41	High
EC (14)	dS m−1	0.096	17.78	Low
ESP (15)	%	0.083	21.62	Low
SAR (16)	mmolc dm−3	0.047	19.32	Low

⁽¹⁾ Coefficient of variation in percentage; ⁽²⁾ potential of hydrogen; ⁽³⁾ phosphorus; ⁽⁴⁾ sulfur; ⁽⁵⁾ sodium; ⁽⁶⁾ potassium; ⁽⁷⁾ calcium; ⁽⁸⁾ magnesium; ⁽⁹⁾ aluminum; ⁽¹⁰⁾ potential acidity; ⁽¹¹⁾ cation exchange capacity; ⁽¹²⁾ base saturation; ⁽¹³⁾ organic matter; ⁽¹⁴⁾ electrical conductivity; ⁽¹⁵⁾ exchangeable sodium percentage; ⁽¹⁶⁾ sodium adsorption ratio.

Table S1. Pre-cultivation chemical characterization in samples collected in the 0–0.20 m soil layer of a dystroferric Red Oxisol used in the cultivation of sugarcane subjected to irrigation with treated sewage effluent—TSE—or with water from a surface reservoir—SRW.

Properties	Units	Averages	CV (1)	Levels (Raij et al., 1996 [33])
pH (H2O) (2)	-	5.62	4.77	Medium
P (3)	mg dm−3	19.33	24.12	High
S (4)	mg dm−3	15.56	18.81	High
Na (5)	mg dm−3	1.90	30.23	Low
K (6)	cmolc dm−3	0.57	24.66	High
Ca (7)	cmolc dm−3	5.10	23.69	High
Mg (8)	cmolc dm−3	0.94	16.83	Medium
Al (9)	cmolc dm−3	-	-	Low
H + Al (10)	cmolc dm−3	3.25	20.50	Medium
CEC (11)	cmolc dm−3	9.87	9.79	Medium
V (12)	%	66.40	13.22	Medium
OM (13)	g kg−1	37.56	10.41	High
EC (14)	dS m−1	0.096	17.78	Low
ESP (15)	%	0.083	21.62	Low
SAR (16)	mmolc dm−3	0.047	19.32	Low

⁽¹⁾ Coefficient of variation in percentage; ⁽²⁾ potential of hydrogen; ⁽³⁾ phosphorus; ⁽⁴⁾ sulfur; ⁽⁵⁾ sodium; ⁽⁶⁾ potassium; ⁽⁷⁾ calcium; ⁽⁸⁾ magnesium; ⁽⁹⁾ aluminum; ⁽¹⁰⁾ potential acidity; ⁽¹¹⁾ cation exchange capacity; ⁽¹²⁾ base saturation; ⁽¹³⁾ organic matter; ⁽¹⁴⁾ electrical conductivity; ⁽¹⁵⁾ exchangeable sodium percentage; ⁽¹⁶⁾ sodium adsorption ratio.

Table S2. Pre-cultivation characterization regarding sodium–saline properties and Richards classification (1954) in samples collected in soil layers from 0 to 0.20; 0.20 to 0.40; 0.40 to 0.60; 0.60 to 0.80 m of a distroferric Red Oxisol used in the cultivation of sugar cane subjected to irrigation with treated sewage effluent—TSE—or with water from a surface reservoir—SRW.

Properties	Units	Soil Layers (m)
		0–0.20	0.20–0.40	0.40–0.60	0.60–0.80	CV (6)	General Averages
pH (1)	-	5.50	5.60	5.70	5.80	3.90	5.65
EC (2)	dS m−1	0.189	0.098	0.092	0.103	53.57	0.121
ESP (3)	%	0.072	0.099	0.086	0.102	25.09	0.090
SAR (4)	mmol L-1 dm−3	0.014	0.016	0,013	0.015	19.77	0.015
SCAR (5)	-	Normal	Normal	Normal	Normal	-	-

⁽¹⁾ Potential of hydrogen; ⁽²⁾ electrical conductivity; ⁽³⁾ exchangeable sodium percentage; ⁽⁴⁾ sodium adsorption ratio; ⁽⁵⁾ soil classification according to Richards criteria (1954); ⁽⁶⁾ coefficient of variation in percentage.

Table S2. Pre-cultivation characterization regarding sodium–saline properties and Richards classification (1954) in samples collected in soil layers from 0 to 0.20; 0.20 to 0.40; 0.40 to 0.60; 0.60 to 0.80 m of a distroferric Red Oxisol used in the cultivation of sugar cane subjected to irrigation with treated sewage effluent—TSE—or with water from a surface reservoir—SRW.

Properties	Units	Soil Layers (m)
		0–0.20	0.20–0.40	0.40–0.60	0.60–0.80	CV (6)	General Averages
pH (1)	-	5.50	5.60	5.70	5.80	3.90	5.65
EC (2)	dS m−1	0.189	0.098	0.092	0.103	53.57	0.121
ESP (3)	%	0.072	0.099	0.086	0.102	25.09	0.090
SAR (4)	mmol L-1 dm−3	0.014	0.016	0,013	0.015	19.77	0.015
SCAR (5)	-	Normal	Normal	Normal	Normal	-	-

⁽¹⁾ Potential of hydrogen; ⁽²⁾ electrical conductivity; ⁽³⁾ exchangeable sodium percentage; ⁽⁴⁾ sodium adsorption ratio; ⁽⁵⁾ soil classification according to Richards criteria (1954); ⁽⁶⁾ coefficient of variation in percentage.

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