Correction: Fallahi et al. The Potential Impacts of Climate and Land Use Changes on Water Yield in the Croatan National Forest, USA. Environments 2025, 12, 473

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1]. Several parts of the text have been revised for clarity.

Section 2.5 (Model Input Data) Paragraph 1: The paragraph has been replaced with the following paragraph:

“In this study, we used climate projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) under the SSP5–8.5 scenario, using the MPI-ESM1-2-HR global climate model. This model was selected because of its relatively high spatial resolution (~0.9°). The SSP5–8.5 scenario represents a high-emission pathway characterized by rapid economic growth driven by fossil fuel use, leading to substantial increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and pronounced climate impacts by the end of the century (Table 1). This climate model and emission scenario are no more likely than others available in CMIP6 and were selected solely as an example to illustrate the effectiveness of the downscaling procedures and the potential relative sensitivity of water yield to climate and land use changes [46,47]”.

Section 4 (Discussion), Paragraph 2: The sentence “The results show that climate change is the main driver of water yield reduction in CNF, with an estimated 11% decrease under climate-only conditions” has been replaced with the following sentence:

“The results show that climate change could be a larger driver than land use change for water yield in CNF, depending on the specific scenario considered, with an estimated 11% decrease under climate-only conditions”.

Section 4 (Discussion), Paragraph 5: The sentences “However, some limitations remain. The study relies on a single CMIP6 model (MPI-ESM1-2-HR) and one emission pathway (SSP5-8.5), which may not fully capture the uncertainty associated with different climate models and socioeconomic scenarios” have been replaced with the following sentences:

“However, some limitations remain. The study relies on a single CMIP6 model (MPI-ESM1-2-HR) and one emission pathway (SSP5–8.5), which may not fully capture the uncertainty associated with different climate models and socioeconomic scenarios, particularly given the focus on a high growth, high-emission pathway. For example, some combinations of climate models and emission pathways may produce different water yield responses, depending on projected changes in precipitation and temperature. Previous work has shown that streamflow in the study region could either increase or decrease by 2070 depending on which of 20 future scenarios were considered [58]. In light of this variability among scenarios, the results of this study can be viewed as an example of the relative sensitivity of water yield to climate and land use for these scenarios”.

Section 4 (Discussion), Paragraph 6: The paragraph has been replaced with the following sentence:

“These findings suggest that both climate and land use can be important considerations for water resource management”.

One additional reference was included to support the revised text.

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