Correction: Kularatna et al. Comparative Growth of Elephant Ear Taro (Alocasia macrorrhiza) and Giant Swamp Taro (Cyrtosperma merkusii) in Hawai‘i. Crops 2024, 4, 55–71

In the original publication [1], the following revisions are made:

Abstract: “PROC GLM” is changed to “PROC MIXED”.

Section 2.6 Statistical Analysis: ANOVA—“Proc GLM” is changed to “Proc MIXED”; “Version 9.2” is changed to “Version 9.4”.

Section 3.3 Statistical Analysis of Yields:

“There was a highly significant difference in the stem (GT 1—F_3,60 = 63.5; p < 0.05; GT 2—F_3,60 = 68.1; p < 0.05; Figure 5), petiole (GT 1—F_3,60 = 83.8; p < 0.05; GT 2—F_3,60 = 86; p < 0.05; Figure 6), and leaf blade (GT 1—F_3,60 = 11.6; p < 0.05; GT 2—F_3,60 = 114.3; p < 0.05; Figure 7) yields of the growth trials” is changed to:

There was a highly significant difference in the stem (GT 1—F_3,9 = 68.4; p < 0.001; GT 2—F_3,9 = 111.9; p < 0.0001; Figure 5), petiole (GT 1—F_3,9 = 87.4; p < 0.0001; GT 2—F_3,9 = 111.9; p < 0.0001; Figure 6), and leaf blade (GT 1—F_3,9 = 29.9; p < 0.0001; GT 2—F_3,9 = 228.1; p < 0.0001; Figure 7) yields of the growth trials.

Added: “Across all measured variables, the treatment factor (variety) had a highly significant effect, consistently explaining the majority of the variation in plant growth parameters. Block effects contributed only minimal-to-moderate variance in some variables (e.g., stem and petiole yields) and were negligible in others (leaf blades), indicating that differences among treatments were the primary drivers of variation, with little influence on block-to-block differences”.

Figure 5: “n = 16” is changed to “n = 4”.

Figure 6: “n = 16” is changed to “n = 4”.

Figure 7: “n = 16” is changed to “n = 4”.

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