Correction: Three-season Evaluation of Partial Root Zone Drying as a Water-saving Strategy in Commercial Chilean Vineyards: Effects on Carménère and Merlot

Following publication of the original article, the authors identified missing features related to figure presentation and minor typographical mistakes. 1. Figures 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11 were updated to include the pairwise letter comparison of statistical significance, which was missing in the original publication. In addition, the figure quality was improved to 600 dpi. Furthermore, in Figs. 5, 7, 10, and 11, the measurement units were corrected from “Weight” to “Yield” and “IWUE (kg m −³ )” to “IWUE (kg m −³  plant −¹ )”. Fig. 4 Leaf area index in the M vineyard measured on two sampling dates (November 2018 and April 2019) during the 2018–2019 season, represented by a boxplot, with the median value indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each sampling date according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when ANOVA indicated a significant treatment effect (p = 0.0285, April 2019) The Correct Fig. 4 is given below (Figure presented.) Leaf area index in the M vineyard measured on two sampling dates (November 2018 and April 2019) during the 2018–2019 season, represented by a boxplot, with the median value indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each sampling date according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when ANOVA indicated a significant treatment effect (p = 0.0285, April 2019) Fig. 5 The yield (kg/plant) in the M vineyard measured during the two seasons (2017–2018 and 2018–2019) is represented by a boxplot chart, with the median value indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each season according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when ANOVA indicated a significant effect The correct Fig. 5 is given below (Figure presented.) The yield (kg/plant) in the M vineyard measured during the two seasons (2017–2018 and 2018–2019) is represented by a boxplot chart, with the median value indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each season according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when ANOVA indicated a significant effect Fig. 7 Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE, kg m − ³ plant − ¹ ) in the M vineyard under the three irrigation treatments, represented by a boxplot. The median value is indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each season according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when ANOVA indicated a significant treatment effect The correct Fig. 7 is given below (Figure presented.) Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE, kg m − ³ plant − ¹ ) in the M vineyard under the three irrigation treatments, represented by a boxplot. The median value is indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each season according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when ANOVA indicated a significant treatment effect Fig. 10 The yield (kg plant − ¹ ) in the C vineyard measured during the two seasons (2017–2018 and 2018–2019) is represented by a boxplot, with the median value indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each season according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when the ANOVA indicated a significant effect The correct Fig. 10 is given below (Figure presented.) The yield (kg plant − ¹ ) in the C vineyard measured during the two seasons (2017–2018 and 2018–2019) is represented by a boxplot, with the median value indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each season according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when the ANOVA indicated a significant effect Fig. 11 Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE, kg m − ³ plant − ¹ ) in the C vineyard under the three irrigation treatments, represented by a boxplot. The median value is indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each season according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when ANOVA indicated a significant treatment effect The correct Fig. 11 is given below (Figure presented.) Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE, kg m − ³ plant − ¹ ) in the C vineyard under the three irrigation treatments, represented by a boxplot. The median value is indicated by a bold line for each treatment. Values with the same letter are not significantly different within each season according to the LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Letters are presented only when ANOVA indicated a significant treatment effect 2. Minor typographical inconsistencies were corrected throughout the manuscript, including the standardization of citation formatting for “et al.” 3. On page 10, line 2, the sentence containing the text “average value of IWUE 2.37 kg m −³ ” was deleted. 4. On page 11, Fig. 5 caption, the unit expression “kg/plant” was corrected to “kg plant⁻ ¹ ”. These corrections do not affect the scientific results, discussion, interpretation, or conclusions of the article. The original article has been corrected.