Letícia Vaz Molinari·Denys Matheus Santana Costa Souza·Maria Lopes Martins Avelar·Sérgio Bruno Fernandes·Douglas Santos Gon?alves·Júlio Cézar Tannure Faria·Dulcineia de Carvalho·Gilvano Ebling Brondani

Correction to:J.For.Res.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01240-5

In the original publication of the article，there were errors in the fig 3 and fig 6.The corrected Figs.3 and 6 are given below:

The original article has been corrected.

Fig.3 In vitro multiplication features recorded for different active-chlorine concentrations(0.000%，0.001%，0.003%，and 0.005%) and E.grandis Hill(ex.Maiden)×E.urophylla S.T.Blake clones (C1 and C2).a and b:Shoot chlorosis，c and d:Shoot oxidation，e and f:Shoot length，g:Number of shoots per explant.Means followed by the same letter did not differ in Tukey’s test at 5% significance level

Fig.6 In vitro adventitious rooting features observed as function of different light sources (dark and light) and sealing forms (W/M，1/M and 3/M).a:Root length，b:Number of roots per explant，c and d:Root diameter，e:Rooting rate; a，b and e:lowercase letters represent statistical differences among different sealing forms in the same treatment(light source);uppercase letters represent statistical differences among different light sources in the same treatment (sealing forms).Means followed by the same letter did not differ in the Tukey’s test at 5% significance level