In the original publication of Boës et al. (2019), an error was introduced in Figure 1 during the production of this article. The correct Figure 1 is reproduced on the following page.
Figure 1. (color online) Problems with the geologic sections from Nutz et al. (2017) partially reported in Boës et al. (2019). (A) Comparison between the sedimentation rate in Nutz et al. (2017) and in Harris et al. (1988), Brown and McDougall (2011), and McDougall et al. (2012). By contrast, the sedimentation rate applied by Nutz et al. (22 cm/ka) in their high-energy facies above the “KBS Tuff” is almost divided by a factor of 2. According to the method summary in Lepre et al. (2011), a more correct sedimentation rate is 38 cm/ka, which is in agreement with the other published rates for these high-energy facies observed in the Kaitio Member. The sedimentation rate of “22 cm/ka” mentioned by Nutz et al. for the coarse sediment package (U2 and U3) resembles the sedimentation rate attributed to the much lower energy environments (10 to 20 cm/ka), typical for the Kalochoro Member (~45 cm/ka). Note the ages calculated with the sedimentation rate of 22 cm/yr are not correct in the original article by Nutz et al. (2017). For example, we should obtain 1.76 Ma at 24 m and not at 20 m. (B) Compared with Lepre et al. (2011), the magnetostratigraphy of Nutz et al. (2017) is divided by a factor of 2. Nutz et al. have represented the Olduvai and Matuyama transition, although this transition is not even present in their sections (see the supplementary material in Lepre et al., 2011). Consequently, the position of the Olduvai-Matuyama transition in Nutz et al. presents an offset of 100% with the magnetostratigraphy of Lepre et al. (2011). The correlation with the archaeological context of KS4 (1.76 Ma; Lepre et al., 2011) is wrong. The top part (U2-U3) of the sections of Nutz et al. (2017) presents a very bad correlation with Lepre et al. (2011) and Boës et al. (2019). Note that Lepre et al. completed the correlation between their sections following the magnetostratigraphy only and not according to the stratigraphic facies that changes laterally because of disconformities and erosional features. Observed erosion features and disconformities: RSE, regressive surface of erosion; RSLE, regressive surface of lake erosion; SF, surface flooding; SU, subaerial unconformity (see Nutz et al., 2017; Schuster and Nutz, this issue).
The publisher apologizes for this error.
