Nature Communications 5, Article number: 3950 (2014); Published 27 May 2014; Updated 30 September 2015

During the analysis of additional data, the authors identified errors in the original Article. The first relates to the presentation of sinking particle flux data in Fig. 2c, which was mistakenly plotted in reference to a previous dataset, rather than Supplementary Data 1. The corrected version of Fig. 2 appears below. The second error concerns the miscalculation of the Particulate Organic Nitrogen (PON) and Carbon (POC) fluxes presented in Supplementary Data 1 and Fig. 3b,c. During the flux calculation process, we mistakenly used the weight of analysed subsamples rather than aliquot samples, which resulted in an underestimation of the mole fluxes of PON and POC in the published Article. Two new columns, detailing the correctly calculated fluxes, have been added to Supplementary Data 1, while the corrected version of Fig. 3 appears below.

As a consequence of these corrections, the Article text in the Results section requires further revisions: the description of the POC and PON fluxes in the Results section should cite the revised values 926.9 and 94.0 μmol-Nm−2 per day, rather than 124.5 and 12.6 μmol-Nm−2 per day; and the comparison of observed and modelled should state that modelled fluxes better reflect trap data at the shallower, rather than the deeper site as was originally stated.

Finally, an additional typographical correction must be applied to the text in the Results scetion. The sixth sentence should refer to ‘November 2010’, rather than ‘November 2011’.

We sincerely apologise for these errors and the corresponding confusion. We assure the reader that these corrections in no way alter the conclusions in the published article.

Figure 2

Figure 3