Erratum to: Earth, Planets and Space 2014, 66:151 DOI 10.1186/s40623-014-0151-5
Equation (4) in the original paper (Kozai et al. 2014) was incorrect and needs to be multiplied by a factor 2, as
Figure 2e and the column “NMs” of Table 1 in the paper which were calculated from Eq. (4) in the paper also need to be corrected. The corrected Fig. 2 and Table 1 are shown below. According to these corrections, a few sentences in the paper need to be reworded as follows. It is noted that all conclusions are not subject to these corrections.
-
Page 6, left column, Line 5
“mainly due to the small \(T-A\), i.e., the NS anisotropy is significantly smaller than that obtained from the GMDN and GG-component.”
should be reworded as:
“due to the large \(\sqrt{\sigma _{T}\sigma _{A}}\) and the small \(T-A\), indicating that the NS anisotropy is smaller than that obtained from the GMDN and GG-component.”
-
Page 7, right column, Line 14
“If these are the case, the magnitude of the NS anisotropy increases with rigidity and the T/A separation and success rate will also increase if the dispersion remains similarly independent of rigidity. This is in agreement with our results in Table 1, showing that \(T-A\) increases with the rigidity while \(\sqrt{\sigma _{T}\sigma _{A}}\) is almost constant on a daily basis.”
should be reworded as:
“This is in an agreement with our results in Table 1, showing that \(T-A\) increases with the rigidity.”
Histograms of the NS anisotropy. Each panel displays the histograms of \(\xi _z^\mathrm{GEO}\) on hourly (a, b) and daily (c, d, e) bases derived from the Nagoya GG-component (a, c), the GMDN (b, d), and NM (Thule–McMurdo) (e) data in 2006–2013. Blue and red histograms in each panel represent distributions of \(\xi _z^\mathrm{GEO}\) in toward and away IMF sectors, respectively, while blue and red vertical dashed lines represent averages of the blue and red histograms, respectively