Corrigendum to “A disordered kinetic model for clumped isotope bond reordering in carbonates” [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 566 (2021) 116962](S0012821X21002211)(10.1016/j.epsl.2021.116962)

Introduction: The authors regret that Eqs. (28) and (29) were printed and interpreted incorrectly in the original publication. The sentence including these equations should read: “Rewriting Eqs. (3), (19), and (25) in discrete form yields [Formula presented] where [Formula presented] [Formula presented]is the [Formula presented]value at time t of material associated with activation energy E, Δt and ΔE are the discrete t and E steps, and we impose the initial condition [Formula presented]for all E.” This correction also impacts the following lines in the abstract and discussion of the article: • The original abstract stated: “Finally, we apply our results to geologically relevant heating/cooling histories and suggest that previous models underestimate low-temperature alteration but overestimate [Formula presented]blocking temperatures.” This should read: “Finally, we apply our results to geologically relevant heating/cooling histories and suggest that some previous models overestimate low-temperature alteration whereas all previous models underestimate the timescale required for complete [Formula presented]reordering.”• Section 6.1 originally stated: “For a given mineral, the disordered kinetic model presented here always predicts lower [Formula presented]values than both previous models—although these differences are statistically insignificant at the slowest cooling rates—and suggests that calcite [Formula presented]°C as the result of isotopologue reordering in natural samples at geologic cooling rates should be rare.” This should read: “For a given mineral, the disordered kinetic model presented here always predicts [Formula presented]values higher than the model of Henkes et al. (2014) but lower than the model of Stolper and Eiler (2015)—although these differences are statistically insignificant at the slowest cooling rates—and suggests that calcite [Formula presented]°C as the result of isotopologue reordering in natural samples at geologic cooling rates should be rare.”• Section also 6.1 originally stated: “Specifically, the model presented here conforms to previous limits of [Formula presented]preservation but results in a left-ward shift for both “incipient” (1%) and “complete” (99%) reordering curves. That is, relative to previous models, ours predicts that less time and/or lower temperatures are needed to reach the same degree of alteration and suggests that previous models overestimate the temperatures at which isotopologue reordering is activated. Observed differences between models may be driven in part by our use of a single calcite Arrhenius regression (Fig. 5) rather than sample-specific (e.g., brachiopod fossil in Henkes et al., 2014) or experiment-specific curves (e.g., hydrothermal reactions in Brenner et al., 2018). When separated by calcite type, our model conforms more closely to predictions of Henkes et al. (2014), particularly for brachiopod shell materials (Fig. S4).” This should instead read: “Specifically, the model presented here conforms to previous limits of “incipient” [Formula presented]preservation (1% reordered) but results in a right-ward shift for “complete” (99%) reordering curves. That is, relative to previous models, ours predicts that more time and/or higher temperatures are needed to reach higher degrees of alteration and suggests that previous models underestimate the temperature at which isotopologue reordering is complete. Observed differences between models may be driven in part by our use of a single calcite Arrhenius regression (Fig. 5) rather than sample-specific (e.g., brachiopod fossil in Henkes et al., 2014) or experiment-specific curves (e.g., hydrothermal reactions in Brenner et al., 2018). When separated by calcite type, our model conforms more closely to predictions of Henkes et al. (2014) for incipient reordering, but always requires higher temperature and/or longer time for complete reordering (Fig. S4).”• Section 6.2 originally stated: “Given that the starting temperature is equivalent to the warmest laboratory heating experiments (i.e., complete [Formula presented]change within minutes), all kinetic models predict apparent equilibrium temperature behavior. However, each model results in a slightly different [Formula presented]value (Fig. 9B). The calcite disordered kinetic model predicts a lower [Formula presented]and a shorter interval of departure from equilibrium than both previous models, suggesting [Formula presented]systematics are more “open” during the cooling of igneous and metamorphic rocks than previously thought. This finding is consistent with the mean and median [Formula presented]from the best preserved Amba Dongar calciocarbonatites (B. Fosu, personal communication), both of which are lower than previous model predicted [Formula presented] The comparison is limited, however, by outlier high [Formula presented]values that are difficult to interpret without knowing exact sample locations within the intrusion (e.g., samples from the perimeter may have cooled more rapidly than samples from the core).” This text should instead read: “Given that the starting temperature is equivalent to the warmest laboratory heating experiments (i.e., complete [Formula presented]change within minutes), all kinetic models predict apparent equilibrium temperature behavior. For calcite, all models also predict [Formula presented]values that are statistically identical to each other as well as the mean and median [Formula presented]from the best preserved Amba Dongar calciocarbonatites (Fig. 9B). The comparison is limited, however, by outlier high [Formula presented]values that are difficult to interpret without knowing exact sample locations within the intrusion (e.g., samples from the perimeter may have cooled more rapidly than samples from the core). Nonetheless, observed [Formula presented]results are consistent with the similarity in the lowest-E component between models. That is, the high-E components—which lead to higher temperatures and/or longer timescales for complete reordering in the disordered kinetic model (Fig. 8B)—have little impact on [Formula presented] as predicted. Still, this high-E component likely explains the observed earlier deviation from equilibrium for the disordered kinetic model relative to other models.”• Section 6.2 also originally stated: “The calcite disordered kinetic model near-perfectly predicts [Formula presented]at WW-1 depths 2253 and 3373 m; this was not the case for all data-model comparisons performed in Lacroix and Niemi (2019). At deeper depths in Fig. 9C and D, our model over-predicts measured [Formula presented]by ≈20 °C; however, Lacroix and Niemi (2019) cite burial model error of 18 °C ([Formula presented] during peak heating at 28 to 55 Ma. This allows for the possibility of burial model overestimation of peak temperatures at 4543, 4912, and 5476 m, which would reconcile those apparent data-model discrepancies (Fig. 9D).” This should instead read: “The calcite disordered kinetic model near-perfectly predicts [Formula presented]at WW-1 depths 2253, 4543, 4912, and 5476 m (within uncertainty); this was not the case for all data-model comparisons performed in Lacroix and Niemi (2019). At intermediate depths in Fig. 9C and D, our model under-predicts measured [Formula presented]by ≈50 °C; however, Lacroix and Niemi (2019) cite burial model error of 18 °C ([Formula presented] during peak heating at 28 to 55 Ma. This allows for the possibility of burial model overestimation of peak temperatures at 3373 m, which would reconcile those apparent data-model discrepancies (Fig. 9D).”• Finally, Section 7 originally stated: “We also suggest that previous models overestimate the [Formula presented]preservation threshold for calcite paleotemperature archives (e.g., fossil shells).” This should instead read: “We also suggest that some previous models underestimate the [Formula presented]preservation threshold for calcite paleotemperature archives (e.g., fossil shells).”This correction also impacts Figs. 8, 9, and S4, which have been updated accordingly. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.