Correction: Cantamessa et al. The Environmental Impact of Poplar Stand Management: A Life Cycle Assessment Study of Different Scenarios. Forests 2022, 13, 464

The authors wish to make the following corrections to their paper [1]. We realized that

Table 1. Comparison (in %) between the environmental results per functional unit from the “Mezzi” standard and the remaining cropping systems under assessment.

Impact Categories	Unit	Mezzi Standard	Mezzi PEFC	7 m	26 M
Terrestrial acidification	kg SO2 eq	48.3	94	82	124
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	kg 1,4-DCB *	18,503	95	103	127
Freshwater ecotoxicity	kg 1,4-DCB *	165	94	42	89
Marine ecotoxicity	kg 1,4-DCB *	205	97	52	95
Human toxicity	kg 1,4-DCB *	6254	92	93	169
Water consumption	m3	17,460	99	5	6
Stratospheric ozone depletion	kg CFC11 eq. **	0.016	98	364	1298
Land use	m2a crop eq.	140.4	97	278	979
Fossil resource scarcity	kg oil eq.	3431.3	94	81	110

The percentages for each system and impact category indicate the percentage relative to the Mezzi farm system. The irrigation inputs were applied only in the traditional model and PEFC. * DCB indicates 1,4-Dichlorobenzene. ** CFC11 indicates trichlorofluoromethane.

(regarding the comparison between the four different scenarios) appeared with the wrong values in the Mezzi case (referred only to the first phase). The error was not initially evident because our discussion referred to the percentage variation of the other cases (that were calculated on the correct values). We apologize for any inconvenience. The corrected Table 1 shows below: