Corrections for equations in our recently published paper [Opt. Express 27, 1350 (2019)] are presented. A post-publication review of our methods  has indicated that Eq. (8) and Eq. (12) in the original manuscript should read as: bPARn = 400700 ∫ tgEd0+ (λ) e−Kd(λ)zdλ (8) bPARd = 2 ∗ ∫ φφrisenoon400700 ∫ tgEd0+ (λ, θsolz0 (φ) e−Kd(λ)zdφdλ (12) where Ed0+ = F0 ∗ T ∗ cos(θsolz0 (φ)) following . Here, Ed0+ is the above-water downwelling plane solar irradiance, F0 is the extraterrestrial solar irradiance, T is a transmittance parameter that accounts for atmospheric absorption and scattering by gases, clouds, and aerosols , and θ’solz(φ) is the solar zenith angle at a given time between sunrise to noon at each hour angle φ. Note that this correction also implies that all texts pertaining to Es or Es(λ, 0+), a nomenclature that could be misinterpreted as scalar irradiance, in the original manuscript should now read as Ed0+ or Ed0+ (λ, θsolz0 (φ)). In addition, the term inside the parenthesis in Eq. (13) is missing a negative sign  and should read as: φrise = cos−1 − tan(δ) tan(lat) . (13) We applied these corrections to our original benthic irradiance model and performed matchup and validation exercise as detailed in the original manuscript. The corrected model still shows strong agreement between the satellite-derived and in situ benthic PAR across all four test sites (Fig. 1). Notably, the corrections have led to a more consistent model bias and mean absolute error (MAE) across the test sites. As previously reported, bias and MAE were smaller in clearer offshore waters (Palm Passage and Myrmidon) compared to more optically complex inshore (Yongala) and midshelf (Heron) waters. We note that these corrections did not affect the relevance of our results to understanding benthic light and its effects within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.