Translator Disclaimer
1 April 2013 A Reply from Stephens and Colleagues
Author Affiliations +

In response to our paper (Stephens et al. 2012), Hanson and colleagues state, “There is an urgent need for scientists to report on the myriad ecosystem benefits of wildfires, including high-severity fires.” Although we agree, the synthesis of information related to high-severity wildfire was not our objective. Despite this, we do recognize and highlight the ecological benefits of high-severity wildfire, at appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

In particular, Hanson and colleagues question our conclusions that thinning mimics prescribed fire for wildlife and claim that we do not stress the ecological importance of high-severity fire. For their first point, they cite two papers (Meyer et al. 2005, Robertson and Hutto 2007). Although these are interesting papers, they are not germane to the meta-analysis (Fontaine and Kennedy 2012) that was used to support our findings, which included all papers published through 2008 in which one of our a priori selection criteria was that a paper had to include a demographic response to treated and untreated stands. Therefore, habitat papers such as Meyer and colleagues (2005) were not included, because they did not present demographic data. We made this decision because interpreting the fitness consequences of habitat modifications is difficult because wildlife can demonstrate flexibility to resource changes, and required resources are rarely identified in the literature.

Another a priori literature selection criteria in Fontaine and Kennedy (2012) was to include only papers in which thinning was specifically used as a tool to reduce fire hazards, which are “generally a lower-intensity treatment… than those implemented for other silvicultural objectives.” Therefore, papers like Robertson and Hutto (2007) were not included because they compared avian (olive-sided flycatcher) densities in “selectively harvested” forests with forests burned by wildfires.

Hanson and colleagues' claim that we did not stress the ecological importance of high-severity fire to wildlife suggests that they did not carefully read our paper. We clearly state at the end of the “Wildlife” section that our “analyses demonstrate that low-to moderate-severity surface fire (and presumably its thinning surrogate) does not mimic the early successional habitat conditions created by high-intensity, patchy, stand-replacing fires.” Furthermore, in the “Conclusions” section, we recommend the “expanded use of managed wildfire.”

References cited

  1. JB Fontaine , PL. Kennedy 2012. Meta-analysis of avian and small-mammal response to fire severity and fire surrogate treatments in U.S. fire-prone forests. Ecological Applications 22: 1547–1561. Google Scholar

  2. MD Meyer , MP North , DA. Kelt 2005. Short-term effects of fire and forest thinning on truffle abundance and consumption by Neotamias speciosus in the Sierra Nevada of California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1061–1070. Google Scholar

  3. BA Robertson, RL. Hutto 2007. Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for olive-sided flycatchers? Condor 109: 109–121. Google Scholar

  4. SL Stephens , JD McIver , REJ Boerner , CJ Fettig , JB Fontaine , BR Hartsough , PL Kennedy , DW. Schwilk 2012. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. BioScience 62: 549–560. Google Scholar

Published: 1 April 2013
JOURNAL ARTICLE
2 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top