Estimating historical forest density from land‐survey data: Response

Baker, William L.; Williams, Mark A.

doi:10.1002/eap.2017

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(A3c). H et al showed a double standard, not objectivity, on scale mismatches Critiques in the past, including several by these same authors, used a double standard on scale mismatches Williams 2019), as they do here again. H et al were concerned about mismatches in spatial scale in comparisons between a -518 ha reconstruction polygon and a tree-ring reconstruction.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Levine et al (2019) next used revised code in permanent plots and again reported overestimation by the WB method (Levine et al 2019). However, another omitted rebuttal (Baker and Williams 2019) showed Levine et al (2019) this time used incorrect equations. For their three sample sites, using their own coding of the WB method, when correct equations were used, relative mean errors were only 6.2%, 7.0%, and 25.9%, well within expected accuracy for the WB method (Williams and Baker 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We think that when comparing other sources, at finer spatial scales, to overall study-area estimates, it is only valid to do "general cross-validation" with findings from multiple sites in a land-survey study area. The two largest general cross-validations are: (1) in California's western Sierra, where Baker and Williams (2019) compared means, quartiles, and confidence intervals from 30 independent historical estimates of tree density with similar data from the Baker (2014) land-survey reconstruction. They found overlapping 95% confidence intervals for historical mean tree density (independent=257 trees/ha, land-surveys=293 trees/ha), similarity in distributions, and 14% relative error if independent estimates are considered the truth, and (2) on Arizona's Mogollon Plateau (mean study area estimate was 141.5 trees/ha versus the mean from eight tree-ring reconstructions of 122.0 trees/ha, a relative error of 16.0%, assuming tree-ring reconstructions represent truth Appendix Table S9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, Baker (2014 Appendix A) published 47 quotes from early forestreserve reports and other scientific reports documenting that Sierran mixed-conifer forests in California were highly variable in density, but typically dense. Also, Baker and Williams (2019) published evidence from 30 independent early estimates of historical tree density in Sierran mixed-conifer forests in California that had a mean of 257 trees/ha and a standard deviation of 100 trees/ha, showing that these historical forests were highly variable in tree density and generally dense. H et al omitted all of this independent, multi-proxy evidence from more than half of the 11 western states that historical dry forests varied in density, and included substantial areas that were dense.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…responded with a detailed refutation that received only 13 citations. Similarly,Levine et al (2019) critiqued and received 8 citations Baker and Williams (2019). responded with a detailed refutation, and received only 1 citation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating critiques of evidence of historically heterogeneous structure and mixed-severity fires across dry-forest landscapes of the western USA

Baker¹,

Hanson²,

Williams³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structure and role of fire in historical dry forests, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and dry mixed-conifer forests, of the western USA, have been debated for 25 years, leaving two theories. The first, that these forests were relatively uniform, low in tree density and dominated by low- to moderate-severity fires was recently reviewed, including a critique of opposing evidence. The second, that these forests historically had heterogeneous structure and a mixture of fire severities, has had several published reviews. Here, as authors in part of the second theory, we critically examined evidence in the first theory’s new review, which presented 37 critiques of the second theory. We examined evidence for and against each critique, including evidence presented or omitted. We found that a large body of published evidence against the first theory and supporting the second theory, presented in 10 published rebuttals and 25 other published papers, by us and other scientists, was omitted and not reviewed. We reviewed omitted evidence here. Omitted evidence was extensive, and included direct observations by early scientists, maps in early forest atlases, early newspaper accounts and photographs, early aerial photographs, seven paleo-charcoal reconstructions, ≥18 tree-ring reconstructions, eight land-survey reconstructions, and an analysis of forest-inventory age data. This large body of omitted published research provides compelling evidence supporting the second theory, that historical dry forests were heterogeneous in structure and had a mixture of fire severities, including high-severity fire. The first theory is rejected by this large body of omitted evidence.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluating critiques of evidence of historically heterogeneous structure and mixed-severity fires across dry-forest landscapes of the western USA

Baker¹,

Hanson²,

Williams³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Decade of Change in the Sierra Nevada: Conservation Implications

Hanson

2022

Imperiled: The Encyclopedia of Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Countering Omitted Evidence of Variable Historical Forests and Fire Regime in Western USA Dry Forests: The Low-Severity-Fire Model Rejected

Baker

Hanson

Williams³

et al. 2023

Fire

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structure and fire regime of pre-industrial (historical) dry forests over ~26 million ha of the western USA is of growing importance because wildfires are increasing and spilling over into communities. Management is guided by current conditions relative to the historical range of variability (HRV). Two models of HRV, with different implications, have been debated since the 1990s in a complex series of papers, replies, and rebuttals. The “low-severity” model is that dry forests were relatively uniform, low in tree density, and dominated by low- to moderate-severity fires; the “mixed-severity” model is that dry forests were heterogeneous, with both low and high tree densities and a mixture of fire severities. Here, we simply rebut evidence in the low-severity model’s latest review, including its 37 critiques of the mixed-severity model. A central finding of high-severity fire recently exceeding its historical rates was not supported by evidence in the review itself. A large body of published evidence supporting the mixed-severity model was omitted. These included numerous direct observations by early scientists, early forest atlases, early newspaper accounts, early oblique and aerial photographs, seven paleo-charcoal reconstructions, ≥18 tree-ring reconstructions, 15 land survey reconstructions, and analysis of forest inventory data. Our rebuttal shows that evidence omitted in the review left a falsification of the scientific record, with significant land management implications. The low-severity model is rejected and mixed-severity model is supported by the corrected body of scientific evidence.

show abstract

Estimating historical forest density from land‐survey data: Response

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Evaluating critiques of evidence of historically heterogeneous structure and mixed-severity fires across dry-forest landscapes of the western USA

Evaluating critiques of evidence of historically heterogeneous structure and mixed-severity fires across dry-forest landscapes of the western USA

A Decade of Change in the Sierra Nevada: Conservation Implications

Countering Omitted Evidence of Variable Historical Forests and Fire Regime in Western USA Dry Forests: The Low-Severity-Fire Model Rejected

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About