Abstract
We respond to Hanson and Odion (2014), who claim in this journal (vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–8) that their reanalysis of fire severity patterns in and around the Sierra Nevada refutes earlier work showing increases in fire severity in certain forest types over the last 3 decades. Hanson and Odion base their reanalysis on a highly inaccurate, very coarse-scale, and geographically misregistered vegetation map. Also, in contrast to the previous work, which was restricted to wildfires on Forest Service lands in forest types differentiated by their fire regimes, Hanson and Odion combine all types of fires on lands of all jurisdictions and stratify by very broad, unorthodox vegetation types that conjoin very different fire regimes. As such, their work does not constitute a test of the previous work. We present analyses that demonstrate sources of error associated with Hanson and Odion’s data and the analyses they perform, and explore how that error might confound their results. Fundamental and compounded problems in Hanson and Odion (2014) cast strong doubt on their conclusions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.