Baker's Criticism of Fulé et al.

Baker’s (2006) chief criticism of Fulé et al. (2003) is that they fail to acknowledge the alternate interpretations of their own data. Baker asserts that fire scar reconstructions, like all disciplines, have undergone a certain recalibration to tune the validity of their methods. Baker assessed the data presented by Fulé et al. (2003) and arrived at a very different conclusion than the original authors because Baker 1) made comparisons between the mean CFI for all four study sites and the estimated fire return interval and 2) used evidence of even-aged trees stands and other available data to induct a fire history with high-severity fires. Fulé et al. (2003) apparently made several assumptions (such as the absence of severe fires in the site) and calculated return interval estimates with pooled data, leading them to what Baker avows as erroneous conclusion about the site’s fire legacy. Baker’s assessment of the Fulé et al. (2003) study differed by a factor of 10. While Baker acknowledges that Fulé et al. (2003) might be correct, he maintains his own valuation is just as (if not more) valid.

How fire history is measured and how those measurements are construed matter because these findings are what influence land management. Best management practices are increasingly founded on scientific research derived from empirical evidence. However, if evidence is interpreted erroneously it could have deleterious effects on landscapes, their processes, and biodiversity. While the final decisions regarding fire regime restoration lie with land managers, researchers also bear responsibility for the version of reality they present to laypeople.