Criticisms of wildfire logging study aired

Science prints letters blasting methodology and conclusions of study that linked logging to reduced forest regrowth

Melissa Lee Phillips
Jul 31, 2006
Seven months after Science published a controversial paper by Oregon State University (OSU) researchers that claimed the current U.S. policy of post-wildfire logging can hinder forest regeneration, the journal is publishing two criticisms of that study. The first, written by forestry scientists from OSU, the federal government, and a consulting company, challenges the study's context and conclusions, while the second calls into question some of the methodology and statistical tests that the researchers used.The study's authors, however defend their research in an accompanying response. "We think the exchange was a useful one to have, but their comments contained no data or compelling evidence that refute our findings," first author Dan Donato, a masters student in forest science at OSU, told The Scientist.In January, Donato and his colleagues reported that salvage logging after the 2002 Biscuit Fire in Oregon reduced regneration of conifer seedlings. They also...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?