Background

The giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum [Lindley] Buchholz) of California’s Sierra Nevada recently suffered historically unprecedented wildfires that killed an estimated 13–19% of seed-bearing sequoias across their native range. Hanson et al. recently sought to characterize post-fire reproduction in two severely burned sequoia groves, but their two papers (1) inaccurately portrayed sequoia fire ecology, (2) had methodological flaws, and (3) without supporting evidence, questioned efforts to prevent large, stand-replacing wildfires and to plant sequoia seedlings in areas of low post-fire regeneration.

Results

Our analyses and literature review contradict many of Hanson et al.’s claims and implications. First, evidence indicates that preceding the recent wildfires, large, contiguous areas (>10 to >100 ha) of fire severe enough to kill most sequoias had been absent for at least a millennium, and probably much longer. The ancient sequoia fire regime was instead overwhelmingly dominated by surface fires in which most forest area burned at low or moderate severity interspersed with small forest gaps (hundredths of a hectare to a few hectares) created by local patches of higher-severity fire, within which most mature sequoias survived and most successful reproduction occurred. Prescribed fires have typically mimicked ancient fires and induced adequate sequoia regeneration. In contrast, in some extensive areas where recent wildfires killed most (or all) mature sequoias, regeneration has been well below historical levels, threatening a net loss of sequoia grove area. Methodologically, Hanson et al. reported sixfold greater post-fire sequoia seedling densities than others who sampled the same area; our assessments suggest their higher densities may have largely resulted from plot-placement bias. Finally, Hanson et al.’s comparisons of median seedling densities were inappropriate.

Conclusions

Hanson et al. questioned efforts to prevent large, high-severity wildfires in sequoia groves but did not acknowledge (1) that past fires sustained sequoia reproduction without the deaths of large fractions of mature sequoias, (2) the anomalous effects of recent wildfires, and (3) the acute conservation threat of losing large fractions of seed-bearing sequoias. Hanson et al.’s further implication, made without supporting evidence, that decisions to plant sequoia seedlings may be unwarranted ignores research showing that recent post-wildfire regeneration has often been well below historical levels.