William L. Baker, Chad T. Hanson, Mark A. Williams, Dominick A. DellaSala

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.