Article title: Prescribed burning in south-eastern Australia: history and future directions
Authors: Morgan GW, Tolhurst KG, Poynter MW, Cooper N, McGuffog T, Ryan R, Wouters MA, Stephens N, Black P, Sheehan D, Leeson P, Whight S & Davey SM. 2020.
Journal: Australian Forestry
Bibliometrics: Volume 83, Number 1, pages 4 – 28
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2020.1739883
Professor Mark Adams and Dr Peter Attiwill wrote to the senior authors about an incorrect reference and statement ascribed to Adams and Attiwill (2011, Burning issues). The first was the reference in Morgan et al. (2020, p. 10): ‘Adams and Attiwill (2011) claimed that the 2003 wildfire in the ACT’s Namadgi National Park burnt under higher intensities due to the preferences and attitudes of park rangers in not allowing prescribed burning at that time’. The second was the statement in Morgan et al. (2020, p. 12): ‘Adams and Attiwill (2011) synthesised the research that ultimately arose from the CRC’s work and other relevant research to assist both public debate and land managers in making judgements on the management of fire risks and environmental values’.
Regarding the first reference to Adams and Attiwill (2011), the attribution is incorrect, and the statement should be attributed to Phil Cheney. Notes applying to the paragraph in the draft manuscript had referenced a statement made by Adams and Attiwill to the 2003 Canberra fires ‘for the Australian Capital Territory where a meagre 0.08% of the forest estate of 120 000 hectares is burnt for fuel reduction annually’ (Adams & Attiwill 2011, p. 12) and discussion captured in the last paragraph of page 89 in Burning issues. This material was not included in the finished manuscript. The error in attribution resulted during revisions of the manuscript and was not identified by the authors before the manuscript was published and bought to our attention by Mark and Peter.
The sentence should read ‘Phil Cheney (pers. comm., May 2019) claimed that the 2003 wildfire in the ACT’s Namadgi National Park burnt under higher intensities due to the preferences and attitudes of park rangers in not allowing prescribed burning at that time’. The authors apologise to Mark and Peter for this incorrect attribution to their published work.
Regarding the second reference to Adams and Attiwill, Mark and Peter challenge our statement in that the statement construes an impression that Adams and Attiwill is a summary of CRC research. This was not our intention in our statement, and we have difficulty understanding how such an interpretation of our statement can be inferred. Our statement portrays Burning issues as a book that was informed by CRC and other research and we believe most readers of our paper would interpret it in this way. Nevertheless, we recognise that the book by Adams and Attiwill (2011) covered the topic of prescribed burning comprehensively and constitutes a thorough examination of international and Australian – including Bushfire CRC-based – research.
The caption to Table 3, Large wildfires and megafires in Australia, 1851–2016, should read 1851–2019.
Gary Morgan
On behalf of the authors
Adams MA, Attiwill PM. 2011. Burning issues – sustainability and management of Australia’s southern forests. Melbourne (Australia): CSIRO Publishing.