Reply to: Mechanisms by which growth and succession limit the impact of fire in a south‐western Australian forested ecosystem—A comment on Zylstra et al.'s model

Abstract Empirical evidence in scientific literature shows that forest flammability in south‐western Australia declines as forests recover from disturbance, indicating that current policies mandating disturbance may be counterproductive. Zylstra et al. (2023) used mechanistic modelling to explain this trend in Red Tingle ( Eucalyptus jacksonii ) forest in south‐western Australia. McCaw. (2024) have questioned the validity of the modelling, advancing hypothetical arguments as to why one of the inputs (‘suspended litter’) is incorrect and re‐asserting the need for the current policy. The primary argument by McCaw. (2024) depends upon the redefinition of a component of surface litter into suspended litter. The published definition of near‐surface fuel defines necromass as ‘suspended’ fuel only if it is suspended in living plants or collapsed shrubs. McCaw. (2024) removed this requirement, so that a component of surface fuel was incorrectly measured as ‘suspended’ fuel long after the plants that might suspend it had self‐thinned from the landscape. This physically impossible assertion was supported by an empirical study led by an architect of the policy and utilising the same redefinition of suspended litter, also reporting physically impossible findings as a result. Given the well‐documented decline in wildfire likelihood in long‐unburnt forest, the claim by McCaw. (2024) that suspended litter does not decline suggests at best that such litter plays a lesser role than previously believed. The approaches used by McCaw. (2024) to defend Government policy should be understood in context of growing international concerns around scientific suppression used in defence of Government policy. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.