Smoke and mirrors: reply to Fotheringham and Keeley

In their rebuttal, Fotheringham and Keeley (2005) (F&K, hereafter) assert that misinterpretations of previous research, errors in the presentation of the chemistry of nitrogen oxides and devious presentation of experimental results led to the conclusion of Preston et al. (2004). [These conclusions refute those of Keeley and Fotheringham's publication in Science (Keeley and Fotheringham, 1997).] We disagree and argue that the experimental evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that the ecologically relevant germination signals for the two post-fire annuals, Emmenanthe penduliflora and Nicotiana attenuata, are the specific pyrolysis products of cellulose rather than chemical scarification by nitrogen oxides (Keeley and Fotheringham, 1997).