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 Prestonet al.(2004). [These conclusions refute those of Keeley and Fotheringham's publication inScience(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 pendulifloraandNicotiana attenuata, are the specific pyrolysis products of cellulose rather than chemical scarification by nitrogen oxides (Keeley and Fotheringham, 1997).