Abstract
We (Murphy et al ., 2013; Clarke et al ., 2015) have recently developed a framework to understand the spatial distribution of fire regimes and plant fire‐response traits at large spatial scales. We integrated a range of data sources to create a continental‐scale overview of Australian pyromes from which to infer pyrogeographic drivers. Gosper et al . (in press) have criticized our approach, based on our misclassification of a vegetation type (eucalypt woodland), with distinct fire regime, in the Coolgardie bioregion of Western Australia. We argue that the intention of our integrative approach was to develop and refine conceptual models of Australian pyrogeography, not to produce a predictive map of fire regimes, and certainly not to guide local‐scale fire management. Like all models, continental‐scale syntheses of pyromes are imperfect, yet they still represent powerful tools for understanding the drivers of the spatial distribution of fire regimes.