Hanski's critique of the habitat amount hypothesis (Hanski, 2015, Journal of Biogeography, 42, 989-993) does not actually constitute a test of the hypothesis, but rather a series of arguments for why he suspects that it is not correct. But the habitat amount hypothesis is exactly that - a hypothesis. It will remain 'just' a hypothesis until it has been rigorously tested against empirical data. To facilitate such testing, in Fahrig (2013, Journal of Biogeography, 40, 1649-1663) I presented specific, testable predictions of the hypothesis. Here, I reiterate the main tests needed, in the hope that some readers will be encouraged to carry them out. I appreciate this opportunity to emphasize that the habitat amount hypothesis needs to be tested against empirical data, and I look forward to seeing the results of such tests.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Area effect, Habitat amount hypothesis, Habitat fragmentation, Habitat loss, Landscape scale, Local landscape, Local patch, Patch size, Scale of effect
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12504
Journal Journal of Biogeography
Fahrig, L. (2015). Just a hypothesis: A reply to Hanski. Journal of Biogeography, 42(5), 993–994. doi:10.1111/jbi.12504