Just a hypothesis: A reply to Hanski
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.
|Keywords||Area effect, Habitat amount hypothesis, Habitat fragmentation, Habitat loss, Landscape scale, Local landscape, Local patch, Patch size, Scale of effect|
|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