As part of a wider discussion of forest diversity in New Zealand, Ogden (1995) pointed out that the area available between any pair of contours on a conical mountain decreased with altitude in parallel with the decrease in species richness. This correlation is confounded with other environmental variables, such as temperature, which have been widely considered to be causal in the diversity decline. However, generalization has been elusive, and the supposed causal mechanisms are often couched in vague terms such as "harshness". Ogden chose to emphasize area, and invoked the theory of island biogeography of MacArthur and Wilson (1967) by drawing parallels between islands and successively superimposed areas on mountains. Kingston (this issue) objected, mainly on the grounds that the theory of island biogeography refers to "isolated" areas and deals with the equilibrium between immigration and extinction, on which Ogden presented no evidence. In the light of these criticisms the data presented in Ogden (1995) is re-assessed here. I conclude that the "area hypothesis" is at least as good as any other for "explaining" (correlating with) elevational diversity trends. Area is itself correlated with environmental heterogeneity, which is presumably more important as a causal agent. However, Kingston's insistence on the need for evidence on immigration and extinction to support the application of island biogeography theory is acknowledged.
Patch‐scale biodiversity retention in fragmented landscapes: Reconciling the habitat amount hypothesis with the island biogeography theory
