Page 35 [35]
§ The concept of biocoenosis | 33
Therefore, while therefore, the biome and the biogeocoenosis are
constructed as collective concepts that encompass various formations on the
surface of the Earth (and the factors operating there), the ecosystem and
biocoenosis are physiognomic units fashioned by the abiocoen + the biocoen,
and their similarity of conditions. The formation can be the same yet separated
in space, but the biocoenosis and ecosystem will, eo ipso, be different, and
the same formation can contain several biocoenoses and ecosystems that
differ from each other.
By listing the above concepts, we have also declared a belief that the
biocoenology is a strictly ecological field, and separated from biogeography.
Biocoenology is threatened not only by idiobiological contamination but,
also, that we view its problems from a biogeographical platform. Biogeography,
of course, is not only a descriptive science, but it also strives to explain the
generation of the formations that it uncovers, thus also conducting a search
for causes. While doing this, it extends towards geology. The deciphering of
the laws relevant for the ecosystem and the biocoenosis as defined here, is
not the task of biogeography but that of biocoenology, whose objective is,
therefore, in all cases the study of a given, existing assemblage.
§ PLANT AND ANIMAL ASSOCIATIONS
We can always distinguish plant and animal associations, but this does not
also mean a separation; the plant cover and its fauna are inseparable, yet not
identical — thus the distinction is also justified.
The plant cover has primacy because, without it, no animal assemblage is
imaginable. Nonetheless, this plant cover is not independent of the animal
world, as we can risk making the statement that without animals, it could
not even exist in its current state because it relies so much on fertilisation
via arthropods.
The plant cover is organised through the action of various natural laws,
resulting in the formation of various plant associations. Due to the tight link
of the animals with plant cover, we can also assume that there is a link between
plant and animal associations; that a given plant association is supporting a
given animal association. It is obvious, from our previous knowledge, that
certain plant associations have their characteristic fauna.
This convenient parallelism lead Franz (1939, 1950) to suggest that the
word “association” should also be applied to animal assemblages, so that
zooassociation should denote animal assemblages, and phytoassociation
should denote plant assemblages, while the simple “association” ought to be
used for a combination of animal and plant assemblages. The acceptance of
this suggestion is hardly possible, because the word association, without the
“phyto” addition, is already in widely accepted in plant sociology, as the name
of the base unit of an assemblage. The term is also acceptable for Friederichs