Page 41 [41]
OCR
§ The concept of animal association | 39 such an associative frame; it is inconceivable that it will influence the other animal populations of the association to the degree that a dominant plant would influence the other plants in the same association (see Schwenke, 1953). The terms fauna, the animal assemblage (which is the instantaneous representation of that fauna) and zoocoenosis cannot be identical, as using two names for the same entity would be meaningless. The fauna is an abstraction, drawn from the study of many animal assemblages, but these assemblages are existing realities, representing the fauna of the area at that time. The sum of these assemblages is not the fauna, but the animal world of the area or spatial unit in question. The formation of this animal world is not caused by coexistence mechanisms alone; several other factors (life history, physiography, climatic, etc.) would influence it. The animal world, precisely because it is related to space, in essence, is not different from the animal assemblage of the smallest relevant spatial unit, and is none other than the sum of these, ie. a bigger animal assemblage. The sum of plant associations is the plant cover, yet the animal world is not merely the sum of animal assemblages; additionally, it also contains populations that live in the same space but have no links and, thus, are indifferent to the members of the assemblages. While the sum of animal assemblages is a bigger animal assemblage (depending on the established borders), the sum of zoocoenoses is not necessarily a bigger zoocoenosis, and its limits are never the limits of an animal assemblage; the member populations of a zoocoenosis have functional relationships with each other, and their relationship with space is secondary. Currently, zoocoenological practice considers the fauna as zoocoenosis, and the only criterion required to do this is a quantitative census, and analysis using coenological characteristics. This is an unacceptable approach, because it only changes the study method and does not touch upon the essence of the zoocoenosis assuming no change in the coexisting animal assemblage. Therefore, a zoocoenosis must be recognised and delimited, with non-relevant elements excluded, before its analysis can start; this is only possible by unearthing its trophic chains. A zoocoenosis is, in all likelihood, constructed following some rules, built from elements arranged with some regularity; otherwise, it would be impossible to find repeated species combinations that describe the groups of coexisting populations. It is natural that the starting point of zoocoenological studies is a plant association, thus, at the first step, we are faced with an animal assemblage. This assemblage must be analysed from a coenological point of view, meaning the constituent populations must be grouped into structural elements, according to their role in the zoocoenosis (i.e. their coexistence needs), to unearth their links to each other and to the plant association.
