Page 56 [56]
OCR
5A | II. Biocoenosis and zoocoenosis equilibrium situation is only conceivable if the corrumpent population is appropriate for the existing food bases, and there is an obstant population that is proportional to the existing corrumpent population. In the situation used as an example, the interaction was stronger from the direction of the obstants. Why would we call the relationship between these two populations equilibrium, when it was obviously the outcome of an interaction, and it was not the deer population that kept the associated obstant populations “in balance’, but the latter that limited the former to the degree that they could not utilise the otherwise available food biomass? It is also possible that the plant cover has changed, and now can support more deer. This is again a matter of interaction, and we cannot see why we should use the word equilibrium instead, when the relative abundances are formed by the existing interactions. It is a generally accepted fact that the plant-based energy resources are, always, in abundance in relation to the animals consuming them (Heikertinger 1951), and the animals, in most cases, do not utilise the food available. An interesting case of the relationship within the interaction system is observed between grassland-grazing cattle and insects (grasshoppers and cicadas) (Wolcott, 1937). Where few cattle were grazing, most of the plant production was consumed by insects but, where the number of cattle was so high that they grazed the meadow low, the major part of plant production was consumed by them, because the defenceless insects were, in part, excluded and, in part, the open habitat attracted crows that decimated them. In this situation, it is impossible to see an equilibrium; this is the outcome of interactions. There are more obvious signs of a disturbed interaction. Such as, for example, when a corrumpent grazes the forest canopy bare; does this phenomenon indicate a loss of an equilibrium? When the oak forest is defoliated by Erannis (Hibernia) defoliaria or Tortrix viridana, the only event was that one of the interacting partners became too strong. If the energy source could limit its user, how could the equilibrium be upset? The equilibrium is, therefore, a fiction that we impose on the biocoenosis; there only exist interactions, that can take place so that the food base far exceeds the needs of the consumers, but can also occur in the opposite direction. Even if equilibrium were the essence of the biocoenosis, we could only speak of a disequlibrium if all oak trees perished due to this trauma and, consequently, also the herb layer in the semi-shaded understory. We do not know of such a case; on the contrary, the trees sprout again, and the usual state is restored. What had really happened? Nothing more than a temporary disturbance to the usual order. However, there are no rigorous studies support this image of “usual order”; how, then, could we claim that what we are accustomed to seeing is the equilibrium of the biocoenosis, and the essence of all biocoenoses? Only one thing is certain; that the producent level (and only a part of it) was, temporarily, during the period of a vegetative cycle,
