Page 69 [69]
§ Parts of the biotope | 67
was already used by Hesse (1924) to indicate units bigger than biotope, and
this use seems general (Dudich, 1932; Bej-Bienko, see Tschegolev, 1951), we
cannot use Krogerus’ biochorion nor Tischler’s biochor to denote a part of
the biotope.
Russian entomologists (Bej-Bienko, see Tchegolev, 1951; Bej-Bienko and
Mishtschenko, 1951)) use biotope in a strictly synbiological sense, but also
use an idiobiological concept, “statio”, as the life space unit of a species. This
is not identical with the habitat, because it refers to the area occupied by one
species, and is not identical with the biotope, either: it can be small or large.
To clarify the concept of the biotope, Vite (1951) discussed the spatial
relations of animals at the individual and species level and, in this context, with
the habitat, too, defining it as the space where the individual lives (“...ein
charakteristischer Ort, der stats sufgesucht wird, da er seinem Bewohner [...]
den relativ grössten Schutz gegen [negative] Unwelteinflüsse gewährt”). To
express the entire space needed by the individuum, Vite introduces the term
oecotope, meaning the area in which the individuum, during its daily activities,
will move between its habitat and food resources. An oecotope, therefore, is
also an autecological term, but is not identical with the statio, because the
author refers to mating, overwintering, etc. oecotopes, from which it is clear
that he thinks of spatial needs of certain semaphoronts, and not of a species.
Thalenhorst (1951) divides the biotopes vertically, into biorophs. The
bioroph is the same as Tischler’s stratum but more acceptable, because it has
a synbiological character. Schwenke (1953), as he considers the biotope as
the space occupied by the biocoenosis, makes no further division and, because
the concept of biocoenosis is linked to equilibrium, any smaller part, by
necessity not being able to be in equilibrium, including all parts of the biotope,
is called a merotope. Considering the concept of a merotope, a tree, a tree
trunk, a field of wheat, a carcass, etc. will be at the same level, and these
(including, for example, the cadaver ofa single individuum of a zoocoenosis)
are so heterogeneous that the term itself becomes unacceptable. Balogh’s
(1946, 1953) synusium is mostly a term of association, including the animal
assemblage of a bioroph; hence, it is related to space occupied by living
organisms, thus identical to bioroph. The term synusium cannot be accepted,
because it has already been used in plant sociology, where it means something
totally different. In addition, various authors ((Tischler, 1950; Franz, 1950;
Kihnelt, 1951; Schwenke, 1953) interpret it very differently.
The question is: what are the arguments that justify the division of the
biotope into smaller parts, and whether division is possible at all?
A subdivision of the biotope is necessary, because: 1) the biotope itself is
stratified; 2.) within layers, it has a mosaic-like structure, and; 3) the number
and composition of animal associations is linked to this stratification and
structure.
Vertically, the biotope is stratified into levels, biorophs (ground, moss or
grass, or litter, shrub and canopy layers). These are not equivalent: without