Page 80 [80]
78 | IV. Categories of animal associations
composition of plant cover, and this clearly indicates their realisation that
the qualitative composition of the plant cover is decisive in the formation of
animal associations. Commonly, the importance of trophic links is emphasised
by Hungarian authors (Dudich, 1932, 1939; Balogh, 1946, 1953).
The above three criteria are only valid collectively. The presence of whole
populations in a space is no proof of an association, as it can be a temporary
phenomenon, caused by, for example, the swarming of a species. The de facto
association only happens when it becomes part of a food chain. The “whole
population” criterion also means that the relationship of the population in
question to the energy source is pivotal. A population of Lymantria dispar
caterpillars disperses over a larger area than a Curculio nucum population.
The basic unit of the categorisation, however, is the population (Dudich
1932), and an association can only be delineated if we consider the population
that is directly related to the plant as an energy source. Here, we must take
into account the area over which a “whole population” spreads, and how it
is related to the given energy source. The winter moth, Operophtera brumata
will be present in more oecuses than Tortrix viridana or Mikiola fagi, and
the zoocoenoses around them will relate to space accordingly. So, if we start
studying zoocoenoses in spaces greater than 10 m’, there can be populations
that are "whole; and others will be represented only by one or two
semaphoronts. If this is not the consequence of extremely low abundance,
this will indicate that these populations cannot be comprehended in their
entirety, because they extend over a much wider area.
Hopefully, these examples illuminate the spatial aspects of the zoocoenosis.
The continuing confusion in setting up and delimiting categories of animal
associations is caused because, even if authors are aware that the plant cover
(or at least a plant-based energy source) is essential for their formation, the
categories are still either independent of the plant cover (synusium, Franz,
1951; faunula, Friederichs, 1930; connexus Balogh, 1953), or in contrast, they
are taken to be the same; the plant sociological categories are considered
identical with the zoocoenological ones (association, Rabeler, 1952; sociation,
consociation, association, consocion, associon, Balogh, 1953).
We cannot agree with either. It is certain that any category in an animal
association must be built on the plant cover, and this principle will be rigidly
followed. Yet plant sociological categories cannot be identical with categories
in zoocoenology, as the latter are formed in a totally different way (see p. 55).
Neither can we agree with the solution that puts animals living on plant parts
into a group (synusium, Balogh, 1946, 1953; stratocoenosis, choriocoenosis,
Tischler, 1950; meroenosis, Schwenke, 1953), because these only exist
exceptionally.
Some authors are against the spatial delimitation of animal associations,
for example Shelford and Towler (1925: 29. “Communities must be determined
by dominants rather than habitat; the limits of the dominants as such are the
limits of the community...”) and Franz (1950. 61.: “Tiergemeinschaften