Page 80 [80]
OCR
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
