Page 114 [114]
112 ÍVI. Methods of a zoocoenological analysis
There is a lack of a synthesis of these foundations in zoocoenology, but if
agrozoocoenology did not attempt this exercise, it undermines its reason for
existence. Our opinion is that all three need to be utilised when we want to
characterise a zoocoenosis; the three together provide the coenological
characteristics, the first is the gualitative, the secondguantitative, and the
third, structural.
Zoocoenology as it has been practiced so far, and in part continues to do,
is largely synmorphology, restricting itself to the description of qualitative
and quantitative characteristics. The available coenological measures are, in
essence, limited to these factors, perhaps because, to a large degree, these
were adopted from phytocoenology in the belief that they are also sufficient
for uncovering the structure and composition of zoocoenoses.
However, these characteristics are not sufficient for a full representation of
animal communities and, due to the substantial differences between plant and
animal communities, this is not even possible. There are signs in the literature
of the desire to also consider the synphysiological spectrum during the analysis
of zoocoenoses, mainly in the attempt to group the populations of zoocoenoses
into trophic or life form groups (Elton, 1927; Balogh, 1946; Balogh and Loksa,
1948; Tischler, 1949, 1951; Franz, 1950; Dudich, Balogh and Loksa, 1952).
The above-mentioned trio of characteristics involve certain sequential
stages. The first step is, obviously, the description of the species spectrum,
the identification of the species identity of the constituting populations,
followed - and often accompanied by the measurement of the quantitative
relationships; while the synphysiological spectrum clarifies the roles filled
by the individual populations, considering the trophic relationships and other
interactions. Certain authors assume that, in a zoocoenosis, the dominant
populations play the decisive role and believe that the study of interactions
must start with these populations (Schwenke, 1953). We cannot be so sure
about this without clarifying the relationships and, thus, we claim that all
research must be performed without prejudice, and by looking at the whole
zoocoenosis. It is self-evident that the dominant populations occupy the
focus of our attention, given that dominance itself is a characteristic that can
be explained by synphysiological factors.
The aim of a zoocoenological analysis is the study of the zoocoenosis, that
is, of the associative categories, and not the spatial relationships of the
individual populations. A given community is not a community because of
its relationship to a habitat area or volume, but because its constituent
populations are connected through trophic links. Due to the spatial constraints
of energy resources that are also linked, indirectly, to an area, any spatially¬
limited coenological study is constrained; it represents a “window’, through
which we try to examine a zoocoenological category, but not the zoocoenosis
itself. We can only compare populations that belong to the same associative
category; therefore, the coenological categories are associative, and not
faunistic, characteristics.