Page 117 [117]
§ The work flow of the zoocoenological studies | 115
analysis of the zoocoenosis, but can also be employed for census (for example,
birds, grasshoppers, bees; see Palmgren, 1930; Nagy, 1951; Moczar, 1954).
The methods listed above cannot be described in detail. Not only because
these have already been detailed in two recent publications (Dudich, 1951;
Balogh, 1953) that describe a rich treasure trove of sampling methods, but
also because we could only provide a very incomplete description of what is
available in the literature. The sampling, and incubation as well as observation
methods are not only variable because of the different features of the different
target groups, but also because none of them are precise; most collectors and
researchers trying to keep developing species under laboratory conditions
have always strived to perfect the methods used by making individual
modifications. We can be certain that every collecting method will be
criticised, and thus we avoid repeating these. Justified criticism is regularly
voiced even in connection to soil faunal sampling (see Kuehnelt, 1950; Franz,
1950; Jahn, 1951; Dudich, Balogh and Loksa, 1951, etc.), and even more
critical analysis can be expected towards above-ground survey methods
where the conditions are much more complicated. The important thing is to
have at our disposal an ample range of different methods, whereby we can
find a suitable one for every group. Imperfections cannot be unsurmountable
obstacles in the way of shedding light on the species spectrum of a given
zoocoenosis. We need to add an assessment and hope for clarity. The censusing
of the assemblage is an essential part of zoocoenological studies but it is not
carried out for its own sake, as is also the case for faunistical studies. The aim
of zoocoenology cannot be to capture all the animals living in an area, but
to establish their presence and give reliable information about their relative
abundances, because these data are necessary preconditions to describe the
associative boundaries, and the mutual relationships of the constituent
populations. Therefore, any survey needs to maintain only one rigid condition;
to consistently use the same methods, although the methods can be freely
chosen if they are appropriate for the above goal.
The zoocoenological census, in most cases, means collections. Therefore,
we need to add a few comments about incubation and observation methods.
The former, by necessity, is combined with the collecting methods, the latter
might have to be combined with another collecting method.
The perfection of incubation methods is a matter of experience and feeling.
Any one of the multitude of methods can be chosen if that seems suitable to
allow the selected taxonomic group to reach adulthood. The big advantage
of this method is that, in an optimal case, we obtain the whole population,
and we may be able to get a glimpse into the life of the zoocoenosis. A
precondition for this is that we do not only keep the collected parts (galls,
stems), but we subject them to special studies, that may necessitate the
dissection of the studied plants. The only disadvantage of the incubation
method is that we have to move the material from its original site, and thus
distance it from the direct effects of the biotope. Hence, we can underestimate