Page 117 [117]
OCR
§ 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
