Page 156 [156]
154] VIII. Agrobiocoenoses and their zoocoenoses
which the organisms are connected by numerous links, most importantly
trophic ones. We are not convinced, though, as to why a biocoenosis present
in arvideserta should be excluded? The animal associations formed on
cultivated areas cannot be called a random collection by any means, as even
the plant stand is a very regulated result of the activity of a population of
Homo sapiens, and the presence of the essence of a biocoenosis - the trophic
chain - can be demonstrated.
Rammner set an impossible criterion at the centre of his concept of biotope
and biocoenosis: “Eine Lebenstätte kann nur dann als Biotop bezeichnet
werden, wenn für sie [...] euzöne Arten bezeichnend sind und eine
Organismengemeinschaft kann nur dann als Biozönose bezeichnet werden,
wenn der von den Organismen besiedelte Raum einen Biotop mit Ökoklima
darstellt, wenn in der Organismengemeinschaft für den zugehörigen Biotop
ezuöne Arten (also Zönobionten oder Präferenten) vorhanden sind und
wenn die vorgefundene Arten kombination durch Selbstregulation über
längere Zeit erhalten bleibt.” (Rammner, 1953, 453)”. The concept of the
“eucoen species’, as we have already pointed out, is an ecofaunistical one,
and says nothing more than that there are areas whose fauna contains one
or more species that are exclusive to that area. No one can doubt, though,
that we could talk about the fauna of the same area, even if these were not
forming a coenosis. In the zoocoenoses of such areas there will be stenoconstant
populations that are exclusive to that area, but it is inaccurate to claim that
there are no zoocoenoses amidst the animals living there, because it lacks
stenoconstant elements.
If the essence of a biotope is that it is a space for life, this condition must
be fulfilled also by an arvideserta, which obviously has life and, more so, this
type of area is a necessary energy source for all human societies - which are
dependent on it, and have close interactions with it. This biotope also has an
ecoclimate and, even if Rammner states that the microclimate is dependent
on the cultivated plant stand (with which we completely agree), this says no
more than that the arvideserta does not have a uniform microclimate; more
precisely an ecoclimate that shows the same values in allits parts. The same,
however, also holds for less disturbed biotopes; the microclimate at the top
of a forest is certainly different from that of the litter layer. And what can we
say about the ecoclimate of a forest steppe?
Rammner is right to point out that the plants growing within agricultural
areas do not grow there by themselves. Nonetheless, these remain producents,
even if in a cultivated form and, as such, can and do serve as the basis of a
biocoenosis. Their presence is only a mark of strong human influence, and
we cannot declare this outcome to be “outside nature”
Nothing justifies he lifting of Homo sapiens out of other natural phenomena
(Glen, 1954). Humans are members of the biocoenosis, and cannot survive
without it. Their activity extends to vast areas and, in this, is unparalleled
among extant animals. Without human activities, domesticated animals