Page 156 [156]
OCR
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
