Page 157 [157]
OCR
VIII. Agrobiocoenoses and their zoocoenoses | 155 would not exist, nor cultivated plants, and there would be no salt grasslands, nor fishponds, on the former flood beds. Under human influence, biotopes change but remain biotopes, and the biocoenosis can respond naturally, but it also remains a biocoenosis, with producents and along with all the other elements that are able to find their favourable life conditions. People keeping animals also grow plants, not only for themselves but also for their animals, and they use areas (biotopes) that are formed spontaneously. A zoocoenosis is formed around humans - a supersocion that includes, apart from humans, all populations that, whether corrumpents, obstants or intercalary elements, in their current life forms, depend on humans. This supersocion has a profound influence on all culture-biotopes. Rammner does not define these assemblages of organisms that populate the cultivated areas. Our attempt is that the only natural explanation is that the Hominicion sapientis has a property, and it includes everything that displays a human influence, whether exerted directly, or via domesticated animals. We cannot agree with Thienemann (1950) either (“man as an overarching organisational factor’, p. 734), because, despite enormous mental powers, humans are still subject to the basic laws of nature and, so far, have been unable to change this. The Hominicion sapientis is not independent of the other elements of the biocoenosis; it is dependent, conclusively, on its sustinents and intercalary elements and, in the arvideserta, conflicts with Arvicolaecion arvalis - a struggle that must be won, to avoid an irreparable damage to its food base. The view that places humans outside nature also led Schwerdtfeger (1956) to use the terms “biocoenoid” and “technocoenosis” to denote landscapes under human influence, denying their biocoenosis rank. We cannot see any structural difference between the two, and consider an ant hill, or termite mound, as much a phenomenon of nature as the cities of populations of Homo sapiens, which are their “habitat”. This step of declaring humans an organic component of biocoenoses may seem daring, or foolhardy, but it follows, unavoidably, from Linneaus’s view that classified Homo sapiens as a species of primate. This does not touch upon the mental superiority of humans, their social laws, their relationship to religion, science and art; yet their organismal needs link them to the totality of the biocoenosis, which they can modify according to their needs but cannot change its structure without endangering their own existence. Without a biocoenosis, cities equipped with all the achievements of civilisation could not be established, nor survive, and this biocoenosis puts its stamp on several aspects of the culture itself. From this perspective, in culture-biocoenoses, it is impossible to see anything that differs, substantially, from biocoenoses where human influence is minimal. Production, the essence of biocoenoses, is undisturbed in agrobiocoenoses, which is confirmed, aptly, by the existence of a stable food base, that serves as an existential condition for humankind. Certain animal communities have unhindered access to these plant stands, which is reflected
