Page 160 [160]
158 | VIII. Agrobiocoenoses and their zoocoenoses
Marchand, 1953, p. 142). Translating this to the language of zoocoenology, it
means that there is no obligatory (proportional) relationship between a plant
community and its zoocoenosis, at least quantitatively. The former, as a
qualitative energy source, supports the development of the latter, but whether
these really appear (and in what quantitative/or qualitative composition),
depends on other factors, additional to the host plant impact. Based on the
work cited above, we can assume that the identity of the plant association does
not bring with it the proportional presence of food specialists, or zoocoenoses,
because the energy sourceis not sufficient for this. The microclimate, influenced
by the macroclimate (and possibly other, currently unknown, factors) will
determine whether the expected zoocoenosis will appear, and to what extent.
The warm-blooded members of the supersocion are probably less dependent
on this than the poikilothermic populations, and with them, the other
zoocoenoses, from the presocium down. The most important task of
zoocoenology, and especially of agrozoocoenology, is to make the appearance
of the expected zoocoenosis the central question. In practice, this means that
the zoocoenoses must be followed for years, in the same plant community
and the same place, because this is the only possible way to find out whether
the assumed changes happen, and to what degree. This knowledge will make
it possible to take the next step, to unearth the causes of the changes.
Concerning catenaria, through lacking the necessary quantitative surveys,
we have no general picture. We attempted one such survey, using
Ceutorrhynchinarium maculae-albae.
The pioneering ecofaunistical studies in alfalfa by Balogh and Loksa (1956)
threw light on the composition of the catenaria, even though (because of
their views) they included elements that belong to the presocia, primarily
considering adults and totally excluded the endophytobionts. Even in this
form, their carefully designed studies constitute an essential step towards the
knowledge of catenaria that form in alfalfa. Méczar (1954) also studied alfalfa,
restricting his investigation to the flower visitors, and making the fortunate
step of studying the quantitative and qualitative composition of the sustinent
coetus of the catenarium, making his studies very valuable for zoocoenology.
He is also the first to provide data on the four coeti of the alfalfa catenarium.
Studies of rye by Rabeler (1951) are more modest, at the level of fragments
of ecofaunistical data.
We have rudimentary knowledge about numerous catenaria, but these are
mostly restricted to the parasitoid fauna of singular corrumpents. In this
respect, Saringer’s (1951) studies in Oscinellaetena frit are remarkable in that
they show that in two, closely located plant stands, only one harboured a rich
obstant coetus, which underlines the phenomena referred to above.
We are not in a much better position considering agrilignosa. We know
that in our orchards, the Aspidiotinarium persiciosi, and on plum trees, the
Lecaniinarium prunastri are, respectively, the most common catenaria and,
that in mixed orchards, the former reaches the rank of presocium. We have