Seite 160 [160]
OCR
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
