Seite 161 [161]
VIII. Agrobiocoenoses and their zoocoenoses | 159
the results of unpublished studies on Tortricidae, a few Pyllonorycter
populations, and catenaria around Cydia pomonella and Anthonomus
pomorum. To a large degree, however, our knowledge is restricted to selected
obstant elements, but without clarification of their relationships to one, or
more, zoocoenoses.
We also have studies that measure the conseguences of human influence.
These studies, though, are in their initial state; to a degree due to the recent
impact on plant protection of fresh perspectives that lift this special field out
of its current subordinate, and mosaic-like role. Plant protection, as a
biocoenological science, has risen from an isolation to allow wider horizons.
Even though we do not completely agree with Schwerdtfegers (1956)
somewhat cautious viewpoint (and completely rejecting his concepts of
biocoenoid and technocoenosis), we acknowledge that his warning is justified.
The mission of plant protection entomology is to assist in achieving higher
yields; human actions directed towards this end, however, have biocoenotic
consequences, and agriculture cannot reject their acceptance. The sustained
existence of the agrobiocoenosis is vital for humankind, but the problems
related to this aim are full of biocoenotic questions; in the first place related
to plant protection, as indicated by the name. This being so, we can only get
to the core of these problems if we interpret them in the framework of
biocoenology; plant protection entomology is a biocoenological science.
CLOSING COMMENTS
All the above arguments are perhaps new and, in many respects, may seem
daring. From the very beginning, our view of biocoenosis - the aim and
methods of biocoenology - has been different from the dominant views of
today. This brought with it the inevitable consequence of building a totally
different set of biocoenological concepts. All the achievements of biocoenology,
the immeasurable amount of work by biocoenologists to quantitatively and
ecologically analyse faunas, can only attract the highest degree of appreciation
from the author. This works and its results contributed to the formation of
the author’s views presented herein and, even if these views end up being
contradictory, they do not amount to an underappreciation of the value of
ecofaunistical studies, nordoubting their necessity. To pursue the aims of
biocoenology, however, - and all authors agree on this - we need to press
on, dig deeper, and start the useful and exquisite work of uncovering the
linkages within biocoenoses. We are convinced that the emerging multitude
of questions will be answered more reliably if we follow the path sketched
here, rather than following the traditional route of faunal analyses. To this
field ofresearch, we invite those whose soul has been touched by the wonderful,
great web of life; with this work, we would like to guide them along this path,
where there is plenty to harvest but there are few harvesters.