Page 161 [161]
OCR
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 Agrobiocoenoses and their zoocoenoses | 159 the results of unpublished studies on Tortricidae, a few Pyllonorycter populations, and catenaria around Cydia pomonella and Anthonomus pomorum.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.
