An associational study of Illinois sand prairie . al history. We may also assume that plant successionsare accompanied by corresponding animal successions; and that a defi-nite of plants is alv/ays accompanied by a certain definiteassemblage of animals, v/hich together make up a biotic association:and that this identical assemblage is never found accompanying a dif-ferent of plants. This does not mean that the associationis to be interpreted as an assemblage of exactly so many plants andexactly so many animials to correspond, in exactly such and such aproportion of abun
An associational study of Illinois sand prairie . al history. We may also assume that plant successionsare accompanied by corresponding animal successions; and that a defi-nite of plants is alv/ays accompanied by a certain definiteassemblage of animals, v/hich together make up a biotic association:and that this identical assemblage is never found accompanying a dif-ferent of plants. This does not mean that the associationis to be interpreted as an assemblage of exactly so many plants andexactly so many animials to correspond, in exactly such and such aproportion of abundance or dominance, or that the same associationcannot be represented in two localities if a fev/ species are more a-bundant in one, or if a few other species be added or absent. Norigid interpretations can be made, nor are they needed. The associ-ation is something that is very real and easily recognized. Given aset of physical conditions in a region, one can predict the ecologi-cal type of its potential plant covering: given a definite type of. 37 plant assemblage, one can predict the ecological type of the corre-sponding assemblage. Llost of the studies which have been made of land associs^tionshave treated only the plants. This is natural because the plants aremuch, less dependent upon the animals than the animals upon the plants,and the dominating influences must be treated first. There is thusno discredit upon zoological v;orkers: they must be careful, however,not to fall into the error of neglecting the plant studies; no under-standing of the association is possible without the knowledge of thedominant feature, the plant assemblage. The zoologist must thereforeavail himself of the large ainount of v/ork that has been done by thebotanist. He should build upon the botanists structure rather thanattempt an independent foundation for his ovm. The associations have already been by the botanist, usuallywith reference to the dominant feature, be it physical or ve
Size: 1332px × 1875px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookidassocia, booksubjecttheses
