beecee Posted September 24, 2021 Share Posted September 24, 2021 (edited) https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Biomass_v9.png ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Would appreciate some comments on the above. “Surprisingly, at least to me, humans are relatively small” and my second query, what is the "uncertainty" in the given biomass numbers? Edited September 24, 2021 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted September 25, 2021 Share Posted September 25, 2021 The least uncertainty might be with livestock, where herd sizes and poundage of marketed animals are closely tracked by most nations. Greater uncertainty would be with sampling methods applied to species that are small, widely spread and mixed in with other media, like bacteria, nematodes, fungi, etc. And such categories are more likely to have species not yet identified. And also marine species, because, well, the oceans are so vast and deep. Mollusks, for example, would seem to call for a lot of guesswork. Cool thread and graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted September 25, 2021 Author Share Posted September 25, 2021 42 minutes ago, TheVat said: The least uncertainty might be with livestock, where herd sizes and poundage of marketed animals are closely tracked by most nations. Greater uncertainty would be with sampling methods applied to species that are small, widely spread and mixed in with other media, like bacteria, nematodes, fungi, etc. And such categories are more likely to have species not yet identified. And also marine species, because, well, the oceans are so vast and deep. Mollusks, for example, would seem to call for a lot of guesswork. Cool thread and graphics. Highlighted part by me seems valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druS Posted September 26, 2021 Share Posted September 26, 2021 Proportionally, archaea to bacteria doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted September 26, 2021 Share Posted September 26, 2021 The caption for Archaea also seems erroneous, defining them as "similar to bacteria but lacking a nucleus." Erm, bacteria also lack a nucleus and are a domain of prokaryotes. Archaea have metabolic pathways that bacteria do not. I agree their mass is very tricky to gauge, given that they include extremophiles and are also among plankton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now