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, 20214 yr by beecee

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.  

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.

Proportionally, archaea to bacteria doesn't seem right.

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.