Talk:Biomass (ecology)

Absurdly wrong
This article is absurdly wrong about actual percentages of bio mass. See this Article:

Wiki is not a good source of information on controversal issues, but the statistics on this page are far more sourced than this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.20.22 (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The article you mention has only one reliable source, and it is a source widely used in the Wikipedia article. Breath deeply and read the articles again. – Epipelagic (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

5.3 × 10³¹ or 5.3 × 10³7 ?
In An Estimate of the Total DNA in the Biosphere, which is used as reference n°12,

Abstract

> "Modern whole-organism genome analysis, in combination with biomass estimates, allows us to estimate a lower bound on the total information content in the biosphere: 5.3 × 1031 (±3.6 × 10³¹) megabases (Mb) of DNA"

Fig.1

> "Storing the total amount of information encoded in DNA in the biosphere, 5.3 × 10³¹ megabases (Mb),[…]"

Also, section "The Total DNA in the Biosphere"

> "Using information on the typical mass per cell for each domain and group and the genome size, we estimate the total amount of DNA in the biosphere to be 5.3 × 1031 (±3.6 × 10³¹) megabase pairs (Mb) (Table 1)"

And, maybe I'm wrong, 5.3 × 10³⁷ doesn't appear anywhere in this publication.

So why continue to use 5.3 × 10³⁷ and refuse my patch "5.3 × 10³¹"?

Is it just to avoid "megabases (Mb)" (from 10³¹ Mb to 10³⁷ b) in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavCCCzh (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Please, Could you clarify that for me? XavCCCzh (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's very straightforward. The source says there are 5.3 × 1031 megabase pairs (Mb). The Wikipedia article says, more simply for the lay reader, that there are 5.3 × 1037 base pairs. Both mean exactly the same, because "mega" means 106, and 1031 x 106 = 1037. That's just basic arithmetic, so where is the problem? Your so called "patch" is seriously wrong – it says there are 5.3 × 1031 base pairs which is out by a factor of one million. In short, you have literally made a mega error, and you won't find anything verifying your position in any sources. — Epipelagic (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering. There was nothing aggressive in my question. I'm just trying to understand this choice of presentation of the number in this Wikipedia article. And I am sincerely sorry if my contribution was annoying XavCCCzh (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not annoyed with you. I was just trying to make it as clear as I could :) — Epipelagic (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023
— Assignment last updated by Natura Texan (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Updating the Global Biomass
I’ve recently changed the figure for the global biomass from “550-560 billion (5.5-5.6×10^11) tonnes C”, to ≈500 billion tonnes, but it was reverted. Let me better explain my edit, and we could reach an agreement on the best figure to use.

- The scientists cited for the current number had updated it in a publication to ≈500 billion tonnes C following a major update over the global biomass of prokaryotes.

- Keeping the current statement ‘550-560 billion tonnes’ might mislead the readers regarding the associated uncertainty of the estimate. The original PNAS article, from which the 550 billion tonnes comes from, reports a multiplicative uncertainty of 1.7, meaning the actual number may be between 550/1.7 = 320, and 550*1.7 = 940 billion tonnes. Using a single significant digit, as in 500 billion tonnes, better conveys this uncertainty. Clam plan (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The cited source does not say the global biomass is ≈500 billion tonnes C. Actually, it doesn't say it is 550-560 billion tonnes either, which is what the Wikipedia article originally said. The source says in its abstract that the figure is ≈550 billion tonnes C. That is the figure that should be used in the sentence in the Wikipedia article which cites the source. I appreciate you want to round the figure down, because a more recent paper suggested there are less prokaryotes than the figure used in the cited source. New research resulting in revisions like the one in the more recent paper are happening all the time, and are likely to continue. The Wikipedia article should just accurately reflect what is actually claimed in each cited papers, and perhaps explicitly date the estimates if they keep changing and are not yet settled. But if you are going to start adjusting, in the manner you used above, the cited figures in the article, then you are starting to engage in a form of original research. Instead of clarifying existing confusion in the literature (which is certainly there), you will be introducing another layer of confusion. Regards. — Epipelagic (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that maybe the way I had it cited originally was unclear and might have made it look like original research, but the 2019 paper states clearly in Fig. 1 that the total global biomass is ≈500 billion tonnes, so citing that should alleviate the confusion and show that the 500 figure comes directly from a published scientific source. I am also not aware of any other significant revision to the global estimate, so this change would reflect the most recent information available.Clam plan (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)