Talk:Biomass (ecology)

Energy Unassessed

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Maybe...

Might want to link in Fibrominn. --Borisborf 03:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"40 to 60%" sounds exaggerated.

The statement "Humans, domesticated animals and crops comprise somewhere between 40 to 60% of the Earth's biomass." that appears second paragraph, second sentence; it strikes me as an error or exaggeration, but I'm no expert on the details. Is there a biologist or other specialist that could cite the research, or offer a more thorough explanation about humans and human husbandry could even approach 50% of the earth total biomass? I did a crude calculation of the volume of “human biomass” and it works out to be only 0.325 cubic km for 325 million metric tones of humans (assuming an average mass of 50 kg per individual). When I consider the vast expanses of forest and marine habitat, I’m dubious about the “40 to 60%” range given.

I agree. -Willmcw 21:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Breakdown of Earths Biomass

I think it may be useful to include a breadown of the Earths biomass. I've been hunting for some kind of info about what percentage of the Earth's biomass is made up of plants and have found absolutely nothing on the rest of the interweb. This page is the only one that mentions percentages in any kind of meaningful way. The information is incomplete. Humans make up 0.33%, what about the rest? Where's the piechart?

No piechart, but I've inserted a Table

Regards John D. Croft 13:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ants & Biomass Percentages

The following "Mad Scientist" post (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec99/945142818.Zo.r.html) discusses (unfortunately without citation) scientific estimates that ants comprise 30% of the biomass of the Amazon basin and perhaps 10% of global biomass.

Agreed, we need more data

It is my understanding that generally speaking, the smaller the organism, the greater its total biomass. Certainly this would give ants, krill, fungus and perhaps even bacteria much greater mass than we imagine. I too was searching for a "Pie chart" breakdown but perhaps the definition is at issue as well since I am not immediately interested in the sum total of all organic weight wether dead or alive as I now know biomass defines. I would rather prefer a breakdown of living organisms as defined by biosphere. Any further specification would be helpful.

Estimate of total biomass is incorrect.

The page defines biomass as:

"Biomass is organic non-fossil material, collectively. In other words, 'biomass' describes the mass of all biological organisms, dead or alive..."

and then goes on to state:

"The entire earth contains about 75 billion tons of biomass."

Assuming 1 billion is 10^9, this estimate is too low to be consistent with the definition.

To give an example, in its "Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000", the FAO estimates that the "global total above-ground woody biomass was 422 billion tonnes"

(http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/004/Y1997E/y1997e01.htm).

David Wardle.

--David Wardle 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for cleanup

This subject deserves a better article. --Smithfarm 11:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how to tag this for needing much more in-depth information. It's a stub entry. I'm in touch with people at Nottingham's biomass plant which supplies local heat and electricity to the city centre area in the uk - there must be experts around who wouldn't mind sharing... July 06 Shomon

Prokaryotic Diversity anyone?

I don't understand how an article can be written about biomass, and have none, zero, zip mention of prokaryotic life. The most diverse, and basal elements of the ecological ladder get shafted so some joker can make off hand remarks about Krill.

I fart in the general direction of anyone associated with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.181.36 (talk • contribs) .

Good point. Rather than farting you could add some information about it. --Salix alba (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article looking for good information about where the biomass is. I was looking to confirm data on pg 393 of A History of Knowledge by Charls Van Doren ISBN 0-345-37316-2.