3 ms·

I think you might be mistaken. Not just vertebrates: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/ploson

I think you might be mistaken. Not just vertebrates: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... It's biomass that's decreasing, not just numbers: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-lose-65-percent-of-land-biomass-by-2060-15980 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/amazon-may-lose-65-percen... Yes, maritime animals too: https://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf https://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m512p155.pdf And yes, plant biomass too: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 (This one's on a much longer timeline, so hard to compare)

kleopullin 8y ago
This article is about vertebrates, though. The headline is distinctly incorrect, whatever else is happening to flying insect biomass, or even plants, the article is a survey of vertebrate decline. Vertebrates are one subphyllum of the chordates, not even the most diverse phyllum of animals. Even children know snails are animals but not vertebrates, so how does a journalist miss this.