4 ms·

Or is it 1 out of 5 fields? Big difference!

• stuart78 8y ago
  And somehow the article has numbers to support both interpretations?
• gpm 8y ago
  I think the 40% number is correct, the article also contains this line which is oddly specific to be a typo. > However, 42% of fields had poor earthworm biodiversity – meaning either very few or none of the surface-dwelling and deep-burrowing categorisations of worms were seen.
• wjn0 8y ago
  > 42% of fields studied had poor earthworm diversity > 21% of fields lacked surface-dwelling worms Seems pretty clear to me. Some vs. none...
  • pvaldes 8y ago
    Talking here about "earthworm diversity", is another thing that is wrong. To identify earthworms is difficult even for experienced taxonomists and you need a microscope, a disection table and a lot of training. Polychaetes are much easier by comparison and I can assure you that they aren't easy. You need months of study. Not, not everybody can do the work of a biologist. Not even the smartest children. Is complex, and hard work. Unless you want to classify the diversity of worms into "small", "medium sized" and "big worm", dig a hole and count isn't enough.