3 ms·
RTFA. "To understand how the richness of the mammal kingdom has changed we need a metric that captures a range of different animals and is comparable over time
by myshpa 4y ago
RTFA.
"To understand how the richness of the mammal kingdom has changed we need a metric that captures a range of different animals and is comparable over time. We could look at their abundance – the number of individuals we have – but this is not ideal. We would be counting every species equally, from a mouse to an elephant and this metric would therefore an ecosystem taken over by the smallest mammals look much richer than one in which bigger mammals roam: if the world’s mouse populations multiplied and multiplied – maybe even to the detriment of other animals – then this abundance metric might suggest that these ecosystems were thriving.
Instead, ecologists often use the metric biomass. This means that each animal is measured in tonnes of carbon, the fundamental building block of life.1 Biomass gives us a measure of the total biological productivity of an ecosystem. It also gives more weight to larger animals at higher levels of the ecological ‘pyramid’"
https://ourworldindata.org/mammals#the-decline-of-wild-mammals-has-a-long-history https://ourworldindata.org/mammals#the-decline-of-wild-mamma...
- club_tropical 4y agoPERCENTAGE biomass in NO WAY reflects “the richness of the mammal kingdom”. It is a synthetic metric that scientists can futz around with enough to produce some shocking metric and get funding/press. ABSOLUTE “biomass” is meaningful, simply because mammals have relatively tight weight ranges and you can estimate the individual counts from the biomass- but let’s be real: it is most likely that they start with estimates of number of individuals and multiply that by the average weight to get biomass. So- ditch the biomass and show absolute numbers of individuals over time. That is meaningful.