3 ms·

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Your explanation makes sense, but it makes me modify my objection two-fold: 1) humans+livestock should not factor into t

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Your explanation makes sense, but it makes me modify my objection two-fold: 1) humans+livestock should not factor into these biomass calculations. Humans+Livestock are not meaningfully competing against other animals, in desert, in bush, or in the rainforest, because we modify the environment and make it far more calorie-rich: we farm. Even the densest rainforest wouldn't come close in # of mammal-consumable calories per acre to what humans can produce in farms. And the energy to farm is enabled mostly from fossil fuels, ore mining, etc - another thing that only humans do - we are not using solar energy to make or operate tractors, so not really meaningfully taking sunshine resources from other animals. In other words, you can't lump human+livestock biomass, as if it's a passive consumer of ecological biomass resources, because we increase those resources. Then, the only meaningful thing to compare is wild natural area displacement (like in miles squared) through settlements and farms. To the extent that other mammal populations shrink or go extinct, it will be simply due to smaller square miles we squeeze them into. 2) for the remaining animals, biomass is still not a good number. > Sure, you could measure the decline in number of individuals from each of those in percentage terms, and then, maybe, what, average that? Those intra-species population changes would be far more meaningful, yes. Averaging - no. I still do not accept this idea that if you kill a cougar, then the ecology will support cougars-weight more ants in that area. That is a major unsubstantiated hidden assumption. Only animals that consume the same resources at the same rates are fungible like that. When a cougar dies, no more ant-compatible food sources pop up. Need to show species level individual count. Biomass implies fungibility.

jonnycomputer 4y ago
re (1) In terrestrial ecosystems, the sun's energy is captured by primary producers (plants). That energy is used for plant metabolism, reproduction, and growth (building tissues, storing energy, etc.). Net primary productivity (NPP) of an ecosystem is the the difference between what energy primary producers capture from the sun and onvert into sugars during photosynthesis, and the energy loss to maintenance and metabolism. It is principally measured as the accumulated biomass. Importantly, NPP is an upper bound, since the primary, if not only way, for all other organisms to obtain their energy is to consume plants (herbivores), or consume those who consume plants (carnivores). NPP is different between terrestrial ecosystems. Deserts have the lowest. Tropical rainforests the highest (excluding marshes, etc.). Temperate forests are quite high, and much higher than grasslands or farmlands. e.g. 9000 kilocalories/square meter/year for rain forests, 6000 for temperate forests, about 2000 for farmland. Now what most modern farming does do, is bring in energy from elsehwere. For example, cattle might be fed corn brought it from elsewhere. Not to mention the energy inputs from fossil fuels (fertilizers, tractors, etc.) (2) You are right that comparisons in terms of biomass imply fungibility and it is not always appropriate. But it is also true that individual species often simply fill niches that arise as a property of the system (the system of energy inputs and limiting factors). How else would you compare, say, a forest in Washington with a forest in northern Europe? different species, and all that. But the niches are largely the same.
- club_tropical 4y ago
  > Now what most modern farming does do, is bring in energy from elsehwere. For example, cattle might be fed corn brought it from elsewhere. Not to mention the energy inputs from fossil fuels (fertilizers, tractors, etc.) Yes! Minus the corn, which is another farmland, fossil fuels, Haber Bosch fertilizers are things that only humans do. Are you saying that with all the technologies of modern farming, it still produces less than 0.25x mammal-consumable calories per square mile (9000 for rainforest vs 2000 for farmland)? That is unbelievable on its face, frankly, but also of couse farmland is not generally replacing lucious rainforests, but other bushland or something. So, humans and their farmland has to be enormously increasing the mammal-consumable calories per plot of farmland compared to wildland, otherwise farming wouldn’t make sense. The point is, there is only 1 animal (human) that drastically increases calories per square meter wherever it goes, so we (and livestock we choose to feed with farming) can not be lumped into any biomass calculations. 2) I would compare the species within themselves, and the “niches” between forests. Ultimately, I think biomass confuses more than it elucidates. Talk about ant colonies of Antium Washingtonicum to Antium Europium, don’t plop them into the same metric as Cougarium Washingtonium, in my opinion this is will lead to maybe nice-looking graphs with “findings” that are nonsensical.

jonnycomputer 4y ago

re (1) In terrestrial ecosystems, the sun's energy is captured by primary producers (plants). That energy is used for plant metabolism, reproduction, and growth (building tissues, storing energy, etc.). Net primary productivity (NPP) of an ecosystem is the the difference between what energy primary producers capture from the sun and onvert into sugars during photosynthesis, and the energy loss to maintenance and metabolism. It is principally measured as the accumulated biomass. Importantly, NPP is an upper bound, since the primary, if not only way, for all other organisms to obtain their energy is to consume plants (herbivores), or consume those who consume plants (carnivores). NPP is different between terrestrial ecosystems. Deserts have the lowest. Tropical rainforests the highest (excluding marshes, etc.). Temperate forests are quite high, and much higher than grasslands or farmlands. e.g. 9000 kilocalories/square meter/year for rain forests, 6000 for temperate forests, about 2000 for farmland. Now what most modern farming does do, is bring in energy from elsehwere. For example, cattle might be fed corn brought it from elsewhere. Not to mention the energy inputs from fossil fuels (fertilizers, tractors, etc.) (2) You are right that comparisons in terms of biomass imply fungibility and it is not always appropriate. But it is also true that individual species often simply fill niches that arise as a property of the system (the system of energy inputs and limiting factors). How else would you compare, say, a forest in Washington with a forest in northern Europe? different species, and all that. But the niches are largely the same.

club_tropical 4y ago
> Now what most modern farming does do, is bring in energy from elsehwere. For example, cattle might be fed corn brought it from elsewhere. Not to mention the energy inputs from fossil fuels (fertilizers, tractors, etc.) Yes! Minus the corn, which is another farmland, fossil fuels, Haber Bosch fertilizers are things that only humans do. Are you saying that with all the technologies of modern farming, it still produces less than 0.25x mammal-consumable calories per square mile (9000 for rainforest vs 2000 for farmland)? That is unbelievable on its face, frankly, but also of couse farmland is not generally replacing lucious rainforests, but other bushland or something. So, humans and their farmland has to be enormously increasing the mammal-consumable calories per plot of farmland compared to wildland, otherwise farming wouldn’t make sense. The point is, there is only 1 animal (human) that drastically increases calories per square meter wherever it goes, so we (and livestock we choose to feed with farming) can not be lumped into any biomass calculations. 2) I would compare the species within themselves, and the “niches” between forests. Ultimately, I think biomass confuses more than it elucidates. Talk about ant colonies of Antium Washingtonicum to Antium Europium, don’t plop them into the same metric as Cougarium Washingtonium, in my opinion this is will lead to maybe nice-looking graphs with “findings” that are nonsensical.