ArticlePDF Available

The biomass distribution on Earth

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

A census of the biomass on Earth is key for understanding the structure and dynamics of the biosphere. However, a global, quantitative view of how the biomass of different taxa compare with one another is still lacking. Here, we assemble the overall biomass composition of the biosphere, establishing a census of the ≈550 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) of biomass distributed among all of the kingdoms of life. We find that the kingdoms of life concentrate at different locations on the planet; plants (≈450 Gt C, the dominant kingdom) are primarily terrestrial, whereas animals (≈2 Gt C) are mainly marine, and bacteria (≈70 Gt C) and archaea (≈7 Gt C) are predominantly located in deep subsurface environments. We show that terrestrial biomass is about two orders of magnitude higher than marine biomass and estimate a total of ≈6 Gt C of marine biota, doubling the previous estimated quantity. Our analysis reveals that the global marine biomass pyramid contains more consumers than producers, thus increasing the scope of previous observations on inverse food pyramids. Finally, we highlight that the mass of humans is an order of magnitude higher than that of all wild mammals combined and report the historical impact of humanity on the global biomass of prominent taxa, including mammals, fish, and plants.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The biomass distribution on Earth
Yinon M. Bar-On
a
, Rob Phillips
b,c
, and Ron Milo
a,1
a
Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, 76100 Rehovot, Israel;
b
Department of Physics, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; and
c
Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
Edited by Paul G. Falkowski, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, and approved April 13, 2018 (received for review July 3, 2017)
A census of the biomass on Earth is key for understanding the
structure and dynamics of the biosphere. However, a global,
quantitative view of how the biomass of different taxa compare
with one another is still lacking. Here, we assemble the overall
biomass composition of the biosphere, establishing a census of the
550 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) of biomass distributed among all of
the kingdoms of life. We find that the kingdoms of life concentrate
at different locations on the planet; plants (450 Gt C, the domi-
nant kingdom) are primarily terrestrial, whereas animals (2GtC)
are mainly marine, and bacteria (70 Gt C) and archaea (7GtC)
are predominantly located in deep subsurface environments. We
show that terrestrial biomass is about two orders of magnitude
higher than marine biomass and estimate a total of 6GtCof
marine biota, doubling the previous estimated quantity. Our anal-
ysis reveals that the global marine biomass pyramid contains more
consumers than producers, thus increasing the scope of previous
observations on inverse food pyramids. Finally, we highlight that
the mass of humans is an order of magnitude higher than that of
all wild mammals combined and report the historical impact of
humanity on the global biomass of prominent taxa, including
mammals, fish, and plants.
ecology
|
biomass
|
biosphere
|
quantitative biology
One of the most fundamental efforts in biology is to describe
the composition of the living world. Centuries of research
have yielded an increasingly detailed picture of the species that
inhabit our planet and their respective roles in global ecosystems.
In describing a complex system like the biosphere, it is critical to
quantify the abundance of individual components of the system
(i.e., species, broader taxonomic groups). A quantitative de-
scription of the distribution of biomass is essential for taking
stock of biosequestered carbon (1) and modeling global bio-
geochemical cycles (2), as well as for understanding the historical
effects and future impacts of human activities.
Earlier efforts to estimate global biomass have mostly focused
on plants (35). In parallel, a dominant role for prokaryotic
biomass has been advocated in a landmark paper by Whitman
et al. (6) entitled Prokaryotes: The unseen majority.New
sampling and detection techniques (7, 8) make it possible to re-
visit this claim. Likewise, for other taxa, such as fish, recent global
sampling campaigns (9) have resulted in updated estimates, often
differing by an order of magnitude or more from previous esti-
mates. For groups such as arthropods, global estimates are still
lacking (10, 11).
All of the above efforts are each focused on a single taxon. We
are aware of only two attempts at a comprehensive accounting of
all biomass components on Earth: Whittaker and Likens (12)
made a remarkable effort in the early 1970s, noting even then that
their study was intended for early obsolescence.It did not in-
clude, for example, bacterial or fungal biomass. The other at-
tempt, by Smil (13), was included as a subsection of a book
intended for a broad readership. His work details characteristic
values for the biomass of various taxa in many environments. Fi-
nally, Wikipedia serves as a highly effective platform for making
accessible a range of estimates on various taxa (https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)#Global_biomass) but currently falls
short of a comprehensive or integrated view.
In the past decade, several major technological and scientific
advances have facilitated an improved quantitative account of
the biomass on Earth. Next-generation sequencing has enabled a
more detailed and cultivation-independent view of the compo-
sition of natural communities based on the relative abundance of
genomes (14). Better remote sensing tools enable us to probe the
environment on a global scale with unprecedented resolution
and specificity. The Tara Oceans expedition (15) is among recent
efforts at global sampling that are expanding our view and cov-
erage. Continental counterpart efforts, such as the National
Ecological Observatory Network in North America, add more
finely resolved, continent-specific details, affording us more ro-
bust descriptions of natural habitats.
Here, we either assemble or generate estimates of the biomass
for each of the major taxonomic groups that contribute to the
global biomass distribution. Our analysis (described in detail in SI
Appendix) is based on hundreds of studies, including recent studies
that have overturned earlier estimates for many taxa (e.g., fish,
subsurface prokaryotes, marine eukaryotes, soil fauna).
Results
The Biomass Distribution of the Biosphere by Kingdom. In Fig. 1 and
Table 1, we report our best estimates for the biomass of each
taxon analyzed. We use biomass as a measure of abundance,
which allows us to compare taxa whose members are of very
different sizes. Biomass is also a useful metric for quantifying
stocks of elements sequestered in living organisms. We report
biomass using the mass of carbon, as this measure is independent
of water content and has been used extensively in the literature
(6, 16, 17). Alternative measures for biomass, such as dry weight,
are discussed in Materials and Methods. For ease of discussion,
we report biomass in gigatons of carbon, with 1 Gt C =10
15
gof
carbon. We supply additional estimates for the number of indi-
viduals of different taxa in SI Appendix, Table S1.
Significance
The composition of the biosphere is a fundamental question in
biology, yet a global quantitative account of the biomass of
each taxon is still lacking. We assemble a census of the biomass
of all kingdoms of life. This analysis provides a holistic view of
the composition of the biosphere and allows us to observe
broad patterns over taxonomic categories, geographic loca-
tions, and trophic modes.
Author contributions: Y.M.B.-O., R.P., and R.M. designed research; Y.M.B.-O. and R.M.
performed research; Y.M.B.-O. and R.M. an alyzed data; and Y.M.B.-O., R.P., and R.M.
wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDeriv atives L icense 4.0 ( CC BY-N C-ND).
Data deposition: All of the data used to generate our estimates, as well as the code used
for analysis, are available on GitHub at https://github.com/milo-lab/biomass_distribution.
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: ron.milo@weizmann.ac.il.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.
1073/pnas.1711842115/-/DCSupplemental.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 PNAS Latest Articles
|
1of6
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
The sum of the biomass across all taxa on Earth is 550 Gt C,
of which 80% (450 Gt C; SI Appendix, Table S2) are plants,
dominated by land plants (embryophytes). The second major
biomass component is bacteria (70 Gt C; SI Appendix, Tables
S3S7), constituting 15% of the global biomass. Other groups,
in descending order, are fungi, archaea, protists, animals, and
viruses, which together account for the remaining <10%. Despite
the large uncertainty associated with the total biomass of bac-
teria, we estimate that plants are the dominant kingdom in terms
of biomass at an 90% probability (more details are provided in
the SI Appendix). Aboveground biomass (320 Gt C) represents
60% of global biomass, with belowground biomass composed
mainly of plant roots (130 Gt C) and microbes residing in the
soil and deep subsurface (100 Gt C). Plant biomass includes
70% stems and tree trunks, which are mostly woody, and thus
relatively metabolically inert. Bacteria include about 90% deep
subsurface biomass (mostly in aquifers and below the seafloor),
which have very slow metabolic activity and associated turnover
times of several months to thousands of years (1822). Excluding
these contributions, global biomass is still dominated by plants
(SI Appendix, Fig. S1), mostly consisting of 150 Gt C of plant
roots and leaves and 9 Gt C of terrestrial and marine bacteria
whose contribution is on par with the 12 Gt C of fungi (SI
Appendix, Table S8).
Whereas groups like insects dominate in terms of species
richness [with about 1 million described species (23)], their
relative biomass fraction is miniscule. Some species contrib-
ute much more than entire families or even classes. For ex-
ample, the Antarctic krill species Euphausia superba contributes
0.05 Gt C to global biomass (24), similar to other prominent
species such as humans or cows. This value is comparable to
the contribution from termites (25), which contain many spe-
cies, and far surpasses the biomass of entire vertebrate classes
such as birds. In this way, the picture that arises from taking
a biomass perspective of the biosphere complements the fo-
cus on species richness that is commonly held (SI Appendix,
Fig. S3).
The Uncertainty Associated with Global Biomass Estimates. The
specific methods used for each taxon are highly diverse and are
given in detail in the SI Appendix, along with data sources.
Global biomass estimates vary in the amount of information they
are based on and, consequently, in their uncertainty. An estimate
of relatively high certainty is that of plants, which is based on
several independent sources. One of these is the Forest Re-
source Assessment, a survey on the state of world forests con-
ducted by the international Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO). The assessment is based on a collection of country re-
ports that detail the area and biomass density of forests in each
country (26) using a standardized format and methodology. The
FAO also keeps a record of nonforest ecosystems, such as sa-
vannas and shrublands, in each country. Alternatively, remote
sensing data give high coverage of measurements that indicate
AB
Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the global biomass distribution by taxa. (A) Absolute biomasses of different taxa are represented using a Voronoi di-
agram, with the area of each cell being proportional to that taxa global biomass (the specific shape of each polygon carries no meaning). This type of vi-
sualization is similar to pie charts but has a much higher dynamic range (a comparison is shown in SI Appendix, Fig. S4). Values are based on the estimates
presented in Table 1 and detailed in the SI Appendix. A visual depiction without components with very slow metabolic activity, such as plant stems and tree
trunks, is shown in SI Appendix, Fig. S1.(B) Absolute biomass of different animal taxa. Related groups such as vertebrates are located next to each other. We
estimate that the contribution of reptiles and amphibians to the total animal biomass is negligible, as we discuss in the SI Appendix. Visualization performed
using the online tool at bionic-vis.biologie.uni-greifswald.de/.
Table 1. Summary of estimated total biomass for abundant
taxonomic groups
Taxon Mass (Gt C) Uncertainty (-fold)
Plants 450 1.2
Bacteria 70 10
Fungi 12 3
Archaea 7 13
Protists 4 4
Animals 2 5
Arthropods, terrestrial 0.2
Arthropods, marine 1
Chordates, fish 0.7
Chordates, livestock 0.1
Chordates, humans 0.06
Chordates, wild mammals 0.007
Chordates, wild birds 0.002
Annelids 0.2
Molluscs 0.2
Cnidarians 0.1
Nematodes 0.02
Viruses 0.2 20
Total 550 1.7
Values are based on an extensive literature survey and data integration as
detailed in the SI Appendix. Reported values have been rounded to reflect
the associated level of uncertainty. We report an uncertainty projection for
each kingdom as a fold-change factor from the mean, representing a range
akin to a 95% confidence interval of the estimate. The procedure for de-
riving these projections is documented in detail in Materials and Methods
and SI Appendix.
2of6
|
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 Bar-On et al.
plant biomass (2729). Remote sensing is used to measure, for
example, the height of trees or the number of tree stems per unit
area. Biomass is inferred by field measurements establishing a
connection between tree plant biomass and satellite-based re-
mote sensing measurements. Combining data from independent
sources such as these enables a robust assessment of the total
plant biomass (17).
A more characteristic case with larger uncertainties is exem-
plified by marine prokaryotes, where cell concentrations are
measured in various locations and binned based on depth. For
each depth range, the average cell concentration is calculated
and the total number of marine prokaryotes is estimated through
multiplication by the water volume in each depth range. The
total number of cells is converted to biomass by using the char-
acteristic carbon content per marine prokaryote. In cases where
there are fewer measurements (e.g., terrestrial arthropods, ter-
restrial protists), the possibility of systematic biases in the estimate
is greater and the uncertainty larger. To test the robustness of
our estimates, we used independent approaches and analyzed
the agreement between such independent estimates. Details
on the specific methodologies used for each taxon are provided in
the SI Appendix. Because most datasets used to estimate global
biomass rely on fragmentary sampling, we project large uncer-
tainties that will be reduced as additional data become available.
The Impact of Humanity on the Biosphere. Over the relatively short
span of human history, major innovations, such as the domesti-
cation of livestock, adoption of an agricultural lifestyle, and the
Industrial Revolution, have increased the human population
dramatically and have had radical ecological effects. Today, the
biomass of humans (0.06 Gt C; SI Appendix, Table S9) and the
biomass of livestock (0.1 Gt C, dominated by cattle and pigs; SI
Appendix, Table S10) far surpass that of wild mammals, which
has a mass of 0.007 Gt C (SI Appendix, Table S11). This is also
true for wild and domesticated birds, for which the biomass of
domesticated poultry (0.005 Gt C, dominated by chickens) is
about threefold higher than that of wild birds (0.002 Gt C; SI
Appendix, Table S12). In fact, humans and livestock outweigh all
vertebrates combined, with the exception of fish. Even though
humans and livestock dominate mammalian biomass, they are a
small fraction of the 2 Gt C of animal biomass, which primarily
comprises arthropods (1GtC;SI Appendix, Tables S13 and
S14), followed by fish (0.7 Gt C; SI Appendix, Table S15).
Comparison of current global biomass with prehuman values
(which are very difficult to estimate accurately) demonstrates the
impact of humans on the biosphere. Human activity contributed
to the Quaternary Megafauna Extinction between 50,000 and
3,000 y ago, which claimed around half of the large (>40 kg)
land mammal species (30). The biomass of wild land mammals
before this period of extinction was estimated by Barnosky (30)
at 0.02 Gt C. The present-day biomass of wild land mammals is
approximately sevenfold lower, at 0.003 Gt C (SI Appendix,Pre-
human Biomass and Chordates and Table S11). Intense whaling
and exploitation of other marine mammals have resulted in an
approximately fivefold decrease in marine mammal global bio-
mass [from 0.02 Gt C to 0.004 Gt C (31)]. While the total
biomass of wild mammals (both marine and terrestrial) de-
creased by a factor of 6, the total mass of mammals increased
approximately fourfold from 0.04 Gt C to 0.17 Gt C due to
the vast increase of the biomass of humanity and its associated
livestock. Human activity has also impacted global vertebrate
stocks, with a decrease of 0.1 Gt C in total fish biomass, an
amount similar to the remaining total biomass in fisheries and to
the gain in the total mammalian biomass due to livestock hus-
bandry (SI Appendix, Pre-human Biomass). The impact of human
civilization on global biomass has not been limited to mammals
but has also profoundly reshaped the total quantity of carbon
sequestered by plants. A worldwide census of the total number of
trees (32), as well as a comparison of actual and potential plant
biomass (17), has suggested that the total plant biomass (and, by
proxy, the total biomass on Earth) has declined approximately
twofold relative to its value before the start of human civilization.
The total biomass of crops cultivated by humans is estimated at
10 Gt C, which accounts for only 2% of the extant total plant
biomass (17).
The Distribution of Biomass Across Environments and Trophic Modes.
Examining global biomass in different environments exposes
stark differences between terrestrial and marine environments.
The ocean covers 71% of the Earths surface and occupies a
much larger volume than the terrestrial environment, yet land
biomass, at 470 Gt C, is about two orders of magnitude higher
than the 6 Gt C in marine biomass, as shown in Fig. 2A. Even
though there is a large difference in the biomass content of the
terrestrial and marine environments, the primary productivity of
the two environments is roughly equal (33). For plants, we find
that most biomass is concentrated in terrestrial environments
(plants have only a small fraction of marine biomass, <1GtC,in
the form of green algae and seagrass; Fig. 2B). For animals, most
biomass is concentrated in the marine environment, and for
bacteria and archaea, most biomass is concentrated in deep
subsurface environments. We note that several of the results in
Fig. 2Bshould be interpreted with caution due to the large un-
certainty associated with some of the estimates, mostly those of
total terrestrial protists, marine fungi, and contributions from
deep subsurface environments.
When analyzing trophic levels, the biomass of primary pro-
ducers on land is much larger than that of primary and secondary
consumers. In stark contrast, in the oceans, 1 Gt C of primary
producers supports 5 Gt C of consumer biomass, resulting in an
inverted standing biomass distribution as shown in Fig. 2C.Such
inverted biomass distributions can occur when primary producers
have a rapid turnover of biomass [on the order of days (34)], while
consumer biomass turns over much more slowly [a few years in the
case of mesopelagic fish (35)]. Thus, the standing stock of con-
sumers is larger, even though the productivity of producers is
necessarily higher. Previous reports have observed inverted bio-
mass pyramids in local marine environments (36, 37). An addi-
tional study noted an inverted consumer/producer ratio for the
global plankton biomass (16). Our analysis suggests that these
observations hold true when looking at the global biomass of all
producers and consumers in the marine environment.
Discussion
Our census of the distribution of biomass on Earth provides an
integrated global picture of the relative and absolute abundances
of all kingdoms of life. We find that the biomass of plants
dominates the biomass of the biosphere and is mostly located on
land. The marine environment is primarily occupied by microbes,
mainly bacteria and protists, which account for 70% of the total
marine biomass. The remaining 30% is mainly composed of
arthropods and fish. The deep subsurface holds 15% of the
total biomass in the biosphere. It is chiefly composed of bacteria
and archaea, which are mostly surface-attached and turn over
their biomass every several months to thousands of years (1822).
In addition to summarizing current knowledge of the global
biomass distribution, our work highlights gaps in the current
understanding of the biosphere. Our knowledge of the biomass
composition of different taxa is mainly determined by our ability
to sample their biomass in the wild. For groups such as plants,
the use of multiple sources to estimate global biomass increases
our confidence in the validity of current estimates. However, for
other groups, such as terrestrial arthropods and protists, quan-
titative sampling of biomass is limited by technical constraints,
and comprehensive data are thus lacking. Beyond specific taxa,
there are entire environments for which our knowledge is very
Bar-On et al. PNAS Latest Articles
|
3of6
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
limited, namely, the deep subsurface environments such as deep
aquifers and the oceans crust, which might hold the world
largest aquifer (38). Studies in these environments are scarce,
meaning that our estimates have particularly high uncertainty
ranges and unknown systematic biases. Main gaps in our knowl-
edge of these environments pertain to the distribution of biomass
between the aquifer fluids and the surrounding rocks and the
distribution of biomass between different microbial taxa, such
as bacteria, archaea, protists, and fungi. Scientists have closely
monitored the impact of humans on global biodiversity (3941),
but less attention has been given to total biomass, resulting in
high uncertainty regarding the impact of humanity on the bio-
mass of vertebrates. Our estimates for the current and pre-
human biomasses of vertebrates are only a crude first step in
calculating these values (SI Appendix,Prehuman Biomass). The
biomass of amphibians, which are experiencing a dramatic
population decline (42), remains poorly characterized. Future
research could reduce the uncertainty of current estimates by
sampling more environments, which will better represent the
diverse biosphere on Earth. In the case of prokaryotes, some
major improvements were recently realized, with global esti-
mates of marine deep subsurface prokaryote biomass reduced
by about two orders of magnitude due to an increased diversity
of sampling locations (7).
Identifying gaps in our knowledge could indicate areas for
which further scientific exploration could have the biggest impact
on our understanding of the biosphere. As a concrete example,
we identify the ratio between attached to unattached cells in the
deep aquifers as a major contributor to the uncertainties asso-
ciated with our estimate of the biomass of bacteria, archaea, and
viruses. Improving our understanding of this specific parameter
could help us better constrain the global biomasses of entire
domains of life. In addition to improving our reported estimates,
future studies can achieve a finer categorization of taxa. For
example, the biomass of parasites, which is not resolved from
their hosts in this study, might be larger than the biomass of top
predators in some environments (43).
By providing a unified, updated, and accessible global view of
the biomass of different taxa, we also aim to disseminate knowl-
edge of the biosphere composition to a wide range of students and
researchers. Our survey puts into perspective claims regarding the
overarching dominance of groups such as termites and ants (44),
nematodes (45), and prokaryotes (6). For example, the biomass of
termites [0.05 Gt C (25)] is on par with that of humans but is still
around an order of magnitude smaller than that of other taxa,
such as fish (0.7 Gt C; SI Appendix, Table S15). Other groups,
such as nematodes, surpass any other animal species in terms of
number of individuals (SI Appendix, Fig. S2) but constitute only
about 1% of the total animal biomass.
The census of biomass distribution on Earth presented here is
comprehensive in scope and based on synthesis of data from the
recent scientific literature. The integrated dataset enables us to
draw basic conclusions concerning kingdoms that dominate the
biomass of the biosphere, the distribution of biomass of each
kingdom across different environments, and the opposite structures
of the global marine and terrestrial biomass pyramids. We identify
areas in which current knowledge is lacking and further research is
most required. Ideally, future research will include both temporal
and geographic resolution. We believe that the results described
in this study will provide students and researchers with a holistic
quantitative context for studying our biosphere.
Materials and Methods
Taxon-Specific Detailed Description of Data Sources and Procedures for
Estimating Biomass. The complete account of the data sources used for es-
timating the biomass of each taxon, procedures for estimating biomass, and
projections for the uncertainty associated with the estimate for the biomass of
each taxon are provided in the SI Appendix. To make the steps for estimating
the biomass of each taxon more accessible, we provide supplementary tables
that summarize the procedure as well as online notebooks for the calculation
of the biomass of each taxon (see data flow scheme in SI Appendix, Overview).
In Table 1, we detail the relevant supplementary table that summarizes the
steps for arriving at each estimate. All of the data used to generate our esti-
mates, as well as the code used for analysis, are open-sourced and available at
https://github.com/milo-lab/biomass_distribution.
Choice of Units for Measuring Biomass. Biomass is reported in gigatons of
carbon. Alternative options to represent biomass include, among others,
biovolume, wet mass, or dry weight. We chose to use carbon mass as the
measure of biomass because it is independent of water content and is used
extensively in the literature. Dry mass also has these features but is used less
frequently. All of our reported values can be transformed to dry weight to a
good approximation by multiplying by 2, the characteristic conversion factor
between carbon and total dry mass (4648).
We report the significant digits for our values throughout the paper using
the following scheme: For values with an uncertainty projection that is higher
than twofold, we report a single significant digit. For values with an un-
certainty projection of less than twofold, we report two significant digits. In
cases when we report one significant digit, we do not consider a leading 1
as a significant digit.
A
C
B
Fig. 2. Biomass distributions across different environments and trophic modes. (A) Absolute biomass is represented using a Voronoi diagram, with the area
of each cell being proportional to the global biomass at each environment. Values are based on SI Appendix, Table S23. We define deep subsurface as the
marine subseafloor sediment and the oceanic crust, as well as the terrestrial substratum deeper than 8 m, excluding soil (6). (B) Fraction of the biomass of each
kingdom concentrated in the terrestrial, marine, or deep subsurface environment. For fungi and protists, we did not estimate the biomass present in the deep
subsurface due to data scarcity. (C) Distribution of biomass between producers (autotrophs, mostly photosynthetic) and consumers (heterotrophs without
deep subsurface) in the terrestrial and marine environments. The size of the bars corresponds to the quantity of biomass of each trophic mode. Numbers are
in gigatons of carbon.
4of6
|
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 Bar-On et al.
General Framework for Estimating Global Biomass. In achieving global esti-
mates, there is a constant challenge of how to move from a limited set of local
samples to a representative global value. How does one estimate global
biomass based on a limited set of local samples? For a crude estimate, the
average of all local values of biomass per unit area is multiplied by the total
global area. A more effective estimate can be made by correlating measured
values to environmental parameters that are known at a global scale (e.g.,
temperature, depth, distance from shore, primary productivity, biome type),
as shown in Fig. 3. This correlation is used to extrapolate the biomass of a
taxon at a specific location based on the known distribution of the envi-
ronmental parameter (e.g., the temperature at each location on the globe).
By integrating across the total surface of the world, a global estimate is
derived. We detail the specific extrapolation procedure used for each taxon
in both the SI Appendix and supplementary tables (SI Appendix, Tables S1
S23). For most taxa, our best estimates are based on a geometric mean of
several independent estimates using different methodologies. The geo-
metric mean estimates the median value if the independent estimates are
log-normally distributed or, more generally, the distribution of estimates is
symmetrical in log space.
Uncertainty Estimation and Reporting. Global estimates such as those we use in
the present work are largely based on sampling from the distribution of
biomass worldwide and then extrapolating for areas in which samples are
missing. The sampling of biomass in each location can be based on direct
biomass measurements or conversion to biomass from other types of mea-
surement, such as number of individuals and their characteristic weight. Som e
of the main sources of uncertainty for the estimates we present are the result
of using such geographical extrapolations and conversion from number of
individuals to overall biomass. The certainty of the estimate is linked to the
amount of sampling on which the estimate is based. Notable locations in
which sampling is scarce are the deep ocean (usually deeper than 200 m) and
deep layers of soil (usually deeper than 1 m). For some organisms, such as
annelids and marine protists and arthropods, most estimates neglect these
environments, thus underestimating the actual biomass. Sampling can be
biased toward places that have high abundance and diversity of wildlife.
Relying on data with such sampling bias can cause overestimation of the
actual biomass of a taxon.
Another source of uncertainty comes from conversion to biomass. Conver-
sion from counts of individuals to biomass is based on either known average
weights per individual (e.g., 50 kg of wet weight for a human, which averages
over adults and children, or 10 mg of dry weight for a characteristic
earthworm) or empirical allometric equations that are organism-specific, such
as conversion from animal length to biomass. When using such conversion
methods, there is a risk of introducing biases and noise into the final estimate.
Neverthele ss, there is often no way around using such conversions. As such, we
must be aware that the data may contain such biases.
In addition to describing the procedures leading to the estimate of each
taxon, we quantitatively survey the main sources of uncertainty associated
with each estimate and calculate an uncertainty range for each of our bio-
mass estimates. We choose to report uncertainties as representing, to the best
of our ability given the many constraints, what is equivalent to a 95%
confidence interval for the estimate of the mean. Uncertainties reported in
our analysis are multiplicative (fold change from the mean) and not additive
(±change of the estimate). We chose to use multiplicative uncertainty as it is
more robust to large fluctuations in estimates, and because it is in accord
with the way we generate our best estimates, which is usually by using a
geometric mean of different independent estimates. Our uncertainty pro-
jections are focused on the main kingdoms of life: plants, bacteria, archaea,
fungi, protists, and animals.
The general framework for constructing our uncertainties (described in
detail for each taxon in the SI Appendix and in the online notebooks) takes
into account both intrastudy uncertainty and interstudy uncertainty. Intra-
study uncertainty refers to uncertainty estimates reported within a specific
study, whereas interstudy uncertainty refers to variation in estimates of a
certain quantity between different papers. In many cases, we use several
independent methodologies to estimate the same quantity. In these cases,
we can also use the variation between estimates from each methodology as
a measure of the uncertainty of our final estimate. We refer to this type of
uncertainty as intermethod uncertainty. The way we usually calculate un-
certainties is by taking the logarithm of the values reported either within
studies or from different studies. Taking the logarithm moves the values to
log-space, where the SE is calculated (by dividing the SD by the square root
of the number of values). We then multiply the SE by a factor of 1.96 (which
would give the 95% confidence interval if the transformed data were nor-
mally distributed). Finally, we exponentiate the result to get the multiplicative
factor in linear space that represents the confidence interval (akin to a 95%
confidence interval if the data were log-normally distributed).
Most of our estimates are constructed by combining several different
estimates (e.g., combining total number of individuals and characteristic
carbon content of a single organism). In these cases, we use intrastudy,
interstudy, or intermethod variation associated with each parameter that is
used to derive the final estimate and propagate these uncertainties to the
final estimate of biomass. The uncertainty analysis for each specific bio-
mass estimate incorporates different components of this general scheme,
depending on the amount of information that is available, as detailed on a
case-by-case basis in the SI Appendix.
In cases where information is ample, the procedure described above yields
several different uncertainty estimates for each parameter that we use to
derive the final estimate (e.g., intrastudy uncertainty, interstudy uncertainty).
We integrate these different uncertainties, usually by taking the highest
value as the best projection of uncertainty. In some cases, for example, when
information is scarce or some sources of uncertainty are hard to quantify, we
base our estimates on the uncertainty in analogous taxa and consultation
with relevant experts. We tend to round up our uncertainty projections when
data are especially limited.
Taxonomic Levels Used. Our census gives estimates for the global biomass at
various taxonomic levels. Our main results relate to the kingdom level: animals,
archaea, bacteria, fungi, plants, and protists. Although the division into
kingdoms is not the most contemporary taxonomic grouping that exists, we
chose to use it forthe current analysisas most of the data we rely upon doesnot
provide finer taxonomic details (e.g., the division of terrestrial protists is mainly
based on morphology and not on taxonomy). We supplement these kingdoms
of living organisms with an estimate for the global biomass of viruses, which
are not included in the current tree of life but play a key role in global bio-
geochemical cycles (49). For all kingdoms except animals, all taxa making up
the kingdom are considered together. For estimating the biomass of animals,
we use a bottom-up approach, which estimates the biomass of key phyla
constituting the animal kingdom. The sum of the biomass of these phyla
represents our estimate of the total biomass of animals. We give estimates for
most phyla and estimate bounds for the possible biomass contribution for the
remaining phyla (SI Appendix,Other Animal Phyla). Within chordates, we
provide estimates for key classes, such as fish, mammals, and birds. We esti-
mate that the contribution of reptiles and amphibians to the total chordate
biomass is negligible, as we discuss in the SI Appendix. We divide the class of
mammals into wild mammals and humans plus livestock (without a contri-
bution from poultry, which is negligible compared with cattle and pigs). Even
though livestock is not a valid taxonomic division, we use it to consider the
impact of humans on the total biomass of mammals.
Fig. 3. General framework for estimating global biomass. The procedure
begins with local samples of biomass across the globe. The more representa-
tive the samples are of the natural distribution of the taxon biomass, the more
accurate the estimate will be. To move from localsamples to a global estimate,
a correlation between local biomass densities and an environmental param-
eter (or parameters) is established. Based on this correlation, in addition to our
knowledge of the distribution of the environmental parameter, we extrapo-
late the biomass across the entire globe. The resolution of the resulting bio-
mass distribution map is dependent on the resolution at which we know the
environmental parameter. Integrating across the entire surface of the Earth,
we get a global estimate of the biomass of the taxon.
Bar-On et al. PNAS Latest Articles
|
5of6
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Shai Meiri for help with estimating the
biomass of wild mammals, birds, and reptiles and Arren Bar-Even, Oded Beja,
Jorg Bernhardt, Tristan Biard, Chris Bowler, Nuno Carvalhais, Otto Coredero,
Gidon Eshel, Ofer Feinerman, Noah Fierer, Daniel Fisher, Avi Flamholtz, Assaf
Gal, José Grünzweig, Marcel van der Heijden, Dina Hochhauser, Julie Huber,
Qusheng Jin, Bo Barker Jørgensen, Jens Kallmeyer, Tamir Klein, Christian
Koerner, Daniel Madar, Fabrice Not, Katherine ODonnell, Gal Ofir, Victoria
Orphan, Noam Prywes, John Raven, Dave Savage, Einat Segev, Maya Shamir,
Izak Smit, Rotem Sorek, Ofer Steinitz, Miri Tsalyuk, Assaf Vardi, Colomban de
Vargas, Joshua Weitz, Yossi Yovel, Yonatan Zegman, and two anonymous
reviewers for productive feedback on this manuscript. This research was sup-
ported by the European Research Council (project NOVCARBFIX 646827), the
Israel Science Foundation (Grant 740/16), the ISF-NRF Singapore Joint Research
Program (Grant 76627 12), the B eck Canadian Center f or Alternative Energ y
Research, Dana and Yossie Hollander, the Ullmann Family Foundation, the
Helmsley Charitable Foundation, the Larson Charitable Foundation, the Wolf-
son Family Charitable Tru st, Charles Rothschild, and Selmo Nussenbaum. This
study was also supported by the NIH through Grant 1R35 GM118043-01
(MIRA). R.M. is the Charles and Louise Gartner Professional Chair.
1. Carvalhais N, et al. (2014) Global covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in
terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 514:213217.
2. Quere CL, et al. (2005) Ecosystem dynamics based on plankton functional types for
global ocean biogeochemistry models. Glob Change Biol 11:20162040.
3. Vernadsky VI (1998) Photosynthetic living matter. The Biosphere (Copernicus, New
York, NY), pp 7284.
4. Saugier B, Roy J, Mooney HA (2001) Estimations of global terrestrial productivity:
Converging toward a singlenumber. Terrestrial Global Productivity, eds Roy J, Saugier B,
Mooney HA (Academic, San Diego), pp 543557.
5. Atjay GL, Ketner P, Duvigneaud P (1979) The Global Carbon Cycle, SCOPE Report 13,
eds Bolin B, Degens ET, Kempe S, Ketner P (Wiley, Chichester, UK), pp 129181.
6. Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ (1998) Prokaryotes: The unseen majority. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 95:65786583.
7. Kallmeyer J, Pockalny R, Adhikari RR, Smith DC, DHondt S (2012) Global distribution
of microbial abundance and biomass in subseafloor sediment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
109:1621316216.
8. McMahon S, Parnell J (2014) Weighing the deep continental biosphere. FEMS
Microbiol Ecol 87:113120.
9. Irigoien X, et al. (2014) Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the
open ocean. Nat Commun 5:3271.
10. Williams CB (1960) The range and pattern of insect abundance. Am Nat 94:137151.
11. Petersen H, Luxton M (1982) A comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and
their role in decomposition processes. Oikos 39:288388.
12. Whittaker RH, Likens GE (1973) Carbon in the biota. Brookhaven Symp Biol 281302.
13. Smil V (2013) Harvesting the Biosphere: What We Have Taken from Nature (MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA).
14. Schloss PD, Handelsman J (2006) Toward a census of bacteria in soil. PLoS Comput Biol
2:e92.
15. Bork P, et al. (2015) Tara Oceans. Tara Oceans studies plankton at planetary scale.
Introduction. Science 348:873.
16. Buitenhuis ET, et al. (2013) MAREDAT: Towards a world atlas of MARine ecosystem
DATa. Earth Syst Sci Data 5:227239.
17. Erb K-H, et al. (2017) Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing
on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553:7376.
18. DHondt S, Rutherford S, Spivack AJ (2002) Metabolic activity of subsurface life in
deep-sea sediments. Science 295:20672070.
19. Jørgensen BB (2011) Deep subseafloor microbial cells on physiological standby. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 108:1819318194.
20. Jørgensen BB, Boetius A (2007) Feast and famineMicrobial life in the deep-sea bed.
Nat Rev Microbiol 5:770781.
21. Braun S, et al. (2017) Microbial turnover times in the deep seabed studied by amino
acid racemization modelling. Sci Rep 7:5680.
22. Trembath-Reichert E, et al. (2017) Methyl-compound use and slow growth charac-
terize microbial life in 2-km-deep subseafloor coal and shale beds. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 114:E9206E9215.
23. Chapman AD (2009) Numbers of Living Species in Australia and the World (Australian
Biological Resources Study, Canberra, Australia).
24. Atkinson A, Siegel V, Pakhomov EA, Jessopp MJ, Loeb V (2009) A re-appraisal of the
total biomass and annual production of Antarctic krill. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr
Res Pap 56:727740.
25. Sanderson MG (1996) Biomass of termites and their emissions of methane and carbon
dioxide: A global database. Global Biogeochem Cycles 10:543557.
26. MacDicken KG (2015) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: What, why and how?
For Ecol Manage 352:38.
27. Saatchi SS, et al. (2011) Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions
across three continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:98999904.
28. Thurner M, Beer C (2014) Carbon stock and density of northern boreal and temperate
forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:297310.
29. Baccini A, et al. (2012) Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation
improved by carbon-density maps. Nat Clim Change 2:182185.
30. Barnosky AD (2008) Colloquium paper: Megafauna biomass tradeoff as a driver of
Quaternary and future extinctions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:1154311548.
31. Christensen LB (2006) Marine mammal populations: Reconstructing historical abun-
dances at the global scale. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14.
32. Crowther TW, et al. (2015) Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature 525:
201205.
33. Field CB, Behrenfeld MJ, Randerson JT, Falkowski P (1998) Primary production of the
biosphere: Integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281:237240.
34. Zubkov MV (2014) Faster growth of the major prokaryotic versus eukaryotic
CO2 fixers in the oligotrophic ocean. Nat Commun 5:3776.
35. Catul V, Gauns M, Karuppasamy PK (2011) A review on mesopelagic fishes belonging
to family Myctophidae. Rev Fish Biol Fish 21:339354.
36. Dortch Q, Packard TT (1989) Differences in biomass structure between oligotrophic
and eutrophic marine ecosystems. Deep Sea Res A 36:223240.
37. Gasol JM, del Giorgio PA, Duarte CM (1997) Biomass distribution in marine planktonic
communities. Limnol Oceanogr 42:13531363.
38. Johnson HP, Pruis MJ (2003) Fluxes of fluid and heat from the oceanic crustal reser-
voir. Earth Planet Sci Lett 216:565574.
39. Newbold T, et al. (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity.
Nature 520:4550.
40. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R (2017) Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth
mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 114:E6089E6096.
41. Isbell F, et al. (2017) Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity
across scales. Nature 546:6572.
42. Wake DB, Vredenburg VT (2008) Colloquium paper: Are we in the midst of the sixth
mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:
1146611473.
43. Kuris AM, et al. (2008) Ecosystem energetic implications of parasite and free-living
biomass in three estuaries. Nature 454:515518.
44. Schultz TR (2000) In search of ant ancestors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:1402814029.
45. Wilson EO (2003) The encyclopedia of life. Trends Ecol Evol 18:7780.
46. Elser JJ, et al. (2000) Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs.
Nature 408:578580.
47. Ferris H, Venette RC, Lau SS (1997) Population energetics of bacterial-feeding nem-
atodes: Carbon and nitrogen budgets. Soil Biol Biochem 29:11831194.
48. Sohlenius B, Bjorn S (1979) A carbon budget for nematodes, rotifers and tardigrades
in a Swedish coniferous forest soil. Ecography 2:3040.
49. Jover LF, Effler TC, Buchan A, Wilhelm SW, Weitz JS (2014) The elemental composition
of virus particles: Implications for marine biogeochemical cycles. Nat Rev Microbiol 12:
519528.
6of6
|
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 Bar-On et al.

Supplementary resource (1)

... These habitats would have to be inhabited by organisms that are adapted to high pressures and use a metabolism independent of photosynthesis. Such organisms have already been found on Earth; while today the majority of Earth's biomass is concentrated on its surface (due to complex photosynthetic organisms such as land plants 4 ), the subsurface biomass probably outweighed the surface biomass for most of geologic history 5 . Life has adapted to many other relatively extreme environments, such as the depths of the ocean at kbar pressures 6 , although it is unknown how many of these organisms live independently from life on the surface. ...
... It is found that the luminosity contribution of the H-He envelope is much smaller than the contribution of the solid core, in agreement with earlier work 34,65 . This justifies the assumption of a uniform luminosity in the envelope made by equation (4). If a substantial part of the total luminosity comes from envelope cooling and contraction, this assumption would not be valid. ...
Article
Full-text available
Cold super-Earths that retain their primordial, H–He-dominated atmosphere could have surfaces that are warm enough to host liquid water. This would be due to the collision-induced absorption of infrared light by hydrogen, which increases with pressure. However, the long-term potential for habitability of such planets has not been explored yet. Here we investigate the duration of this potential exotic habitability by simulating planets of different core masses, envelope masses and semi-major axes. We find that terrestrial and super-Earth planets with masses of ~1–10 M⊕ can maintain temperate surface conditions up to 5–8 Gyr at radial distances larger than ~2 au. The required envelope masses are ~10⁻⁴ M⊕ (which is 2 orders of magnitude more massive than Earth’s) but can be an order of magnitude smaller (when close-in) or larger (when far out). This result suggests that the concept of planetary habitability should be revisited and made more inclusive with respect to the classical definition.
... Among all life, the Archaeplastida (see Glossary) represent the main carbon sink. Plants (Box 1) make up 80% of Earth's biomass [1]. They are pioneer settlers and transform wastelands into habitable landscapes for other lifeforms, and exhibit a remarkable ability to adapt to the most diverse environmental conditions. ...
... Plant life enriched the atmosphere with oxygen and fixed CO 2 , thereby paving the way for the success of further life in this previously hostile habitatand ultimately enabled the emergence of our own species. 1 Plant Cell Biology, University of Marburg, 35043 Marburg, Germany years probably elapsed before the endosymbiotic merging of an archaeal host and a proteobacterial endosymbiont triggered the emergence of the eukaryotic branch in the tree, or a better 'ring of life' [7] in the early Paleoproterozoic [8]. Before the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes, the emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis was the trigger that changed the chemistry of Earth [9] (Figure 2). ...
Article
Full-text available
More than half a billion years ago a streptophyte algal lineage began terraforming the terrestrial habitat and the Earth's atmosphere. This pioneering step enabled the subsequent evolution of all complex life on land, and the past decade has uncovered that many traits, both morphological and genetic, once thought to be unique to land plants, are conserved across some streptophyte algae. They provided the common ancestor of land plants with a repertoire of genes, of which many were adapted to overcome the new biotic and abiotic challenges. Exploring these molecular adaptations in non-tracheophyte species may help us to better prepare all green life, including our crops, for the challenges precipitated by the climate change of the Anthropocene because the challenges mostly differ by the speed with which they are now being met.
... Today, plants and arthropods together represent more than 80% of the species that have been established on the planet (Mora et al. 2011;Zhang 2011;Roskov et al. 2013;Stork 2018). Currently, plants represent about 80% of the biomass of the planet and arthropods 0.18%, the latter accounting for about half of all animal biomass ( Bar-On et al. 2018). The abundance and diversity of these two groups throughout Earth history makes their relationships extensive, intense, and complex. ...
Previous research has found associations between classic psychedelic use and nature-relatedness, but the link between classic psychedelic use and human–animal relations remains largely unexplored. Using data representative of the US adult population, with regard to age, sex and ethnicity (N = 2822), this pre-registered study assessed lifetime classic psychedelic use, ego dissolution during respondents’ most intense experience using a classic psychedelic, and three measures related to human–animal relations: speciesism, animal solidarity and desire to help animals. The results showed that lifetime classic psychedelic use was negatively associated with speciesism (β = −0.07, p = 0.002), and positively associated with animal solidarity (β = 0.04, p = 0.041), but no association was found with desire to help animals (β = 0.01, p = 0.542). Ego dissolution during the respondents’ most intense experience using a classic psychedelic was negatively associated with speciesism (β = −0.17, p < 0.001), and positively associated with animal solidarity (β = 0.18, p < 0.001) and desire to help animals (β = 0.10, p = 0.007). The findings indicate that classic psychedelics and ego dissolution may have an impact on human–animal relations. As these results cannot demonstrate causality, however, future studies should use longitudinal research designs to further explore the potential causal link between classic psychedelic use and human–animal relations.
Article
Animal biodiversity, and its key roles in ecosystem state and functioning, is facing critical challenges in the wake of anthropogenic activities. It is urgently necessary to improve understanding of the interconnections between animals and the vegetation within ecosystems. Process-based modelling has shown to be a mighty tool in making assessments on ecological processes. We assess the effect of different vegetation models on simulated animal biodiversity by replacing the vegetation module within Madingley, a multi-trophic model of functional diversity with LPJ-GUESS, a dynamic global vegetation model. We compare the output metrics of the model system to Madingley’s default version for four ecosystem types around the globe and analyse whether the realism of the simulation results increased as a result of the coupling between Madingley and LPJ-GUESS. Simulated animal populations react to the coupling by shifting towards smaller individuals with a higher abundance. General shifts in body mass and animal distributions can be traced back to ecological processes, allowing in-depth analysis of heterotrophic responses to changes in leaf biomass. We also derive power-law relationships for herbivory to NPP and herbivore biomass to NPP and conclude that the coupled model system simulates animal populations that follow reasonable power-laws which are similar to power-laws derived from empirical data. Our results indicate that developing process-based model systems is a viable way to assess multi-trophic interconnections between animal populations and the ecosystems vegetation.
Chapter
The golden snub‐nosed monkey, or golden monkey, inhabits the eastern Yangtze River. The black‐and‐white snub‐nosed monkey or Yunnan snub‐nosed monkey survives between the upper reaches of the Yangtze River and the Upper Mekong River. The bones, brains and other body parts of black‐and‐white snub‐nosed monkeys were then used to prepare medicinal remedies, which amounted to several dozen animals per year in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A spatial modeling of the ecological network of black‐and‐white snub‐nosed monkeys was then carried out in order to evaluate the degree of connectivity of its habitats and the impact of different development scenarios. Ecotourism responds to a demand for interaction with nature, while developing biodiversity conservation programs and increasing financial and educational benefits for local communities.
Article
Understanding oceanic ecological processes requires identifying biogeographic regions but incorporating the partitioning of planktonic communities, particularly zooplankton, has been limited and difficult. We conducted a data-driven biogeographic regionalization of zooplankton abundance using net data collected during April to October from 1995 to 2014 in the British Columbia, Canada, coastal ocean and adjacent offshore waters. After curating the data and removing rare taxa, a total of 3,721 samples and 160 species were analyzed. K-means cluster analysis of log-chord transformed zooplankton abundances was used to identify four distinct bioregions: Offshore, Deep Shelf, Nearshore, and Deep Fjord. We combined concordance and indicator value analyses to categorize the zooplankton into species association groups. Five main groups representing subarctic, subtropical, widespread shelf, neritic, and fjord specific zooplankton were indicative of specific bioregions but had distributions extending beyond their core bioregion. The spatial coherence of the bioregions and the relative contributions of the association groups to the composition of the bioregions were persistent throughout the 20-year period. The bioregions significantly differed in zooplankton abundance, biomass, and diversity and the community composition varied along the cross-shelf gradient. Variance partitioning demonstrated that the bioregionalization can be mostly explained by the differences in bottom depth, water properties, and phytoplankton concentrations. The cross-shelf differentiation of zooplankton communities was similar to other regionalization studies conducted globally, suggesting the potential for a unified framework of structuring processes and emergent community properties in the epipelagic coastal ocean.
Article
Species richness varies immensely around the world. Variation in the rate of diversification (speciation minus extinction) is often hypothesized to explain this pattern, while alternative explanations invoke time or ecological carrying capacities as drivers. Focusing on seed plants, the world’s most important engineers of terrestrial ecosystems, we investigated the role of diversification rate as a link between the environment and global species richness patterns. Applying structural equation modeling to a comprehensive distribution dataset and phylogenetic tree covering all circa 332,000 seed plant species and 99.9% of the world’s terrestrial surface (excluding Antarctica), we test five broad hypotheses postulating that diversification serves as a mechanistic link between species richness and climate, climatic stability, seasonality, environmental heterogeneity, or the distribution of biomes. Our results show that the global patterns of species richness and diversification rate are entirely independent. Diversification rates were not highest in warm and wet climates, running counter to the Metabolic Theory of Ecology, one of the dominant explanations for global gradients in species richness. Instead, diversification rates were highest in edaphically diverse, dry areas that have experienced climate change during the Neogene. Meanwhile, we confirmed climate and environmental heterogeneity as the main drivers of species richness, but these effects did not involve diversification rates as a mechanistic link, calling for alternative explanations. We conclude that high species richness is likely driven by the antiquity of wet tropical areas (supporting the “tropical conservatism hypothesis”) or the high ecological carrying capacity of warm, wet, and/or environmentally heterogeneous environments.
Article
Contemporary synthetic biology-based biotechnologies are generating tools and strategies for reprogramming genomes for specific purposes, including improvement and/or creation of microbial processes for tackling climate change. While such activities typically work well at a laboratory or bioreactor scale, the challenge of their extensive delivery to multiple spatio-temporal dimensions has hardly been tackled thus far. This state of affairs creates a research niche for what could be called Environmental Galenics (EG), i.e. the science and technology of releasing designed biological agents into deteriorated ecosystems for the sake of their safe and effective recovery. Such endeavour asks not just for an optimal performance of the biological activity at stake, but also the material form and formulation of the agents, their propagation and their interplay with the physico-chemical scenario where they are expected to perform. EG also encompasses adopting available physical carriers of microorganisms and channels of horizontal gene transfer as potential paths for spreading beneficial activities through environmental microbiomes. While some of these propositions may sound unsettling to anti-genetically modified organisms sensitivities, they may also fall under the tag of TINA (there is no alternative) technologies in the cases where a mere reduction of emissions will not help the revitalization of irreversibly lost ecosystems. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Ecological complexity and the biosphere: the next 30 years’.
Article
Full-text available
Carbon stocks in vegetation have a key role in the climate system. However, the magnitude, patterns and uncertainties of carbon stocks and the effect of land use on the stocks remain poorly quantified. Here we show, using state-of-the-art datasets, that vegetation currently stores around 450 petagrams of carbon. In the hypothetical absence of land use, potential vegetation would store around 916 petagrams of carbon, under current climate conditions. This difference highlights the massive effect of land use on biomass stocks. Deforestation and other land-cover changes are responsible for 53-58% of the difference between current and potential biomass stocks. Land management effects (the biomass stock changes induced by land use within the same land cover) contribute 42-47%, but have been underestimated in the literature. Therefore, avoiding deforestation is necessary but not sufficient for mitigation of climate change. Our results imply that trade-offs exist between conserving carbon stocks on managed land and raising the contribution of biomass to raw material and energy supply for the mitigation of climate change. Efforts to raise biomass stocks are currently verifiable only in temperate forests, where their potential is limited. By contrast, large uncertainties hinder verification in the tropical forest, where the largest potential is located, pointing to challenges for the upcoming stocktaking exercises under the Paris agreement.
Article
Full-text available
The study of active microbial populations in deep, energy-limited marine sediments has extended our knowledge of the limits of life on Earth. Typically, microbial activity in the deep biosphere is calculated by transport-reaction modelling of pore water solutes or from experimental measurements involving radiotracers. Here we modelled microbial activity from the degree of D:L-aspartic acid racemization in microbial necromass (remains of dead microbial biomass) in sediments up to ten million years old. This recently developed approach (D:L-amino acid modelling) does not require incubation experiments and is highly sensitive in stable, low-activity environments. We applied for the first time newly established constraints on several important input parameters of the D:L-amino acid model, such as a higher aspartic acid racemization rate constant and a lower cell-specific carbon content of sub-seafloor microorganisms. Our model results show that the pool of necromass amino acids is turned over by microbial activity every few thousand years, while the turnover times of vegetative cells are in the order of years to decades. Notably, microbial turnover times in million-year-old sediment from the Peru Margin are up to 100-fold shorter than previous estimates, highlighting the influence of microbial activities on element cycling over geologic time scales.
Article
Full-text available
The population extinction pulse we describe here shows, from a quantitative viewpoint, that Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions. Therefore, humanity needs to address anthropogenic population extirpation and decimation immediately. That conclusion is based on analyses of the numbers and degrees of range contraction (indicative of population shrinkage and/or population extinctions according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature) using a sample of 27,600 vertebrate species, and on a more detailed analysis documenting the population extinctions between 1900 and 2015 in 177 mammal species. We find that the rate of population loss in terrestrial vertebrates is extremely high—even in “species of low concern.” In our sample, comprising nearly half of known vertebrate species, 32% (8,851/27,600) are decreasing; that is, they have decreased in population size and range. In the 177 mammals for which we have detailed data, all have lost 30% or more of their geographic ranges and more than 40% of the species have experienced severe population declines (>80% range shrinkage). Our data indicate that beyond global species extinctions Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.
Article
Full-text available
Biodiversity enhances many of nature’s benefits to people, including the regulation of climate and the production of wood in forests, livestock forage in grasslands and fish in aquatic ecosystems. Yet people are now driving the sixth mass extinc- tion event in Earth’s history. Human dependence and influence on biodiversity have mainly been studied separately and at contrasting scales of space and time, but new multiscale knowledge is beginning to link these relationships. Biodiversity loss substantially diminishes several ecosystem services by altering ecosystem functioning and stability, especially at the large temporal and spatial scales that are most relevant for policy and conservation.
Article
Full-text available
The number of prokaryotes and the total amount of their cellular carbon on earth are estimated to be 4–6 × 1030 cells and 350–550 Pg of C (1 Pg = 1015 g), respectively. Thus, the total amount of prokaryotic carbon is 60–100% of the estimated total carbon in plants, and inclusion of prokaryotic carbon in global models will almost double estimates of the amount of carbon stored in living organisms. In addition, the earth’s prokaryotes contain 85–130 Pg of N and 9–14 Pg of P, or about 10-fold more of these nutrients than do plants, and represent the largest pool of these nutrients in living organisms. Most of the earth’s prokaryotes occur in the open ocean, in soil, and in oceanic and terrestrial subsurfaces, where the numbers of cells are 1.2 × 1029, 2.6 × 1029, 3.5 × 1030, and 0.25–2.5 × 1030, respectively. The numbers of heterotrophic prokaryotes in the upper 200 m of the open ocean, the ocean below 200 m, and soil are consistent with average turnover times of 6–25 days, 0.8 yr, and 2.5 yr, respectively. Although subject to a great deal of uncertainty, the estimate for the average turnover time of prokaryotes in the subsurface is on the order of 1–2 × 103 yr. The cellular production rate for all prokaryotes on earth is estimated at 1.7 × 1030 cells/yr and is highest in the open ocean. The large population size and rapid growth of prokaryotes provides an enormous capacity for genetic diversity.
Article
The past decade of scientific ocean drilling has revealed seemingly ubiquitous, slow-growing microbial life within a range of deep biosphere habitats. Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 337 expanded these studies by successfully coring Miocene-aged coal beds 2 km below the seafloor hypothesized to be “hot spots” for microbial life. To characterize the activity of coal-associated microorganisms from this site, a series of stable isotope probing (SIP) experiments were conducted using intact pieces of coal and overlying shale incubated at in situ temperatures (45 °C). The 30-month SIP incubations were amended with deuterated water as a passive tracer for growth and different combinations of ^(13)C- or ^(15)N-labeled methanol, methylamine, and ammonium added at low (micromolar) concentrations to investigate methylotrophy in the deep subseafloor biosphere. Although the cell densities were low (50–2,000 cells per cubic centimeter), bulk geochemical measurements and single-cell–targeted nanometer-scale secondary ion mass spectrometry demonstrated active metabolism of methylated substrates by the thermally adapted microbial assemblage, with differing substrate utilization profiles between coal and shale incubations. The conversion of labeled methylamine and methanol was predominantly through heterotrophic processes, with only minor stimulation of methanogenesis. These findings were consistent with in situ and incubation 16S rRNA gene surveys. Microbial growth estimates in the incubations ranged from several months to over 100 y, representing some of the slowest direct measurements of environmental microbial biosynthesis rates. Collectively, these data highlight a small, but viable, deep coal bed biosphere characterized by extremely slow-growing heterotrophs that can utilize a diverse range of carbon and nitrogen substrates.
Chapter
The amount of living matter in the biosphere (1020 to 1021 grams) does not seem excessively large, when its power of multiplication and geochemical energy are considered.
Article
An interdisciplinary and quantitative account of human claims on the biosphere's stores of living matter, from prehistoric hunting to modern energy production.