Why Does Species Number Decrease with Smaller Body Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter farful
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Body Mass
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the number of species and body mass, particularly noting that smaller species are more numerous. However, there is a noticeable decline in the number of species for organisms weighing less than 100 grams, raising questions about why this trend occurs. Participants speculate on the implications for microbial species, acknowledging that many microbes remain uncultured and potentially undiscovered, which could skew species counts. The conversation also highlights advancements in metagenomics, suggesting that even without culturing, researchers can still assess microbial diversity in various environments. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the complexities of species distribution relative to body mass and the challenges in accurately quantifying microbial diversity.
farful
Messages
55
Reaction score
1
# of species vs body mass

Here are some graphs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intercontinental_land_mammals.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_american_land_mammals_graph.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:May_slope_-2_line.png

It's obvious why the number of species that have smaller body sizes are greater in number.
However, once we get into organisms with mass smaller than 100g, it seems to decrease. Why? One would assume it'd keep increasing, no?
Furthermore, would the trend continue for microbials?

Edit: Thanks DaveC, links have been fixed
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org


There may be a problem with missing species. Most microbes are impossible to culture in lab (or at least we haven't figured out how to yet), so there are likely a great number of undiscovered microbial species.
 


Ygggdrasil said:
There may be a problem with missing species. Most microbes are impossible to culture in lab (or at least we haven't figured out how to yet), so there are likely a great number of undiscovered microbial species.

The graph is for animals, not microbes, so I can't imagine there being missing species.

Also, with the advent of metagenomics, not being able to culture microbes is not a problem to get a distribution of species in an environment.
 
Last edited:


I couldn't see the graphs... does it mention the wide range of the size of dogs?
 


farful said:
Edit: Thanks DaveC, links have been fixed
Uh, that's DaveC426913. I hate nicknames... :-p
 
https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/body-dysmorphia/ Most people have some mild apprehension about their body, such as one thinks their nose is too big, hair too straight or curvy. At the extreme, cases such as this, are difficult to completely understand. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/other/why-would-someone-want-to-amputate-healthy-limbs/ar-AA1MrQK7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=68ce4014b1fe4953b0b4bd22ef471ab9&ei=78 they feel like they're an amputee in the body of a regular person "For...
Thread 'Did they discover another descendant of homo erectus?'
The study provides critical new insights into the African Humid Period, a time between 14,500 and 5,000 years ago when the Sahara desert was a green savanna, rich in water bodies that facilitated human habitation and the spread of pastoralism. Later aridification turned this region into the world's largest desert. Due to the extreme aridity of the region today, DNA preservation is poor, making this pioneering ancient DNA study all the more significant. Genomic analyses reveal that the...
Whenever these opiods are mentioned they usually mention that e.g. fentanyl is "50 times stronger than heroin" and "100 times stronger than morphine". Now it's nitazene which the public is told is everything from "much stronger than heroin" and "200 times stronger than fentany"! Do these numbers make sense at all? How do they arrive at them? Kill thousands of mice? En passant: nitazene have already been found in both Oxycontin pills and in street "heroin" here, so Naloxone is more...
Back
Top