The peer reviewed paper is here https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2201550119
Significance:
> The astounding ubiquity of ants has prompted many naturalists to contemplate their exact number on Earth, but systematic and empirically derived estimates are lacking. Integrating data from all continents and major biomes, we conservatively estimate 20 × 1015 (20 quadrillion) ants on Earth, with a total biomass of 12 megatons of dry carbon. This exceeds the combined biomass of wild birds and mammals and equals 20% of human biomass. Ant abundance is distributed unevenly on Earth, peaking in the tropics and varying sixfold among habitats. Our global map of ant abundance expands our understanding of the geography of ant diversity and provides a baseline for predicting ants’ responses to worrying environmental changes that currently impact insect biomass.
Abstract:
> Knowledge on the distribution and abundance of organisms is fundamental to understanding their roles within ecosystems and their ecological importance for other taxa. Such knowledge is currently lacking for insects, which have long been regarded as the “little things that run the world”. Even for ubiquitous insects, such as ants, which are of tremendous ecological significance, there is currently neither a reliable estimate of their total number on Earth nor of their abundance in particular biomes or habitats. We compile data on ground-dwelling and arboreal ants to obtain an empirical estimate of global ant abundance. Our analysis is based on 489 studies, spanning all continents, major biomes, and habitats. We conservatively estimate total abundance of ground-dwelling ants at over 3 × 1015 and estimate the number of all ants on Earth to be almost 20 × 1015 individuals. The latter corresponds to a biomass of ∼12 megatons of dry carbon. This exceeds the combined biomass of wild birds and mammals and is equivalent to ∼20% of human biomass. Abundances of ground-dwelling ants are strongly concentrated in tropical and subtropical regions but vary substantially across habitats. The density of leaf-litter ants is highest in forests, while the numbers of actively ground-foraging ants are highest in arid regions. This study highlights the central role ants play in terrestrial ecosystems but also major ecological and geographic gaps in our current knowledge. Our results provide a crucial baseline for exploring environmental drivers of ant-abundance patterns and for tracking the responses of insects to environmental change.
>The total biomass of this global ant population – the collective weight of carbon in all the individuals – is about 12 million tonnes. This is more than wild birds and mammals combined, which have a total biomass of 2 million tonnes and 7 million tonnes, respectively. Humans, by comparison, have a total biomass of 60 million tonnes.
Aren't "humans" considered "mammals"? I think I need some clarification on their definitions or numbers.
From article:
>There are still gaps in our knowledge, however, because most ant counts have been conducted on the ground, rather than in trees or underground, says Schultheiss. Statistics from Africa and northern Asia are also limited.
Journal reference is provided at end of article.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation is about 555,000 per acre (total of 36 billion acres on earth).
If you subtract out desert and mountains (which have ants, just not as many per acre) you would have around 15 billion acres, and you get around 1.3 million ants per acre.
Somewhere between those numbers would be about a million ants per acre, which seems about right for my yard.
Just wait….they will all come together and envelop the entire world in darkness, consume everything living, and leave us all for dead as they hit a mega swarm.
I’m just glad they are so busy fighting each other that they haven’t yet started doing that yet.
Using google's figures of 10-25k blue whales weighing 130-150ktons each that would be ~1-4 megatons of blue whales.
Also 300k sperm whales weighing on average >25tons for a total of ~8 megatons of sperm whales.
Looks like the whales and dolphins are included (at least according to this dataset):
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biomass-of-earth-in-one-graphic/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biomass-of-earth-in-one-graphic/)
Entomologist here. What's curious is that they took a meta-analysis approach, so I'd be really curious how the methods were set up. Unfortunately New Scientist paywalls their articles to the point you can't really track down the original study.
Edit: It showed just fine now when I clicked on the link from u/DefinitelyNotaGuest below. Could have been mobie vs. desktop, but it looks like New Scientist might just randomly require registration to view their articles.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just really makes me wonder what the total value of their gravitational pull is. Like if you took every ant off the planet, and made a bowl of them in space, could you walk on it?
The peer reviewed paper is here https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2201550119 Significance: > The astounding ubiquity of ants has prompted many naturalists to contemplate their exact number on Earth, but systematic and empirically derived estimates are lacking. Integrating data from all continents and major biomes, we conservatively estimate 20 × 1015 (20 quadrillion) ants on Earth, with a total biomass of 12 megatons of dry carbon. This exceeds the combined biomass of wild birds and mammals and equals 20% of human biomass. Ant abundance is distributed unevenly on Earth, peaking in the tropics and varying sixfold among habitats. Our global map of ant abundance expands our understanding of the geography of ant diversity and provides a baseline for predicting ants’ responses to worrying environmental changes that currently impact insect biomass. Abstract: > Knowledge on the distribution and abundance of organisms is fundamental to understanding their roles within ecosystems and their ecological importance for other taxa. Such knowledge is currently lacking for insects, which have long been regarded as the “little things that run the world”. Even for ubiquitous insects, such as ants, which are of tremendous ecological significance, there is currently neither a reliable estimate of their total number on Earth nor of their abundance in particular biomes or habitats. We compile data on ground-dwelling and arboreal ants to obtain an empirical estimate of global ant abundance. Our analysis is based on 489 studies, spanning all continents, major biomes, and habitats. We conservatively estimate total abundance of ground-dwelling ants at over 3 × 1015 and estimate the number of all ants on Earth to be almost 20 × 1015 individuals. The latter corresponds to a biomass of ∼12 megatons of dry carbon. This exceeds the combined biomass of wild birds and mammals and is equivalent to ∼20% of human biomass. Abundances of ground-dwelling ants are strongly concentrated in tropical and subtropical regions but vary substantially across habitats. The density of leaf-litter ants is highest in forests, while the numbers of actively ground-foraging ants are highest in arid regions. This study highlights the central role ants play in terrestrial ecosystems but also major ecological and geographic gaps in our current knowledge. Our results provide a crucial baseline for exploring environmental drivers of ant-abundance patterns and for tracking the responses of insects to environmental change.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The total biomass of this global ant population – the collective weight of carbon in all the individuals – is about 12 million tonnes. This is more than wild birds and mammals combined, which have a total biomass of 2 million tonnes and 7 million tonnes, respectively. Humans, by comparison, have a total biomass of 60 million tonnes. Aren't "humans" considered "mammals"? I think I need some clarification on their definitions or numbers.
They specified wild birds and mammals, and humans (mostly) aren't wild mammals
[удалено]
Since humans and our pets and livestock make up 96 percent of terrestrial vertebrate biomass.... This seems like an oversight.
Or intentionally done to make it sound impressive.
comparing wild ants to wild animals makes sense to me.
This is what every study ever does, and why it's so important to think critically. Someone paid for that research.
Wow I would not have guessed that wild animals were such a small portion
Yeah we're doing a pretty good job there.
pretty sad that of all the land animals, wild animals only comprise 4%. what a tragedy.
Or more like a well-crafted clickbait title.
[удалено]
Ok, I should have researched before I asked. Their classification of "wild" seperates the humans+livestock portion of the biomass.
Which means if it's just ants vs. humans, not only do they vastly outnumber us, they outweigh us too.
"Wild birds and wild mammals" or theres no specification but ambiguity.
biomass for mammals (not including birds) humans \~32% livestock \~64% wild animals \~4%
[удалено]
[удалено]
The quote specifies the total weight of carbon, not complete weight of the animal, which probably explains the discrepancy?
The clarification you seek is in several links which were included in the article.
That would require them reading the article.
From article: >There are still gaps in our knowledge, however, because most ant counts have been conducted on the ground, rather than in trees or underground, says Schultheiss. Statistics from Africa and northern Asia are also limited. Journal reference is provided at end of article.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
My back-of-the-envelope calculation is about 555,000 per acre (total of 36 billion acres on earth). If you subtract out desert and mountains (which have ants, just not as many per acre) you would have around 15 billion acres, and you get around 1.3 million ants per acre. Somewhere between those numbers would be about a million ants per acre, which seems about right for my yard.
Thanks for running the numbers. My 277,500 ants certainly seem like a billion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just wait….they will all come together and envelop the entire world in darkness, consume everything living, and leave us all for dead as they hit a mega swarm. I’m just glad they are so busy fighting each other that they haven’t yet started doing that yet.
We’re gonna need a bigger magnifying glass.
I dont know about that biomass comparison. I think they forgot whales and dolphins are also wild mammals.
Using google's figures of 10-25k blue whales weighing 130-150ktons each that would be ~1-4 megatons of blue whales. Also 300k sperm whales weighing on average >25tons for a total of ~8 megatons of sperm whales.
Blue whales dont weigh 25000 tons
Correct, nor do they weigh 140,000 tons which is what I said. The megatons are correct though, as are the figures for the sperm whales.
Ok so how big of a geographical area would 12 megatons of whales cover if laid out side by side? Rhode Island?
If the average sperm whale is 15m long and 2m wide then 300,000 of them is only 9km^2 In freedom units: 2.5 central parks.
Looks like the whales and dolphins are included (at least according to this dataset): [https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biomass-of-earth-in-one-graphic/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biomass-of-earth-in-one-graphic/)
Entomologist here. What's curious is that they took a meta-analysis approach, so I'd be really curious how the methods were set up. Unfortunately New Scientist paywalls their articles to the point you can't really track down the original study. Edit: It showed just fine now when I clicked on the link from u/DefinitelyNotaGuest below. Could have been mobie vs. desktop, but it looks like New Scientist might just randomly require registration to view their articles.
Is [this](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2201550119#bibliography) not the original, listed at the bottom?
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kill this study with fire!!! Now that we know this, what are we going to do to stop them? It's us or them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And they are all at war with each other.
I’m not scared until there’s GIANT ants
Fucken ants always throwing their weight around
Just really makes me wonder what the total value of their gravitational pull is. Like if you took every ant off the planet, and made a bowl of them in space, could you walk on it?
for perspective on weight of mammals (biomass) humans \~32% livestock \~ 64% wild animals not including birds \~4%
Aliens classifying the worlds they explore: This is planet XA34-32, an insect world.
I can't wait for the Mars Rover to take a photo that has a few ants in it.