2
$\begingroup$

Is there more, (or less) matter on earth sequestered as a part of biological systems than there was at any(arbitrary) time in the past?

Edit:

I realise I don't have a specific question, and was looking for a lesson of sorts on what is the footprint of life and will the new not come if the old doesn't die and dissolve(biologically atleast).

If you could suggest me good sources to study this, that would be great.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to Biology.SE! Please take the tour and then go through the help pages starting with How to Ask questions effectively on this site and edit your question accordingly. As written the answer to your question is almost certainly yes and no depending on those arbitrary times. Rewriting your question so that it is clearer, more focused, and indicates why you want this information is likely to get a better response. We also encourage you to do some research and then, informed by what you have learned, ask any questions you still have (ideally with references to reliable sources). Thanks! 😊 $\endgroup$
    – tyersome
    Feb 7, 2020 at 18:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ All the coal, limestone, and other bio-deposited stuff on Earth attests to the fact that past life has left behind a giant, cumulative mass of modified matter. Even components of our atmosphere would be part of that mass. Some of all that gets recycled by living organisms, and some gets modified by geological processes so that it may be hard to distinguish from "non-biomodified" matter. $\endgroup$
    – S. McGrew
    Feb 7, 2020 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ @S.McGrew I am not talking about bio-modified matter as much as matter which forms the bodies etc. of living organisms. $\endgroup$
    – Rohit
    Feb 21, 2020 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ Then that would include limestone, coal, & peat. Marble is metamorphosed limestone. $\endgroup$
    – S. McGrew
    Feb 21, 2020 at 15:14
  • $\begingroup$ Due to the massive extinction event humans are causing, especially in the oceans likely less, biomass today. disrupted ecosystems are often below capacity. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Apr 5 at 15:49

2 Answers 2

-2
$\begingroup$

I would guess there was more in the past during warmer periods. For example, imagine if Antarctica was covered in lush jungle rather than ice, then all else equal, there'd have been more biomass back then. But I don't think all else would have been equal, as it seems warmer temperatures promote more developed ecosystems in general, so all the rest of the continents would likely have had more biomass. And of course, with tectonic drift, there were likely times when the large desert areas like the Sahara would have been in different areas with more rainfall and more biomass. Plus, certainly during past periods of dramatic volcanic activity, all of the nutrients landing in the ocean would have led to much more phytoplankton which would have supported more ocean biomass as well. Currently, many parts of the ocean simply can't support that much life since there aren't any nutrients in the water.

$\endgroup$
0
-2
$\begingroup$

It is both more and less than at other times in the past.

You can research biomass assessment from the carboniferous and other notable times: https://www.google.com/search?q=biomass+phanerozoic?tbm=isch

check the images there are various research graphs giving accurate responses to you query.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We expect answers here to be relatively self-contained; you can (and should!) link and reference other sources, but simply providing a Google link is not sufficient. If there are images and various graphs that give accurate responses to the query, you could provide those answers and link to the specific graphs to make a good answer. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Apr 10 at 18:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ cheers, sorry, the Stack Exchange image system does not work for webp or url's from the given sites, so I can't add images and their description, i just put links. Webp is the latest image format after JPG it uses 25% less bandwidth and that's many terabites of storage and transfer for sites like FB, Goog, Bing, Wiki, Elseiver, and if Stack still after 1 year of webp becoming a dominant image format, they can't let me share images, then it lowers responses. $\endgroup$ Apr 12 at 8:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .