A few points: (1) I not sure but I think that a psychology forum is probably not the best venue for asking about the accuracy of statistical estimates coming from the fields of soil science and biodiversity. It is true that Tipsters have wide-ranging interest and I would not be surprised that there may be a couple who are expert in soil science but, really, shouldn't ask these questions of soil scientists? At the very least, if I were interested in this topic, I'd try to find an intro to soil science textbook and see if there is information about these issues.
(2) Given that the article referred to below appears to be a blogpost or essay (in contrast to an article in a peer reviewed journal), I am not surprised that not every assertion has a supporting citation (though the author does use citations and provides references). It may also be the case that the statements you take issue with are seen as being noncontroversal in the soil science community which would explain the lack of supporting citation. In examining the comments on the article, I didn't see anyone dispute the "eco-statistics", But perhaps one can ask a soil scientist about this. (3) Allen wrote: |Leaving aside that someone complaining about loose writing then glibly |cites figures on the basis of "according to some estimates", does |anyone have any idea how there can be anything but the vaguest |estimates of how many organisms in the soil are unknown to science? Again I would suggest asking a soil scientist or consulting a soil science textbook or the research literature. One possibly relevant article is listed below which explains some of the problems is locating and identifying microbes in the soil. Biodiversity of soil microbial communities in agricultural systems C. E. Pankhurst, K. Ophel-Keller, B. M. Doube and V. V. S. R. Gupta Biodiversity and Conservation 1996, Volume 5, Number 2, 197-209, DOI: 10.1007/BF00055830 Here is the abstract: |The productivity and health of agricultural systems depend greatly |upon the functional processes carried out by soil microorganisms |and soil microbial communities. The biodiversity of the soil microbial |communities and the effect of diversity on the stability of the agricultural |system, is unknown. Taxonomic approaches to estimating biodiversity |of soil microbial communities are limited by difficulties in defining |suitable taxonomic units and the apparent non-culturability of the |majority of the microbial species present in the soil. Analysis of functional |diversity may be a more meaningful approach but is also limited by |the need to culture organisms. Approaches which do not rely on |culturing organisms such as fatty acid analysis and 16S/18S rRNA |analysis have provided an insight into the extent of genetic diversity |within communities and may be useful in the analysis of community |structure. Scale effects, including successional processes associated |with organic matter decomposition, local effects associated with abiotic |soil factors, and regional effects including the effect of agricultural |management practices, on the diversity of microbial communities are |considered. Their impact is important in relation to the minimum |biodiversity required to maintain system function. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w3616n60360t9370/ I note that the above article was published in 1996 and recent developments may have made the process of identifying and classifying soil microbes easier. But I'm not a soil scientist and it would be worth the effort to ask one. I bet they even have an email list. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu ----------------Original Message ------------------------ On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 01:18:57 -0700, Allen Esterson wrote: Today's "Arts and Letters Daily" links to the article below with the blurb: "Eco-ignorance. Up to 95 percent of organisms in the soil are unknown to science, and by the end of the century, one-quarter of them will wriggle off this mortal coil into oblivion..." http://places.designobserver.com/feature/a-home-before-the-end-of-the-world/26568/ The author of the article, Adelheid Fischer, opens with a discussion of a book, of which she writes: "The fundamental issue here, I think, is not that Cunningham got the details wrong, but that he didn't seem to care about getting them right… So what makes us think that it's okay to play fast and loose when it comes to matters of natural history?" A little further down Fischer writes: "Our ignorance is truly staggering. According to some estimates, 95 percent of organisms in the soil alone are unknown to science. […] "According to some estimates, by the end of the 21st century, one-quarter or more of all species of plants and animals now living will have gone extinct or been issued a non-refundable one-way ticket off the planet." Leaving aside that someone complaining about loose writing then glibly cites figures on the basis of "according to some estimates", does anyone have any idea how there can be anything but the vaguest estimates of how many organisms in the soil are unknown to science? Or of how many plants and species of animals will have gone extinct or be heading for extinction by the end of the century, especially as apparently huge numbers of plants and animals remain undiscovered. Are such estimates anything more than more-or-less educated guesses highly dependent on personal agendas? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=11179 or send a blank email to leave-11179-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu