Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> has shown they are rare or absent in two out of five fields

The title presumably should say 40%





Or is it 1 out of 5 fields? Big difference!


> 42% of fields studied had poor earthworm diversity

> 21% of fields lacked surface-dwelling worms

Seems pretty clear to me. Some vs. none...


Talking here about "earthworm diversity", is another thing that is wrong.

To identify earthworms is difficult even for experienced taxonomists and you need a microscope, a disection table and a lot of training. Polychaetes are much easier by comparison and I can assure you that they aren't easy. You need months of study.

Not, not everybody can do the work of a biologist. Not even the smartest children. Is complex, and hard work. Unless you want to classify the diversity of worms into "small", "medium sized" and "big worm", dig a hole and count isn't enough.


I think the 40% number is correct, the article also contains this line which is oddly specific to be a typo.

> However, 42% of fields had poor earthworm biodiversity – meaning either very few or none of the surface-dwelling and deep-burrowing categorisations of worms were seen.


And somehow the article has numbers to support both interpretations?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: