Plants Are the World's Dominant Life-Form

Flora make up the majority of Earth’s biomass, followed by bacteria

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Plants rule the planet—at least in terms of sheer mass. Many tallies of Earth's life use biodiversity as a measurement and simply count the number of species. A new census, based on biomass, compiled data from hundreds of studies to determine which kingdoms, classes and species carry the most global heft. The results show that plants (primarily those on land) account for 80 percent of the total biomass, with bacteria across all ecosystems a distant second at 15 percent. The findings were published online in May in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

Higher-resolution satellite data and improvements in genomic sequencing have made such measurements possible by yielding more accurate estimates, but the uncertainty is still high for hard-to-count life-forms such as microbes and insects. Antarctic krill, a type of small crustacean, have a total biomass comparable to that of humans. The latter makes up only a 100th of a percent of the total, but it still dwarfs that of all wild mammals. Livestock also dominate: chickens, for example, account for three times the biomass of wild birds. Humans have decreased the biomass of wild mammals sixfold and plants twofold through actions such as hunting and deforestation, the study estimates.

Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: “The Biomass Distribution on Earth,” by Yinon M. Bar-On et al., in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. Published Online May 21, 2018

Andrea Thompson is senior desk editor for life science at Scientific American, covering the environment, energy and earth sciences. She has been covering these issues for nearly two decades. Prior to joining Scientific American, she was a senior writer covering climate science at Climate Central and a reporter and editor at Live Science, where she primarily covered earth science and the environment. She has moderated panels, including as part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Media Zone, and appeared in radio and television interviews on major networks. She holds a graduate degree in science, health and environmental reporting from New York University, as well as a B.S. and an M.S. in atmospheric chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Follow Thompson on Bluesky @andreatweather.bsky.social

More by Andrea Thompson
Scientific American Magazine Vol 319 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Taking Stock of Life” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 319 No. 2 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0818-16

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe