I think it is an unclear and bizarre term. “The energy contained in one group” - what energy? Is a lean cheetah “less-energy” than an elephant? Why? Or do you literally mean energy like calories (which, IIRC means “how much heat if burned”).
What a bizarre metric, nobody thinks like this, I don’t even think “ecologists” understand why they should think in terms of mass. I, too, can have a metric: number of decibels of sound you can produce; maybe humans make up a SHOCKING 3% on that- doesn’t mean it’s a sensible metric.
> “The energy contained in one group” - what energy?
The chemical energy contained in the links of the molecules
> Is a lean cheetah “less-energy” than an elephant?
Yes, of course. One cheetah, has less biomass than one elephant. But -the- rats, have more biomass than -the- elephants. Is the beauty of the ecology.
> What a bizarre metric, nobody thinks like this, I don’t even think “ecologists” understand why they should think in terms of mass.
Well, this sounds a little arrogant. The professionals that use it, obviously, know their job. They aren't stupid.
Would be like claiming that programmers don't understand why they use an if loop. Biomass is a measure as widespread in ecology as Megabytes is in computers.
And there is not need to use quotes around the word ecologists, in the same way as you wouldn't wrote: the "engineers" or the "programmers".
> I, too, can have a metric: number of decibels of sound you can produce; maybe humans make up a SHOCKING 3% on that- doesn’t mean it’s a sensible metric.
Well, the difference is that nobody uses your metric.
> The professionals that use it, obviously, know their job. They aren't stupid.
I will not defer to authority. I want an explanation for why the percentage of aggregate “chemical energy contained in the links of molecules” is considered a meaningful metric for anything other than “how much percentage heat would I produce if i threw them into a fire”, let alone mammal population health or diversity.
> Well, the difference is that nobody uses your metric.
Correct, because it is not meaningful, and neither is biomass.
I'm not sure why you're so hostile toward this idea...
I know basically nothing about ecology, but it seems relatively straightforward to think of reasons to study biomass. Think about food chains. Food is energy is biomass (as you mention). At a basic level: if you know that a certain ratio of biomass is needed (or expected) between two stages in a chain, then you can keep tabs on one of those stages, and when you see biomass decreasing, it's a signal that the food chain might be soon disrupted. In a food chain, the number of animals seems mostly irrelevant (except in cases of near-extinction), but the total energy is highly relevant.
Talking in terms of biomass is very common in Ecology.