Thinking the same thing. But now that I think about it, there is a lot of vegetation that would take up the majority of that share. Think about all the streama and rivers, then think about all the vegetation that surrounds and how easy it would be to fill those rivers with it. But still that’s a lot of water.
Could just be that whatever was used to create the diagram has a minimum slice size and anything below that just gets rounded up. Without labels for the size of each slice it’s impossible to tell.
So organisms have just as much water as rivers? That seems surprising, but I guess it could be that way.
Thinking the same thing. But now that I think about it, there is a lot of vegetation that would take up the majority of that share. Think about all the streama and rivers, then think about all the vegetation that surrounds and how easy it would be to fill those rivers with it. But still that’s a lot of water.
50% of a tree is apparently water, which seems like a lot.
It’s the other 60% you have to worry about
Could just be that whatever was used to create the diagram has a minimum slice size and anything below that just gets rounded up. Without labels for the size of each slice it’s impossible to tell.
Would be nice if they included a source for this data. Then it would not be impossible to tell.
Just eyeballing it the organisms looks maybe 2/3rds the size of rivers?