Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Identify Vast Underground Ecosystem Containing Billions of Micro-organisms (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the unravelling-mysteries dept.

The Earth is far more alive than previously thought, according to "deep life" studies that reveal a rich ecosystem beneath our feet that is almost twice the size of that found in all the world's oceans. From a report: Despite extreme heat, no light, minuscule nutrition and intense pressure, scientists estimate this subterranean biosphere is teeming with between 15bn and 23bn tonnes of micro-organisms, hundreds of times the combined weight of every human on the planet. Researchers at the Deep Carbon Observatory say the diversity of underworld species bears comparison to the Amazon or the Galapagos Islands, but unlike those places the environment is still largely pristine because people have yet to probe most of the subsurface.

"It's like finding a whole new reservoir of life on Earth," said Karen Lloyd, an associate professor at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. "We are discovering new types of life all the time. So much of life is within the Earth rather than on top of it." The team combines 1,200 scientists from 52 countries in disciplines ranging from geology and microbiology to chemistry and physics. A year before the conclusion of their 10-year study, they will present an amalgamation of findings to date before the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting opens this week.

87 comments

  1. Wow, that's a huge find alright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question now is how was this overlooked for so long? This really gives credence to the possibility of life under the surface on Mars or other planetary bodies, panspermia, all of that. Wow. Big, big big.

    1. Re:Wow, that's a huge find alright. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The question now is how was this overlooked for so long?

      It wasn't. This has been well known for decades. This new research didn't "discover" subterranean life, they mostly just quantified and categorized it.

    2. Re:Wow, that's a huge find alright. by hey! · · Score: 1

      When you walk through the forest, the obvious impression you'll get is that it is a phenomenon consisting principally of trees. In fact it would be more accurate to characterize a forest as a vast network of fungal mycelia in a symbiotic relationship with a superficial layer of trees. If Mark Watney's martian survival depended on some kind of tree, he'd be screwed without the fungi it depends upon.

      But to see this truer picture, you literally have to dig deeper.

      In the same vein, I once heard a talk by E.O. Wilson in which he said that if anyone in the audience had a life ambition of discovering a species unknown to science, they should go out in their back yard and start digging. Dig long enough and look closely enough, and you'll find it (although chances are it'll be some kind of nematode). Over the years I have shortened his advice to this: there's nothing like looking if you want to find something.

      It would be an exaggeration to say we know less about what's underneath our own feet than we do about the surface of the Moon, but it's almost certain we know less about it than we think we do. That's because by its nature you don't even know you have that kind of ignorance until you go looking for it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Wow, that's a huge find alright. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      There's liquid water on Earth. Mars' minuscule quantities of water are frozen. That makes it kind of difficult to access. If you're an organism that produces heat as a byproduct of your metabolism, then maybe you can live in little isolated pools of liquid water but then it becomes a chicken or egg situation. Likewise since Mars does have at least a partially molten core one would expect it to get warmer the further down you go. But then you have to wonder if frozen water could penetrate that deep.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Wow, that's a huge find alright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chances are it'll be some kind of nematode

      It could also be a giant virus like in Harvard.

    5. Re: Wow, that's a huge find alright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh ick nature!

  2. For the last time by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Funny

    get out of my sock draw. If this keeps up I'm going to wash the damn things.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  3. Weights more than 100x every human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or just your mom

  4. the Orange Anonymous Meetings are failing me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must ... resist ... Trump ... toupee ... jokes

  5. I was just watching Future Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just watching the Future Man episode where they explain Cameronium. Did they find it early?

  6. Most of an iceberg is underwater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the mass of a fungus is underground, you only see the fruiting bodies occasionally (aka mushrooms). The world is littered with examples of things where the majority is out of site, why do you think this would be any different? This is probably how life bounces back from the big extinction events.

  7. Billions of micro-organisms by ebcdic · · Score: 2

    There are billions of micro-organisms in a pot of yogurt. Did you mean billions of species, or billions of tons?

    1. Re:Billions of micro-organisms by tsqr · · Score: 1

      There are billions of micro-organisms in a pot of yogurt. Did you mean billions of species, or billions of tons?

      I assume you're addressing the difference between the title of TFS (billions of organisms and the content of TFS ("billions of tonnes"). I guess they should have cited the conversion factor.

      One source I found says, "The human body has 10^13 human cells and hosts 9x10^13 bacterial cells." and "mass of bacterial cells in one human body = (0.95×10^15 * 9x10^13) kg = 0.0855 kg = 86 g". So, 1 gram of bacterial cells comprises 9 * 10^13 cells / 86, or 1,058,823,529,412. A metric ton (tonne) is a million grams, so it would comprise roughly 1.06 * 10^18 cells. Of course, that assumes that the average size of the microorganisms is the same as e. coli.

  8. Scale by doconnor · · Score: 1

    There is a big difference between "Billions of Micro-organisms" which is a few grams and "Billions of tonnes of Micro-organisms" from the summary.

  9. FROM TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The team combines 1,200 scientists from 52 countries in disciplines ranging from geology and microbiology to chemistry and physics. A year before the conclusion of their 10-year study, they will present an amalgamation of findings to date before the American Geophysical Union’s annual meeting opens this week.

    Samples were taken from boreholes more than 5km deep and undersea drilling sites to construct models of the ecosystem and estimate how much living carbon it might contain.

    One organism found 2.5km below the surface has been buried for millions of years and may not rely at all on energy from the sun. Instead, the methanogen has found a way to create methane in this low energy environment, which it may not use to reproduce or divide, but to replace or repair broken parts."

    They're compiling very real data and discoveries from many places. The authors wrote the study that compiled the data obviously, but someone made those discoveries.

    It sounds like you were trying to downplay the significance of these discoveries, which the report tabulated.

    So obviously "this" has not been "well known for decades" Bill. I don't know why you'd assert that.

    1. Re:FROM TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been known for decades. I read about it long ago, with the estimates of biomass in much the same ballpark as these.

    2. Re:FROM TFA: by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      It has been known for decades. I read about it long ago, with the estimates of biomass in much the same ballpark as these.

      Well then, pony up Bill, let's see you wheel out the decades old citations that closely match the discoveries of these scientists.

    3. Re:FROM TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold#Origins_of_petroleum

      In a 1992 paper "The Deep Hot Biosphere" in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,[56] Gold first suggested that microbial life is widespread in the porosity of the crust of the Earth, down to depths of several kilometers,

      Now fuck off.

    4. Re:FROM TFA: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you were trying to downplay the significance of these discoveries

      Not at all. It is important research. They made many important new discoveries. But they did NOT discover that "there is life down there". We already knew that.

    5. Re:FROM TFA: by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Everything old is new again :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:FROM TFA: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I'm confused, you said "all of this was known decades ago" including the estimate. Now you're saying this is new and important research, after you said that and downplayed it. Change your assertive mind?

    7. Re:FROM TFA: by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      1993 https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

      1980
      https://www.nature.com/article...

      Many others. Basically scientists got curious about what possible risks to unknoqn biospheres could exist from burying radioactive waste and started looking, and kept finding bacteria in really absurd places. Plus the petroleum industry always had an interest in the topic because it helps explain certain sources of biomass that may well be producing some sources of carbon fuels that don't quit fit the usual "buried ancient plant matter" theories

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    8. Re:FROM TFA: by Muros · · Score: 1

      No, he didn't. His first post, verbatim:

      It wasn't. This has been well known for decades. This new research didn't "discover" subterranean life, they mostly just quantified and categorized it.

    9. Re:FROM TFA: by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      The presence of deep bacteria was known, but I seriously doubt there were any good biomass estimates for them, since estimations for above ground biomass were pretty lackluster up until about 15 years ago.

    10. Re:FROM TFA: by careysub · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold#Origins_of_petroleum

      In a 1992 paper "The Deep Hot Biosphere" in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,[56] Gold first suggested that microbial life is widespread in the porosity of the crust of the Earth, down to depths of several kilometers,

      Now fuck off.

      According to your own words then, this has not been "known for decades".

      Someone hypothesizing that something sort of like this might be true does not make that thing "known". Only collecting actual evidence can do that. And that is what this study is publishing, a whole lot of, yes, new research. We have been making remarkable advances in scientific tools and this changes the data we can collect. No, this is not stuff "we knew long ago". These observations we could only make recently.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  10. mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > hundreds of times the combined weight of every human on the planet
    Oh come on. Reference in mass and be done with it. Subterranean shenanigans begs and analysis of differences in gravity at what depths, and the shape of the curve for change in weight as you go deeper as there is less mass below and more mass above.
    I don't have time to work that out this week.

  11. Mars by t0qer · · Score: 2

    Would be neat if we found the same thing on Mars.

    1. Re:Mars by quenda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would be neat if we found the same thing on Mars.

      And not entirely surprising if they turn out to be related.
      Large impacts such as the dino-killer asteroid would have sent large many tonnes of life-bearing rock all over the solar system, including to Europa.

      If we do find such life deep under Mars, one question will be which came first.

    2. Re:Mars by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Would be neat if we found the same thing on Mars.

      Turns out we kind of did; the probes we sent were perhaps not sterilized well enough.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it wouldn't. It would mean that the Great Filter is ahead of us. Discovery of life elsewhere is very bad news for mankind.

      Nick Bostrom: Why I Hope The Search For ETL Finds Nothing

    4. Re:Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be neat if we found the same thing on Mars.

      Large impacts such as the dino-killer asteroid would have sent large many tonnes of life-bearing rock all over the solar system, including to Europa.

      Just curious - is that true ? a) escape velocity b) sizable rocks not just vaporized rocks c) not so hot of an impact to annihilate any actual life on said rocks?

      Again - just curious on the maths / physics / biology here.

    5. Re:Mars by quenda · · Score: 1

      Just curious - is that true ? a) escape velocity b) sizable rocks not just vaporized rocks c) not so hot of an impact to annihilate any actual life on said rocks?

      Yes, for a sufficiently large impact, such as Chicxulub.
        It is also a very serious idea that life did not originate on earth, but started from meteorites containing simple organisms like the above.
      Not "on said rocks", but deep inside them, in order to survive radiation on the long cold journey.
      It would explain why the first life appeared so early in Earth's history.

      Panspermia hypothesis

      PBS SpaceTime:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  12. Billions of tons of organisms by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is where oil comes from?

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:Billions of tons of organisms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope. Oil is too concentrated a source of carbon. And many of these organisms are living in igneous rock, which is notoriously bereft of oil. It's possible that some oil deposits were modified by these organisms, but the carbon came from surface sediments.

    2. Re:Billions of tons of organisms by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The first thought that occurred to me as well. Until now, the debate has been about abiogenic vs
      fossil origin of oil. But now, questions can be raised about surface vs subsurface biology. Like you, I was taught in school that coal comes from ancient forests of ferns and oil from ancient algae, but how did all that carbon arrive on the surface in the first place?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Billions of tons of organisms by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to sort out your argument, it's not easy. You propose that all the carbon in oil comes from surface sediments because it is too concentrated to be otherwise? I don't see how this explains how the carbon came to be concentrated in the first place.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:Billions of tons of organisms by Memnos · · Score: 1

      Surface-dwelling plants get their carbon from the air (CO2).

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    5. Re:Billions of tons of organisms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Succinctly, the geology doesn't make sense. These bugs live in different sorts of rocks than where you find oil.

    6. Re:Billions of tons of organisms by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      These bugs live in different sorts of rocks than where you find oil.

      In recent years igneous reservoirs have become an important new field of oil exploration. Igneous reservoirs make up roughly 5 percent.

      These igneous reservoirs are thought to be formed by leakage from nearby sedimentary formations, but could that be wrong?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    7. Re:Billions of tons of organisms by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Right. There is about 4 orders of magnitude more carbon in the crust than the atmosphere, and maybe 1-2 orders of magnitude less biomass in the crust. It seems like a significant amount of potential methane production to me.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:Billions of tons of organisms by dryeo · · Score: 1

      but how did all that carbon arrive on the surface in the first place?

      Volcanoes, they put out CO2 and there used to be a lot more. To give an idea of how much can be out gassed over billions of years on an Earth sized planet, look at Venus.
      The difference is that the Earth has multiple ways of sequestering carbon, plants, silicate weathering are the main two, along with tectonic plates getting sucked back into the mantle along with all the coal, oil, limestone etc.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  13. Now that we know about it... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    the diversity of underworld species bears comparison to the Amazon or the Galapagos Islands, but unlike those places the environment is still largely pristine because people have yet to probe most of the subsurface.

    As long as there are no exploitable resources it should be fine. But if someone discovers something useful or that can be sold, it won't take long before we humans manage to lay waste to most of it. Sadly that seems to be the way we operate as a species. We've just gotten very efficient at it as we advance.

    1. Re:Now that we know about it... by emaname · · Score: 1

      As long as there are no exploitable resources it should be fine. But if someone discovers something useful or that can be sold, it won't take long before we humans manage to lay waste to most of it. Sadly that seems to be the way we operate as a species. We've just gotten very efficient at it as we advance.

      Agreed. +1

      --
      An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  14. Hippies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure we'll get some trite and cliche hippie comments about how "the Earth is alive".

    1. Re:Hippies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She prefers to be called Gia.

  15. Citation required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This has been well known for decades" - Citation required.

    1. Re: Citation required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pelucidar and the Underground Kingdom of the Molemen.

    2. Re: Citation required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pelucidar and the Underground Kingdom of the Molemen.

      Thats a great movie!

  16. "100x the combined weight of every human" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or just one really fat human.
    That weight is a fairly average American weight these days.
    Americans create diamonds everywhere they walk.

  17. DRILL, BABY, DRILL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that carbon's being wasted! We need energy!

  18. "Billions of Micro-organisms" ?! FFS :-D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EDITORS, EDIT !!!

    1. Re:"Billions of Micro-organisms" ?! FFS :-D by PPH · · Score: 1

      There are more errors in this summary than there are stars in the universe.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Re:Who'd have thought! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

    Ugly bags of mostly water....

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  20. Actually they are pretty smart by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    And just about all of them are smarter than a Trump voter.

    So twice as smart as you then...

    If you stop to think about it, organisms that chose to live out of the range of humans who could eat them are obviously way smarter than you or I.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Actually they are pretty smart by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

      Not sure about that, little Ken Doll. I was smart enough to leave a huge load of sperm in your mom without catching any of her STD's.

      So how's that brain rot from the syphilis you were born with coming along?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    2. Re:Actually they are pretty smart by rnturn · · Score: 1

      Yep. Biding their time and laying low until we wipe ourselves out.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  21. Is this Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" theory? by cybersquid · · Score: 2

    This sounds a lot like Thomas Gold's Deep Hot Biosphere theory.

    1. Re:Is this Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" theory? by Hamfist · · Score: 1

      You beat me to the post!

      So while some of the oilfields may be decomposed dinosaurs, it's looking much more likely that Gold was right and hydrocarbons are the output of actual organisms. Wild stuff.

    2. Re:Is this Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" theory? by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      We have a big thick coal band from the Carboniferous period. We have oil wells found where ancient shallow seas did once reside.

      So while I would not conclude Gold is entirely wrong, we need an explanation for why the oil and coal is not found in a very different pattern from the observed real world, in order to accept Gold's theory.

      FYI: I think the idea that life was first created in warm porous rocks (and/or similar) to be likely true.

    3. Re:Is this Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" theory? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Err, decomposed dinosaurs? And dinosaurs are not actual organisms?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  22. Cite the part with the estimate you claimed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cite the part with the estimate you claimed. Or you're just a liar caught once again, Bill.

    1. Re:Cite the part with the estimate you claimed. by mesterha · · Score: 1

      Haters gotta hate.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
  23. BILL CAUGHT LYING AGAIN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow who would have thought BILL of all people would be blabbering unsubstantiated shit AGAIN?

  24. Erelhei-Cinlu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Scientists Identify Vast Underground Ecosystem"
    It's the Drow...

  25. Re:Life.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a minute!! These can't be life! The pro-abortionists tell us that a cell, or clump of cells, isn't life.

    Wrong. The claim is that it's not yet human nor able to exist independently of the mother.
    Which you already knew but thanks for stopping by.
    Now fuck off.

  26. Re:Who'd have thought! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just about all of them are smarter than a Trump voter.

    Orangemanbad. Trump derangement syndrome is real. Your comment is completely offtopic.

  27. THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NAZI PROPAGANDIST KEN DOLL THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR COWARDLY LIFETIME OF LIES

    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  28. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our underground overloads...

  29. Weight Gap by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    scientists estimate this subterranean biosphere is teeming with [living biomass] hundreds of times the combined weight of every human on the planet.

    We must compete with the mass of this life or be overwhelmed. We can make more humans, or eat more pizza and burgers. I have more experience with the second.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re: Weight Gap by MiniMike · · Score: 2

      We'll close the gap twice as fast if we eat the subterranean organisms, hope they found something tasty...

    2. Re: Weight Gap by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Bullies made me eat dirt as a kid. I don't remember liking it.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Weight Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're afraid microorganisms will eat that slice of pizza faster than you can, maybe you should order less pizza.

    4. Re: Weight Gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullies made me eat dirt as a kid. I don't remember liking it.

      Gotta try gourmet soil one of these days.

  30. Cue Julie Andrews... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All together now!

    "The hills are alive..."

  31. Russians? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    DIdn't the Russians find out about this when digging a super deep hole? I read about that years ago.

    1. Re:Russians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they found a portal to hell full of the sounds of people screaming.

  32. More immigration issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here we go, billions and billions waiting to be served...... now we need to build a wall under the ground....

  33. It's the deep staph by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    see, steve bannon was right, there is a deep staph, it surrounds us. it penetrates us. It binds the universe together. Race Bannon and Johnny quest found this a long time ago when they journeyed to the center of the earth and brought back Yoda and Hitler.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  34. Exactly! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Yep. Biding their time and laying low until we wipe ourselves out. ... then our remains subduct and THEY feed on US!

    See, told you they were smart. And vastly more patient. Sure beats a bad movie plot where they ooze up through a deep oil rig and try to kill us all, ineffectually.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  35. Relocation by angularbanjo · · Score: 4, Funny

    âoeDespite extreme heat, no light, minuscule nutrition and intense pressure...â So Amazon are moving their warehouses underground?

  36. Let me be the first to say that. .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I, for one, would like to welcome our new Chtonian overlords when they rise from their slumber in the hot, high-pressured deeps.

  37. Billions of Micro-organisms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The important question is "How can these be exploited for PROFIT?"

  38. Well known and doubted for a while by fygment · · Score: 1

    Thomas Gold and Russian researchers before him were looking at this back in the 1950's. He wrote a book The Deep Hot Biosphere. One might suppose that the strident opponents of the theory (and Gold) have died or retired so science can now progress in this area.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.