#ZooKeys ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025) DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 Research Article Biodiversity restated: > 99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Robert J. Blakemore'’23© 1 VermEcology, 101 Suidomichi, Nogeyama, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa-ken 231-0064, Japan 2 ENSSER, Marienstr. 19/20, 10117 Berlin, Germany 3 IUCN Species Survival Commission, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland Corresponding author: Robert J. Blakemore (rob.blakemore@gmail.com) OPEN ro} ACCESS Academic editor: Pavel Stoev Received: 3 July 2024 Accepted: 3 January 2025 Published: 3 February 2025 ZooBank: https://zoobank. org/76623CA5-AAES-453E-80E2- 8B73406FD18F Citation: Blakemore RJ (2025) Biodiversity restated: > 99.9% of global species in Soil Biota. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316. https://doi.org/10.3897/ zookeys.1224.131153 Copyright: © Robert J. Blakemore. This is an open access article distributed under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0). Abstract More than a decade of research led to the conclusion in 2022 that the Soil Biome is home to ~ 2.1 x 1074 taxa and thus supports > 99.9% of global species biodiversity, mostly Bacteria or other microbes, based upon topographic field data. A subsequent 2023 report tabulated a central value of just 1.04 x 10'° taxa claiming soils had 59 + 15%, i.e., 44-74% (or truly 10-50%?) of the global total, while incidentally confirming upper values of ~ 90% for soil Bacteria. Incompatibility of these two studies is reviewed, supporting prior biodiversity data with the vast majority of species inhabiting soils, despite excluding viruses (now with ~ 5 x 10°" virions and 107° species most, ~ 80%, in soils). The status of Oligochaeta (earthworms) and other taxa marked “?” in the 2023 paper are clarified. Although biota totals are increased considerably, inordinate threats of topsoil erosion and poisoning yet pertain with finality of extinction. Species affected include Keystone taxa, especially earthworms and microbes, essential for a healthy Soil foundation to sustain the Tree-of-Life inhabiting the Earth. Key words: Bacteria, earthworm, microbes, -Omics, soil organisms, species richness, viruses Introduction Healthy soil is fundamental to sustainable existence of most species evolving on Earth in Darwin's “Tree of Life” (a paradigm defended by Gulik et al. 2024). Soil supports more than 99.9% of species diversity and, now that vascular plants that seed and root in soils are included (Blakemore 2024), it supports 99% bio- mass hence ~ 98% of Net Primary Productivity (NPP) and also O, production. Bar-On and Milo (2019) had 0.7 Gt of photosynthetic/oxygenase Rubisco en- zyme powering terrestrial environments (doubled for terrain to 1.4 Gt) with just = 0.03 Gt (2.1%) in the marine environment. Soil filters and stores freshwater stocks (being subject to Earth tides!) and, as well as ~ 99% of human food, it provides most building materials plus many of our essential medicines/antibi- otics. Thus, an important metric must be the scope and snapshot status of liv- ing or dormant Soil biota. A recent review by Anthony et al. (2023) claimed “two times greater soil biodiversity than previous estimates”, seemingly because De- caéns et al. (2006) had 23% “soil animals” in their tally of described species as known at that time (Fig. 1). Both assertions are challenged for several reasons, 283 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Vertebrata <1% Microiny 2% Annelida Bacteria and Fungi 4% 1% virus <1% eae Plants 18% Arthropoda 5% Arachnida 12% Other Animals 55% Insects 80% Soil animals 23% (i.e. ~ 360,000) Total number of described living species: ~ 1,500,000 Figure 1. Decaéns et al. (2006: fig. 1) had “soil animals 23%” (i.e., ~ 360,000 in ~ 1.5 million species = 24%?). not least > 90-99% Soil biota reports by Williamson et al. (2017), Bickel and Or (2020), Zhao et al. (2022), and by Blakemore (2018b, 2022, 2023). Much higher totals had been determined since 2006, and Williamson et al. (2017) concluded: “Soils represent the greatest reservoir of biodiversity on the planet; prokaryotic diversity in soils is estimated to be three orders of magni- tude greater than in all other ecosystems combined.” In other words, soils may contain 99.9% of species, mainly microbes. Supporting this were, for example, Bickel and Or (2020) or Zhao et al. (2022) who said: “soil is the most microbi- ologically abundant (107?) and diverse (10'') environment on the Earth” and, in their figure (Zhao et al. 2022: fig. 3A), these latter authors showed soil taxa at > 10x that of all aquatic species. In other words, > 90% of biodiversity is present in Soil vs Ocean. Independently, around the same time, Blakemore (2022) esti- mated the “Soil Realm” is home to ~ 2.1 x 107 taxa, or > 99.9% of global biodi- versity, mostly Bacteria/Archaea or other microbes (excluding viruses), based upon published reports and extrapolation of topographic field data. Thus, rather than doubling it to ~ 50%, Anthony et al. (2023) actually halved soil biodiversity from > 99.9%. It is also remarkable that Decaéns et al.'s limited review claiming 23% biota seemed acceptable, unchallenged from 2006 because, instead of appraisal of realistic totals, it merely reported intensity of animal study, notably with terrestrial arthropods or aquatic species greatly overrepresented thus ap- pearing disproportionately high. Such issues require critical re-evaluation and restatement of mainly microbial biota, as is attempted herein. In 1994 Robert May had assessed ~ 85% of all species as terrestrial (May 1994), and Benton (2001: table 1) extrapolated life on the Land to 12 million spe- cies, then being as much as 25x as diverse as in the Sea (just 0.5 million species), i.e., > 96% species on the Land vs < 4% in the Sea. Grosberg et al. (2012: table 1) found most macroscopic organisms were land-based (80%) compared with few in the oceans (15%), and fewer still in freshwater (5%). A recent status paper, like Decaéns et al.’s by Roman-Palacios et al. (2022) had only ~ 2 million known species with 80% animals vs 20% plants, plus microbes and fungi needing to be added(!). Claiming combined relative proportions on the Land vs Aquatic of 78% vs 22% (Fig. 2), these authors yet failed to differentiate, making no mention of the Soil nor extrapolating likely totals, again downplaying soil biotic scope. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 284 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota ~ BIODIVERSITY ON LAND, SEA AND FRESHWATER (a) Animals (b) Plants Freshwater Babies |9 Ye ii) ( 7) Marine J (2%) Marine A (12%) / / Land Land (77%) (93%) Figure 2. Roman-Palacios et al. (2022: fig. 1) summed ~ 1.9 million extant animal and plant species combined, with ~ 80% on Land (~ 1.5 million species) without differentiat- ing those found in Soil. Prokaryotic microbes were not included in their datasets, mas- sively diminishing their terrestrial components (cf. Fierer et al. 2007). Lower still than in Freshwater, speculative claims that the Ocean supports > 80-99% of global biodiversity are readily dismissed by such solidly grounded facts. Further refinement of these Land vs Aquatic proportions was determined by Blakemore (2022) stating: “Based on topographic field data, an argument is ad- vanced that Soil houses ~ 2.1 x 10% taxa and supports > 99.9% of global spe- cies biodiversity, mostly Bacteria or other microbes. Contradictory claims that Soil is home to only a quarter of biota while Ocean harbors 80-99% of Life on Earth are both dismissed.” This statement requires clarification against Antho- ny et al.’s (2023) assertion that Soil hosts around 59% of species whereas their tables show only 10-50% (as tabulated below). Halving true proportions, their data totals are underestimated by orders of magnitude, seemingly due to them using older microbial count sources that have now been far superseded (Fig. 3). More than a decade ago, prior to Larsen et al. (2017), a call for a “Census of Soil Invertebrates” (CoSI) catalogued 210,000 known soil species (Blake- more 2012: table 1) itself downplaying most microbes. An updated version had > 315,000 soil organisms (Blakemore 2016), but this also tallied just a sixth of total taxa as then known, albeit with massive proportional unknowns (Table 1). 2.8% 1% 0.1% Allothers —_ Bacteria (& Archaea) kine 7.3% <0.007% \-> 99,999% 90.5% 0.02% 7.3% I Animals Fungi fi Plants -Protists I Bacteria 73% Wilson (1990) Mora et al. (2011) Larsenet al.(2017) Blakemore (2022/2023) Figure 3. “Micro monde” progressions with microbial proportions greatly increased from Blakemore (2022, 2023: table 1, fig. 9) after Larsen et al. (2017: fig. 1). Of note, Larsen et al. (2017: tabs 1 and 4) in Scenarios already had Bacteria with < 91% of total at up to 5.2 x 10° taxa, compared to Anthony et al.’s (2023) 4.3 or 10 x 108, these being mainly terrestrial, parasitic, or pathogens related to soil animals. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 285 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Table 1. A 2016 “Census of Soil Invertebrates” (CoSI) with counts, mass, and diversity of common soil species. Soil invertebrate group Viruses* Bacteria and Archaea* Fungi* Protozoa* Rotifera (Bdelloid soil rotifers) Nematoda Lobopodia Lobopodia (Onychophora) Lobopodia (Tardigrada) Arachnida, Opiliones Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida Acari (mites) Hexapoda (totals) Hexapoda (Collembola) Hexapoda (Diplura) Hexapoda (Protrura coneheads) Soil Insecta and their larvae Myriapoda (centi-, milli-pedes) Myriapoda (Symphyla) Pauropoda (Myriapoda relative) lsopoda (slaters, woodlice, etc.) lsoptera (termites) Blattodea (cockroaches) Ants (Hymenoptera/ Formicidae) Molluscs (soil gastropods) Land Turbellaria (planarians) Terrestrial Polychaeta Oligochaeta (megadriles + mostly aquatic microdriles)** Microdriles (Enchytraeidae)*** Microdriles (non- enchytraeids) in sodden, waterlogged, or wettish soil Megadriles (“true” earthworms) Total species (approximate) Counts (mean) m7? Biomass (range) gm? | Total known species % known ? 2 = 2,000-4,577 < 0.5%? 10'2 20-500 = 7,500 << 1%? (500+ several km hyphae) 20-500 = 80,000 0.5% 10° 6-30 1,500 8% 10° ? 300 ? 10° 1-30 25,000 "1.3%" ~ 1,200 << 50% 4 ? < 200 50% ~ 1,045 ? 6,300 ? 3,300 ? 10* 0.2-4 45,200 A% 104 0.2-4 ~ 9,000 17% <100,000 6,500 800 731 50-500 4.5 55,000+? 20%? 100-1,100 1.5-22.5 18,000 20% 200 700 < 1,800 <4 5,000 ? Colonies ? | 2,600 60%? ? ? 4,500 ? Colonies 2 13,000 50% es ? 24,000 40%? ? 2 830+ ? 2 % 4 2 50-5,000 20-500 10,000 20%? 1,000-300,000 1-53 ~ 700 ? ? ? 1,000-2,300? ? 50-4,875 20-500 ~ 7,000 < 20%? 315,500 << 1%? Table after Blakemore (2012: table 1, 2016: table 3) “from Brusaard et al. 1997; Wall and Moore 1999; Chapman 2009; Turbe et al. 2010: table 1; Fierer et al. 2007; Blakemore 2012; Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_biodiversity#cite_note-col201 6-5) and Pers. Obs.”. Fungal hyphae are from https://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/spi/soil-biodiversity/soil-organisms/by-type/ fungi/en/. *These taxa are especially revised upwards in the current study. ** Earthworms from Gobat et al. (2004: table 2.11, p. 42) of < 500 g m? (to depth?) wet wt. so approximately half for dry weight and a quarter of this for Carbon: ~ 125 g m*? C. Lee (1985: table 7) highest earthworms in NZ pastures (2,020 m*, 305 fresh g m? “from McColl and Lautour 1978”); Coupland and McDonald (2008) report Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) at 750—4,875 m?. An Earthworm ratio of < 20% known gives expected total (7,000 x 5 =) ~ 35,000 spp (as also in Fig. 4). *** Enchytraeid maxima from Cragg (1963: table 2), Springett (1967: fig. 24) at Moor House, UK; Lavelle and Spain (2001: 281) also reported < 93,600 m* at Point Barrow, Alaska. Regarding Table 1 data, it may be noted that higher organisms host many unique symbionts or parasites and, as for microbes, many specific viruses too. For earth- worms, Lee (1985: table 7) had highest numbers in NZ pastures (2,020 m? with 305 g m”), higher counts are for littoral Pontodrilus sp. in WA. Note too that a total number of megadrile earthworms was predicted at ~ 35,000 species. Earthworms are important, as is noted later, due to their activities that greatly enhance other soil biota/microbes. Regarded as superficial soil-dwellers, “Soil Gastropods” were ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 286 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota tabulated. However, viruses were only provisionally included as they fail to meet all criteria of independently living organisms, albeit they are included in several more recent biodiversity surveys. If such a line of argument for viruses were followed, then may not eukaryotic endosymbionts that only actively exist within host cells (Sagan 1967), with their unique genomes, be similarly added in biodiversity totals? Contemporaneous to CoSIl, a Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas (GBIF 2016: table 1) tallied 219,000 soil fauna/microbes while adding 350,700 vascular plants — on a premise plant seeds and roots are grounded in soil — raising totals to 667,000 soil taxa or roughly athird of all ~ 2 million species formally described as thattime (Fig. 4). At around the same time, a 10-year, $1 billion, Census of Marine Life (COML 2010) funded 2,700 researchers at 670 institutions from > 80 nations to con- clude a total of just ~ 230,000 Ocean taxa (or ~ 12% of the 2 million known species!). They claimed this was just one tenth of Ocean’s expected total of another two million species, hence a new Ocean Census project “launched” on 27 April 2023 to net the remainder. A similar 2011 Census of Deep Life (CoDL), a central pillar of the Deep Carbon Observatory (DCO - https://deepcarbon.sci- ence/), investigated diversity, distribution, and biogeography of obscure sub- surface biospheres having little relevance to evolution or extinctions. As argued in the current report, such expensive sub-marine projects distract funds and efforts from surveys of more crucial soil biota that are much less well- Organism size Group Known species Estimated species % described 7 000 000 - 70 000 000* 0.03 -0.5 % 1500 000-5 100000 1.9-6.5 % >1 000000 2. Known and estimated number of species of soil organisms and vascular plants organised according to size. Values of estimated diversity cornply with the published literature, and are supported by expert judgernent. Asterisks indicate numbers of species that live in the soil (updated from Barrios, Ecological Economics, 2007). [1,2] Figure 4. Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas (GBIF 2016) reporting ~ 667,000 soil biota or just about one third of known 2 mil- lion (much above Decaéns et al.’s (2006) 25% total!). Note that earthworms have 7,000 known and > 30,000 estimated species. Bacteria had 15,000 known species but estimated over one million (< 1.5% described). However, when microbes (excluding viruses) are properly considered and counted, as herein, soil unknowns are much higher (likely just < 0.0001% known at best). Vascular plants add ~ 400,000 species (cf. Anthony et al. 2023 with 466,000 angiosperm “Plantae’). ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 287 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota known and more endangered, extinctions being time critical. How is it justified to fund long-term abyssal taxonomy at $ millions per species while unknown soil taxa, that may be easily sampled in the field with a spade, are being extincted? Although primarily concerned with rapid advances in molecular analyses (“Omics”) revealing microbial diversity increased by several orders of magnitude (as detailed herein), lesser concerns are upping of counts for topographical ter- rain and delving into soils to full depth. However, unlike routine biotic surveys via planimetrically flat transect, plot, or quadrat, some surface-area independent inventories (e.g., of farm stocks or people) do not gain from realistic terrain extrapolation, neither do level waterlogged entities (e.g., lakes, mires, or bogs). In general, prior to 2018 almost all soil inventories were based upon unreal- istic, planimetrically flat land areas, thus true soil counts are likely more than doubled, and possibly quadrupled, when properly allowing for terrain and micro- topography overlays (Blakemore 2018b), reducing further the marine majority claims. Although such work shows Soil is clearly more crucial and diverse, due to lack of equable support or funding, less than 1% of its meso- and macro-fau- nal organisms are as yet unearthed (FAO 2020). Furthermore, only a tiny frac- tion of the enormous soil microbiome is identified, with the proportion of known soil microbiota likely much < 0.0001% (as per Blakemore 2023), thus most of the vast array of Soil Biota remain an unexplored mystery awaiting discovery. Moreover, rather just scratching the surface to cm or a metre deep, recent studies have mean depth-to-bedrock at 13.1 m plus friable saprock may add 8 m to total > 21 m soil depth (Shangguan et al. 2017: table 1; Hicks-Pries et al. 2023; Blakemore 2024). Consequently, most soil estimates, including those herein, may be an order of magnitude too low and hence the relative soil bio- mass and diversity values as in Fig. 5 (cf. Fig. 2) are most modest. This depen- dent upon estimates of full soil depth. a. BIOMASS - Carbon (half dry biomass) Gt C b. BIODIVERSITY - Millions of Species (Spp) m@ Below ground >100M Spp m Above ground >10M SPP @ Oceanic 2.0M Spp w Below ground >5K Gtc mw Above ground 1K GtC @ Oceanic 8-15? GtC @ Aquatic ~1 Gtc \ Figure 5. Global biomass (plus dormant/ necromass) and biodiversity in context of biome proportions (from Blakemore 2023 after https://vermecology.wordpress.com/2020/05/27/realms-of-the-soil/: fig. 2 and https://veop.files.wordpress. com/2022/09/new-addendum-file.pdf: fig. 4), being updated in the current report. In the figures above “below ground” or sub-surface refer to soil biotic activity related to surface productivity and not to the deeper subsurface biota. B Aquatic 0.2M Spp Extrapolation of soil sampled at just a few superficial centimetres or a metre, to allow for full depth (s 21 m as noted above) are not yet applied but in themselves may increase soil stocks by an order of magnitude. Rolando et al. (2021) found soil layers below 90 cm up to 5 m deep accounted for 80% biomass, while the 0-30 cm layer represented only 10% of total soil carbon (i.e., x 10 for > 30 cm). ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 288 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota A further distinction is definition of “deep subsurface” biota that source energy differently to subsoil species. Beaver and Neufeld (2024) state that there is no uni- versal depth that defines the terrestrial subsurface biome, previous publications having described “terrestrial subsurface as deeper than 8 m, and the deep terres- trial subsurface as deeper than 100 m.” For the purposes of their review, the deep terrestrial subsurface comprised of rocks and groundwater at least 100 m below the surface of the Continents. Bar-On et al. (2018) “define deep subsurface as the marine subseafloor sediment and the oceanic crust, as well as the terrestrial sub- stratum deeper than 8 m, excluding soil.” An important demarcation, although un- applied in the present review, is soil biotic biomass and biodiversity to whole mean depth of soil activity (or frozen in Permafrost), now globally averaged near 21 m. Soares et al. (2023) suggested 12-20% of Earth’s biomass exists in the terrestrial deep subsurface, compared to ~ 1.8% in the deep subseafloor, fur- ther confirming “terrestrial deep subsurface holds ca 5-fold more bacterial and archaeal biomass [thus, by proxy, biodiversity?] than the deep marine subsur- face.” Although the total Ocean biota is again diminished, this deep subsurface data is a much lesser concern in the current global review of Soil biota and is only briefly mentioned in passing. Abundance of biota relates to both its biomass (living, dead, or dormant forms) and its biodiversity species counts. Initially, a preliminary global micro- bial abundance estimated by Whitman et al. (1998: tabs 3-5) was 2.6 x 10? vs 1.2 x 10”? cells in Soils vs Aquatic (marine and freshwater) habitats, and 26.0 vs 2.2 Gt C biomass, respectively. This was an indicator that Soil clearly supports twice the Ocean biota, and ten times its biomass as an early realization that Soil likely supports > 50-90% of Life on Earth. Deep sub-surface microbiota, which are largely irrelevant to most active above-ground Earth processes, were 3.6 x 10°° vs 2.5 x 10°° cells in Oceanic vs Terrestrial sub-surfaces. However, revisions by Kallmeyer et al. (2012), Parkes et al. (2014), Magnabosco et al. (2018), and Hoshino et al. (2020) had just 3-5 x 107? vs 2-6 x 10” cells (bio- mass of ~ 4 vs 23-31 Gt C), respectively. A global tally of ~ 10°° cells was de- termined independently by Blakemore (2022, 2023), but for somewhat different proportions, for reasons as explained and briefly restated herein. Soil was shown with s 108 -10" cells/g dry weight or 1014 -10'° cells/t, there being 10° grams in a tonne. Biodiversity ranges were 10? -10° species/g or 10° -10'2 species/tonne of soil. Global topsoil was calculated as ~ 2.1 x 10% t to 1 m depth. Therefore, the total ranges were 2.1 x 1078 -10°? cells (median ~ 2.1 x 10°°) and 2.1 x 102? -107 soil species (median ~ 2.1 x 10%). Having a new mean soil depth of ~ 21 m would possibly increase these by an order of magnitude, but is not yet applied. Comparatively, Anthony et al.’s (2023) global species total (101°) is mid-range in the biodiversity of a single tonne of topsoil. Moreover, an equivalent to all the Oceans’ biodiversity may similarly be held in just a handful of fertile topsoil, or much less than a tonne, albeit, as a general “rule of thumb”, a dry tonne of topsoil occupies 0.65 cubic metres, a ground area of < 1 m’, or a small step for a man. Prior sources had determined: “species of bacteria per gram of soil vary be- tween 2,000 and 8.3 million” (Gans et al. 2005; Roesch et al. 2007) (= 10*-10° spp/g or 10'°-10"? spp/t that, if all unique taxa, is equivalent to twenty billion or up to a trillion species per topsoil tonne). Discrepancies in Gans et al. (2005) are samples of 10 g soil so strictly 0.83 x 10° spp/g, yet their fig. 4 shows total species ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 289 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota number computed as < 10’ thus a million or So spp per g seems correct. Raynaud and Nunan (2014) had: “a single gram of soil can harbour < 10° bacterial cells and an estimated species diversity of between 4 x 10° to 5 x 104 species” (= 10'4-10"° cells/t and 4 x 10°-5 x 10"° spp/t). Bickel and Or (2020) found: “bacterial phylo- types ranges between 102 and 10° per gram of soil, with high values similar to the diversity in all of earths environments” (= 108-10"? spp/t). James et al. (2022) summarized: “Soil microorganisms are the largest biodiversity pool on earth, with more than 10%° microbial cells [total surely!?], 10* -10° species, and nearly 1,000 Gbp of microbial genome per gram of soil”. Although fully extrapolated values from the cited reference sources are listed, only the median of the various value ranges are taken as reasonable summaries, these being presented herein. As already noted, using scaling values, Zhao et al. (2022) found: “Although the estimated total abundance of global airborne bacteria (1.72 x 10% cells) was 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than that of other habitats, such as soil (9.36 x 107° cells), freshwater (4.70 x 10*° cells), and marine (4.68 x 1078 cells) habitats, estimates of the bacterial richness of the atmosphere (4.71 x 108 to 3.08 x 10°) were comparable to those of the hydrosphere”. In other words, they confirm Soil at ~ 107° with twice as many microbial cells as the Ocean and, whereas their figure (Zhao et al. 2022: fig. 3A) shows a richness of > 10"' soil microbe OTUs, the Ocean or Freshwater and the Air each only have ~ 10'° taxa (< 10%). This translates as Soil housing ~ 90% of global biodiversity, as indeed May (1994) had intimated 30 years ago, before the scope of microbial megadiversity was realized as being so vast. For microbial diversity, recent developments of rapid genomic sequencing and bioinformatics (-omics) allow scaling values such as by Locey and Len- non (2016) to show Earth with ~ 10’? microbial OTU taxa (just 10'° or ~ 1% in global Ocean). These totals were soon raised to 10'2- 104 microbial taxa by Lennon and Locey (2020) and then by Fishman and Lennon (2022) who had “a soft upper constraint of 1027-107° due to neutral drift” for all taxa. Their upper boundary is increased by 20x for median species total in the current study and, regardless of scaling values, confirm Soil’s > 99.9% of global biodiversity, being almost entirely microbial. These authors’ soft upper constraint of 1072-23 taxa dispersed in 107°-*° soil cells is a ratio of one taxon per ~ 10° cells. Summarizing the microbial status, Zhao et al. (2022) said: “soil is the most microbiologically abundant (102°) and diverse (10'') environment on the Earth”. Although their cell count may be within bounds, their diversity — albeit ~ 10x greater than the Ocean's — is disproportionately low due to incomparability of Soil’s scaling ratio when compared to any of their other habitats (Fig. 6; Table 2) . Table 2 contextualizes a current estimate of 2.1 x 10% soil taxa as 99.99% of a global total. Species values presented herein (e.g., Fig. 6, Table 2) may be con- trasted to microbial Spp/OTU counts in Anthony et al. (2023: table 1), arranged in a slightly revised format for better clarity of comparison, as shown in Table 3. Deep carbon data are of less practical concern to the current study on Land and Soil carbon stocks and cycles, although they again highlight defi- ciency of Ocean's excessively claimed biota at all scales and at all depths, almost all being downgraded in subsequent reviews. Anthony et al. (2023: fig. 2) confirm Bacteria richness < 90%, proving their dominance in Soil (Fig. 7) but are mistaken for Oligochaeta, as Earthworms are truly higher with 99% soil occupancy which as is discussed further in the review section below. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 290 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota 15 -- Richness-abundance scaling relationship, S = 7.6N°™ @09q Predicted S via lognormal, published NV and NV... @%o Predicted S via lognormal, published N, N._. = 0.4N" = 7.6 x N0.35 S=7.6*N™, r =0.38 97/12 = 10 o£ = Global Ocean ii ‘FG 4 Bi 3 8 : 10 o - ce) Cow Rumen 3 9 me 4 8 8 2g 3 = Human Gut ° = 6 © 3 g g 3 c ac 2 = S16 = 6 5 10 15 20 25 30 200) 24 28 32 Number of reads or total abundance, /og,, Number of reads or total abundance, log,, Figure 6. Relative microbial abundance vs diversity after Locey and Lennon (2016: fig. 3), and Zhao et al. (2022: fig. 3A) who added wastewater, air, freshwater, and soil. The Ocean has < 1% of global biodiversity, barely above freshwater or air, and less than the human gut biome! The soil microbiome is revised upwards in Table 2 as its abundance vs richness apogee peak is more extensive than any other major (or minor) habitat. Table 2. Prokaryote proportional counts and biomass in Earth’s six major ecological Realms-of-Life. Ecological realm Cells/CFUs x 1078 (%) * Species/OTUs (%) * Biomass Gt C (%) 1 Soil * 210 (56%) 2.1 x 10% (99.99%) ~ 209.6 (56%) 2 Land superficial ** 100 (27%) 10’? (< 0.001%) ~ 100? (27%?) 3a Land subsurface *** ~ 20-60 (11%) < 108 ~ 23-31 (7%) 3b Marine subsurface *** ~ 2.9-35 (4%) < 10° < 35 (9.3%) 4 Ocean ** 12 (3%) 10"? (< 0.0001%) 0.6-2.2 (0.5%) 5 Aquatic on Land ** < 0.02 (< 0.005%) < 10'° (< 0.0001%) 0.3? (< 0.1%?) 6 Atmosphere **** (10%) (10°=1.07°) ? (< 0.0001%7) TOTAL ~ 378 x 1078 (100%) ~ 2.1 x 10% (100%) ~ 373 (100%)? * Data from Blakemore (2022, 2023: table 2) greatly modified from Whitman et al. (1998: table 5). Fishman and Lennon (2022) had: “bacterial and archaeal taxa S....,, is between 10° and 10%"; at ~ 2.1 x 10 soil taxa their upper value is increased by twenty times (Blakemore 2022). CFUs = Colony Forming Units (microbial), OTUs = Operational Taxonomic Units (genetic). Soil microbial biomass is updated to 209.6 in Appendix 1. ** Data extrapolated from Zhao et al. (2022: fig. 3A), Locey and Lennon (2016: fig. 3), Lennon and Locey (2020), and Whitman et al. (1998) who had aquatic habitats, mainly Ocean, with 0.6—2.2. Gt C (just 0.15-0.55%). Grosberg et al. (2012) estimated aquatic habitats occupying ~ 1-2% of land area (now halved to 0.8% due to terrain!) have one-third of the Ocean's biodiversity (and hence likely one-third of its biomass?). *** Revision of subsurface by Kallmeyer et al. (2012), McMahon and Parnell (2013: table 3), Magnabosco et al. (2018: fig. S23), Bar-On et al. (2018), Hoshino et al. (2020), Blakemore (2022, 2023), Soares et al. (2023). **** Total 10° cells/m® to 1 km altitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroplankton) gives 10” cells (> 10'° spp?); however, microbes, including Bacteria and Fungi, have been detected in the atmosphere at high altitudes making the atmosphere the Earth’s largest biome — much greater than was claimed for the Ocean. Contrary to such Ocean claims, Whitman et al. (1998) said: “By volume, the atmosphere represents the largest compartment of the biosphere, and prokaryotes have been detected at altitudes as high as 57-77 km”. Zhao et al. (2022) support these earlier contentions: “While the total abundance of global airborne bacteria in the troposphere (1.72 x 10% cells) is 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than that of other habitats, the number of bacterial taxa (i.e., richness) in the atmosphere (4.71 x 108 to 3.08 x 10°) is comparable to that in the hydrosphere”. Naturally, many Aeroplankton taxa are shared with the Phytoplankton and Phytomenon. Zhao et al. (2022: fig. 3A) (Fig. 6) also show a human gut biome has greater biodiversity than all the hydrosphere (the realization of which many marine or freshwater researchers may find particularly difficult to stomach). As already noted, aquatic or deep sub-surface biota are of less practical concern to the current study on Land and Soil organisms, although they again highlight deficiency of Ocean's excessively claimed biota at all scales and at all depths, almost all being downgraded in subsequent reviews supporting the need for a “sea change” of appreciation and much increased support for soils. ZooKkeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 291 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Table 3. Species (Spp/OTU) biodiversity key values re-formatted from Anthony et al. (2023: table 1). Biodiversity spp/OTUs * Lower x 10° Central x 10° Upper x 10° EARTH “Phage” 1.000 1,000.0 3,700 Microbe total ** 0.067 10.1 10,000-1,000,000 (Microbe just Bacteria) | (0.044) (10.0) (37) Earth total 1.10 1,010.1 3,740 *** Earth non-Phage total 0.100 10.1 40 Earth non-Phage, non-Bacteria ND 0.1 ND SOIL “Phage” 0.056 99.0 1,590 Microbe total ** 0.060 A: ARES “2 (Microbe just Bacteria) (0.010) (4.3) (33) Soil total 0.095 104.0 1,620 Soil non-Phage 0.039 5.0 30 Soil non-Phage, non-Bacteria ND 0.7 ND % Soil vs Earth totals Totals 8.0% 10.3% 43.3% Totals non-Phage 39.0% 50.0% 75.0% Totals non-Phage, non-Bacteria ND [-86%!] ND *10° is 100,000,000 species (Spp) or operational taxonomic units (OTUs). ** Microbe totals are for “bacteria, archaea, and fungi”, but the non-Bacteria values are seemingly erroneous as Soil (0.7) has more than all Earth (0.1). *** Upper value “3.74 x 10"’” ignores Microbes with “10'2"4” taxa. **** Cf. Zhao et al. (2022) have > 10" for soil and > 10’? for Earth, and Blakemore (2022, 2023) has total microbes 2.1 x 104 (cf. Table 2) plus total global viral/phage count (as presented herein) of < 107° taxa, found mainly in Soil (see text for details). Mammalia Archaea Phage Mollusca Insecta Arthropoda Protist Nematoda Arachnida Richness estimate Bacteria ® Lower Formicidae ® Central Oligochaeta ® Upper Collembola Diplopoda Isoptera Plantae Fungi Enchytraeidae Global (including phage) Global (no phage) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Share of species in soil (%) Figure 7. Unsystematically selected taxonomic groups in Anthony et al.’s (2023: fig. 2) (cf. Table 1) appear to show Bacte- ria’s Upper dominance at > 90% in both Soil and “Global (no phage)” totals but, strangely, they omit Megadrile earthworms being > 99% resident in soils, as their name would suggest and as restated below. Comparatively, their Enchytraeidae, according to Martin et al. (2008), are < 47% terrestrial, not 99%! ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 292 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Materials and methods The intention of this review is to compile and compare recent Soil Biota studies by Blakemore (2022, 2023) with Anthony et al. (2023). In the last few decades, the advent of high-throughput DNA amplicon sequencing and rapid genetic analyses (-omics) has revealed the complete dominance of microbes in biotic tallies, especially in soils, and a need for realistic bio- diversity estimation from projections of their unknown and undescribed components. Realizing our ignorance of soil microbes exposes a stark dis- parity: Most accounts of global richness reflect historic intensity of study rather than relativistic estimates due to irrational fact of overwhelmingly re- search effort and funding directed into Aquatic, Oceanic or Space research (e.g., NASA, JAMSTEC, NOAA, Scripps, Woods Hole, https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_oceanographic_institutions_and_programs), not Soil. The International Union of Soil Sciences (https://www.iuss.org/) does not list any dedicated institute. The summary of progress in relative soil biodiversity studies, as introduced above, is further reviewed and where necessary corrected, mostly for microbe counts but also to allow for terrain (after Blakemore 2018b). Factoring soil depth may further double numeric values if not exponentials. In addition, several omissions and uncertainties (“?”) from various published sources are Clarified. Body of review Regarding Anthony et al. (2023) soil enumeration values questioned with “?” For Mammalia, Anthony et al. (2023: table 1) had Lower to Median ranges with 75-250 soil species, yet their Upper range was marked “?”. Although relatively unimportant, a nominal value in Decaéns et al. (2006: fig. 2) of < 1,000 soil mammals may be a reasonable estimate for this well-known fauna. However, Anthony et al. (2023) define soil species as “those that live within, on (e.g., insects that feed on the surface of soil), or which complete any part of their life cycle in soil (e.g., organisms with an inactive pupal stage in soil or plant seeds that germinate in soil) or in the tissues of soil- dwelling symbionts (e.g., microbial parasites of soil animals).” Hence, it may be moot to extend inclusion to almost all terrestrial mammals (except, perhaps, some wholly arboreal or semi-aquatic species) that live or feed on soil (or end their life cycle often buried, inhumed, or interred therein!), e.g., Homo. Secondarily, encompassing of many (most?) insects within the definition of soil species adds to an argument for the inclusion of Larsen et al. (2017) insect parasites or pathogens as part of Soil Biota. Other groups in need of more pertinent “?” clarification are presented in sequential order below. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 293 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Regarding Annelida: Oligochaeta (true earthworms and their lesser relatives) Anthony et al. (2023: table 1) have “?” questioning a possible Upper range of their Oligochaeta which is surprising since they cite the “Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas” (GBIF 2016 - https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/public_path/shared_folder/Atlases/ JRC_global_soilbio_atlas_low_res-2019-06-13.pdf) that states: “Earthworms be- long to the phylum Annelida (class Clitellata, subclass Oligochaeta). The Oligochae- ta contain 10 400-11 200 species in approximately 800 genera, and 38 families comprised of approximately 7 000 true earthworms.” They seem to have missed the subsequent statement: “Although 7 000 ‘true’ earthworms (in 20 families) have been described to date, the total is probably around 30 000 species globally”. This is clearly shown in the GBIF (2016: table data) that is reproduced here in Fig. 4. Phylum Annelida includes Classes Oligochaeta (earthworms), Polychaeta (marine worms) and, erstwhile, Hirudinea (sanguinivorous or predatory leeches). Due to an inordinate amount of funding for marine research, ~ 13,000 polychaeta are now reported, but only ~ 8,000 are considered valid taxa; similar synonym statistics apply to earthworms but, due to their high endemicity and Soil’s het- erogeneity, their unknowns are legion. The Oligochaeta comprises mainly soil dwelling Order Megadrilacea from Benham (1890) — the “true” earthworms — and his Microdrilacea for smaller, mainly aquatic worms. Strangely, in Anthony et al. (2023: table 1) their “Oligochaeta” has between 5,000-10,000 total taxa (appar- ently sourced from Martin et al. 2008 and a GBIF Checklist) and they further claim 3,300-6,000 Oligochaeta in soil (from Martin et al. 2008 and Decaéns et al. 2006). Contrary to Anthony et al. (2023: fig. 2) (see Fig. 7), Martin et al. clearly stated: “Most microdriles are fully aquatic, with the exception of the Enchytraeidae, a family that is primarily terrestrial; of the 650 described species, 200 are aquatic and 150 marine”, or primarily > 52% aquatic! These relative figures are treated in further detail below as it is important for facts to be both current and correct. Martin et al. (2008: table 1) did indeed claim only 5,000 valid species of Oligo- chaeta s. stricto and said 4 of the 14 megadrile families (in actuality six of twenty families) have aquatic or semi-aquatic species (or, for Pontodrilus spp., littoral). They further state that “No fewer than 60 species of megadriles are also considered aquatic” and list total aquatics {in squiggly braces} in these stated genera as: Almi- dae {41 spp.}, Criodrilidae {2}, Lutodrilidae {1}, Spoarganophilidae {14}, plus several Lumbricidae claimed to be frequently found in aquatic situations (although this may be questioned as it is often adventitious rather than fixed). Surprisingly they omit other megadrile genera with aquatic species such as Megascolecidae (e.g., a few in NZ lakes) and Pontodrilidae {2 spp.} that is wholly littoral. This biodiversity data requires updating since at least 7,000 truly megadrile taxa are currently described (see Blakemore 2000, 2008, 2016), and whereas names are continually added the more we search and discover, probably less than 20-30% of all species are known, as found by Lee (1959) in New Zealand (cf. Glasby et al. 2009; Blakemore 2011), and by Blakemore (2000) in Tasmania. Numbers of synonyms are un-estimated while likely cryptic species need clarification. If their relative proportions hold true, as Blakemore (2022) suggested, then the average of six cryptics per morphologi- cally described arthropod taxon as in Larsen et al. (2017: table S1) quite counter- balance the ~ 18% eukaryote synonyms that were estimated by Mora et al. (2011). ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 294 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Anthony et al.’s (2023) preliminary research also overlooked Australian ABRS (2009) global summary with: “7,684 Oligochaeta from Blakemore (2008 and pers. comm.)” and around 30,000 total anticipated global species. As Blake- more (2013) explained, hierarchical classification of true earthworms is: An- nelida Lamarck, 1802; Oligochaeta Grube, 1850; Megadrilacea Benham, 1890 with ~ 20 or so families including Moniligastridae, Ocnerodrilidae, Acanthodril- idae, Exxidae, Octochaetidae, Megascolecidae, Lumbricidae and Eudrilidae (all sensu Blakemore 2000). Thus, Megadriles have ~ 7,000 known species (with cryptics cancelling synonyms?) compared to mainly aquatic Microdrilacea, composing around 2,300 spp. (Table 1) plus a quite minor microdrile family that these authors — for some unsystematic reason — gave great import: Viz. Enchytraeidae with only around 700 species. Whereas Anthony et al. (2023) claim this family is the most wholly soil-dwelling group with “98.6%” terres- trial members, this is misconstrued as the majority of this Microdrile family is fully- or semi-aquatic; being small, pale and relatively ineffective. Microdrile researchers are classed as aquatic workers, rather than true soil-based, Mega- drile eco-taxonomists, consequently they too appear to enjoy greater support and funding for seemingly obscure reasons. A summary of relative abundance and biodiversity of these Oligochaeta is compiled in Appendix 1. Another source is Garcia-Rosell6é et al. (2023: table 1) GBIF database of An- nelida: Clitellata with only 8,000 total species but which falsely claims 13.6% are Marine. In comparison, Anthony et al. (2023) strangely state: “Annelids, including the Enchytraeidae and Oligochaeta, with the lowest overall biodiversity but high specializations to soil. We estimate that there are 7.8 x 10? and 1 x 10° Enchy- traeidae and Oligochaeta species and that 98.6 + 0.06% and 63 + 4.2% of species live in soil, respectively.” We may graciously accept this in part as a typing error since the most basic of research reports frequently cite over ~ 7,000 described Megadrile Oligochaeta alone, not just 1,000. Moreover, rather than just 63%, a majority of Megadrile Oligochaeta being wholly soil dwellers is closer to > 99%, as the name, ‘Earthworm’, suggests (cf. Fig. 7). Although obvious, this is restated. Thus — contrary to Anthony et al.’s (2023) indication — most of the true earth- worm families are terrestrial and nearly 100% resident in soils. Martin et al. (2008) citation of 60 wholly aquatic megadriles may be a reasonable number, that — in a megadrile group of ~ 7,000 taxa — is < 1% making them one of the most specialized of committed soil residents. Other candidates such as the termites or ants are insects living in colonies with winged stages (almost liken to soil “tourists”), thus not as highly endemic nor as specialized as earthworms are. Other taxa such as hexapod Collembola or Acarid mites are typically su- perficial soil/litter dwellers and depend upon earthworm burrows for their soil ingress. There are several others of less populous soil faunal and floral groups that may also have 100% edaphological species. For instance, components of the ubiquitous superficial cryptogamic Biocrust or extensive Phytomenon that, as well as being most ancient flora, may rival marine Phytoplankton for abun- dance, diversity, as well as for NPP productivity (Blakemore 2024). Phytomenon is a recent term for microscopic “plants” that abide, as is ap- propriate for terrestrial single-celled autotrophs, compared with the marine or aquatic Phytoplankton (“plants” that drift) or the Aeroplankton (aerial floating microbes) as noted already (see Blakemore 2019, 2023, 2024). ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 295 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Regarding soil Bacteria (plus Archaea) Anthony et al. (2023: table 1) had Bacteria included within their Microbes often marked with a “?”. Global biodiversity is now dominated by Bacteria within the Soil Realm, as Blakemore (2022) showed, with new totals of ~ 2.1 x 10% taxa in ~ 2.1 x 10° cells indicating that one species, or operational taxonomic unit (OTUs), exists for around each 10° cells. In this review a justified argument is that a unique taxon per million cells is reasonably applicable. As there is no central registry — nor yet a dedicated Soil Ecology Institute — diversity data compiled from diverse sources are updated or corrected as necessary in peri- odic reviews, such as this present contribution. In Norway, Torsvik et al. (1990) had found ~ 1.5 x 10"° bacteria cells per gramme of dry forest soil distributed among 4,000 clones with standard genome sizes; a mean number was ~ 4 x 10° bacteria per clone per g of dry soil. This in- dicated soil bacterial populations comprise many genetically separate clones, with a mean of around ~ 3.75 clones per million cells. This local data suggests more than one species/OTU per million cells is a reasonable approximation. Worldwide, Roesch et al. (2007) estimated mean microbial populations limited to ~ 1 billion cells per g of soil (10° cells/g) comprising 10°-10° Bacteria/Archaea species, or at least one and up to as many as one thou- sand species per million cells(!). They also found 2,000—10,000 species per gramme of soil were underestimates. Therefore, an extrapolated mean may be closer to 10° spp/g (per 10° cells/g), suggesting an average nearer to 100 Bacteria/Archaea species per million cells. As early as 2008, Fulthorpe et al. (2008) had determined that < 87.9% of Bacteria were unique to the soil they were sampled in, and only 1.5% were common to all soils across a large transect of American continents. The same does not hold for the Ocean that is much more homogenous, with intermixing biota widely dispersed. This was clearly shown by Louca (2022: figs 1, 2) with soil habitats four or more orders of magnitude more diverse than marine (etc.) habitats over shorter distances. Dispersal was slowest for terrestrial sub-surfaces, indicating mostly soil environments acting as “isolated islands” of endemic microbial evolution. His “hot-spring” data is interesting as, contrary to claims for Marine origin, most current information point to these being the font of all Life, consistent with Darwin’s prescient “Warm little pond” theory of Origin (e.g., Damer 2016). Whereas Larsen et al. (2017) proposed a new Pie of Life projected for > 1-6 billion (10°"°) species on Earth dominated by Bacteria (~ 70-90% of to- tal) which they mainly considered just for insect hosts, Bahram et al. (2018) concluded Soil as Earth's most diverse biome but failed to give figures. For estimates of around 3 x 10”? cells in soils, Flemming and Wuertz (2019), as for Bar-On et al. (2018), also give no species data. Subsequently, Louca et al. (2018, 2019) claimed only “2.2-4.3 million full-length OTUs worldwide” (3 x 10°) refuting predictions that billions or trillions of prokaryotic OTUs exist. Yet Wiens (2023) explained how Louca et al. (2019) had made entirely avoidable underestimation errors whilst also revising Larsen et al.’s (2017) projected 1-6 billion estimate downwards to a modest 0.183 to 4.2 billion (10° -°) species with 58-88% Bacteria, but again most of these in insect hosts rather than in the much more diverse and extensive Soil habitat. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 296 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Conversely, Raynaud and Nunan (2014) said: “The application of novel mo- lecular techniques (such as high throughput sequencing) during the past two decades has uncovered a phenomenal bacterial diversity in soils.” They quoted “a single gram of soil can harbour up to 10”° bacterial cells and an estimated spe- cies diversity of between 4-x 10? to 5:x 10% species”. But they also noted “when bacterial density is 10° cells g"' or less. a= 1107.53 corresponds to a species rich- ness of 15000 species for 10° cells whereas a=264.79 corresponds to a species richness of 4010 species for the same number of cells.” This higher diversity of 4-15 species per million cells is medial to a range estimated earlier of an aver- age one to 100 bacterial species per million cells in Soil as noted above. At a trans-European transect scale, Plassart et al. (2019) extracted 3 x 10° 16S rRNA sequences from 71 x 1 g (dry?) soil samples, detecting a total of 34,190 OTUs ranging from 653 to 1,860 (mean: 1,307) OTUs/g. This ~ 10° taxa/g is low to midrange of totals as given elsewhere, possibly due to the methods, soils, or the local climate. Their rarefaction curves of bacterial OTUs followed a logarithmic model without reaching a rarity plateau. Higher richness estimates of between 590 and 100,000 species per gram (102-5 OTUs/g) for similar 16S rRNA PCR sequences were reported by Schloss and Handelsman (2006), their lower range from a remote, presumably wintery, Scottish soil. In harsh Alpine biomes, Adamczyk et al. (2019) still extracted an average of 1.7 x 10* OTUs per 250 mg sample (thus about 6.8 x 104 OTUs per g?), just a quarter fungal, and they also determined that soil acidity and elevation were the most deleterious variables in these extreme habitats. Regarding rarity of soil species, Bickel and Or (2020) had most bacterial species classified as rare (99.6%) and these made up ~ 42% of a global relative abundance, they concluded: “The complex structure of soil pores offers numerous refugia for hosting diverse bacterial species. This wide range of microhabitats is particularly important for maintaining the rare components of the soil microbiome’”. From their global microbial biodiversity of ~ 10,000 OTUs per g dry soil, since Soil harbors ~ 10'° cells per g, and these are mostly Bacteria/Archaea, this supports a reasonable average of around one OTU/species per million cells in Soil. Q.E.D. Recently, Jia et al. (2022) and Sun et al. (2023) confirmed in quite local sam- ples what Fulthorpe et al. (2008) found for trans-continental soils, with rare or unique bacteria being 90-98% while only a minority of species were common. This supports high Soil biodiversity at sample to Continent scale. Soils naturally include aroot-zone Rhizosphere: “the mostdiverse microbiomes on Earth, containing up to 10"' microbial cells and ~ 30,000 bacterial species per gram of root. The rhizosphere microbiome exists through an interwoven tapestry of bac- teria, viruses, archaea, protists, fungi, nematodes, and small arthropods interacting directly with plant roots and each other” (White et al. 2021). McNear (2013) found 10'° -10'? cells per gramme of rhizosphere, endorsing 10" cells/g as a reasonable, but higher, median count in this rich soil microhabitat compared to the Soil environs. Almost all the studies above are consistent with Blakemore (2022) determin- ing a modest one species per million cells (viz. 2.1 x 1074 species in 2.1 x 10%° cells in Soil globally). However, as noted, underestimations may be one or more orders of magnitude, so all values are approximate. The wide uncertainty range of 107? -1076 total species (median ~ 2.1 x 10%) within 1078 —10% cells (medi- an ~ 2.1 x 108°) shown in this report is commensurate with previous estima- tions; compared to Fishman and Lennon (2022) the increase is around 20-fold. ZooKkeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 297 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota This is compliant with Bar-On et al. (2018) who had a 10-fold margin of error in their microbial estimations and a 32-fold error factor for viruses. Fungal rarity ratios, when simultaneously studied, appear comparable with those for Bacteria, albeit fungal biodiversity, also mainly in soil, is often less by varying factorials (e.g., Labouyrie et al. 2023). More support for higher Soil Bacteria diversity, both relative and compared to in any other habitat, are indicated by local and global Virus to Bacteria (VtB) ratios which will now be discussed further. Scaling the Virome — Virus-Like Particles (VLPs) and Virus to Bacteria (VtB) ratios A virion is an infectious virus particle, while a virus-like particle (VLP) is a non-in- fectious nanostructure that mimics a virion, but often these terms are used in- terchangeably. “Phage” is used informally for a bacteriophage that infects and replicates within Bacteria or Archaea, often a synecdochal term for all viruses, not strictly correct thus only quoted and not self-applied in this review. Virus to Microbe (VTM), Virus-Bacteria Ratio (VBR) or Virus to Bacteria Ratio are also interchangeable expressions; hereafter only the latter (VtB) is used. Tabulated VtB ratios are presented in Appendix 2, revised for microbial counts in Blakemore (2022, 2023), to give a global total of ~ 5.1 x 10°’ VLPs with ~ 4.1 x 108' (~ 80%) virions in soils (to partial depth). This updates the soil virus value, allowing for non-ice and non-desert terrain, that Blakemore (2022) con- cluded to 1 m depth of ~ 2.1 x 10*° virions, based upon Bar-On et al.’s (2018: 55) summary they accepted had a 32-fold uncertainty. An indication of these uncer- tainties is from new soil virus data provided in 2023 (https://web.archive.org/ web/20220301082457/https://www.soilviral.com/) having: “1 billion viruses g", that if calculated over the whole globe amounts to about 4.9 x 10°" soil viruses”. Doubled for terrain, this is ~ 1 x 10°? as anew upper value in a range, now of 10?'- 10° VLPs. A mean value of around 5 x 10°" global total virions on Earth is then a reasonable compromise, which why this value is quoted in the Abstract above. Virus to Microbe/Bacteria Ratios (VtBs) of Virus-Like Particles (VLPs) interlink (as shown in Appendix 2) indicating likely ranges of both abundance and diver- sity acting as mutual cross-checks on relative abundance and diversity summa- ries. Wide ranging VtB estimations, pertinent for soil, mostly vary around 10:1 to 100:1. Emerson (2019) summarized how abundant and important viruses are in the Soil compared to in the Sea. A plausible summary is that viruses are most abundant in Soil and at least ten times, but often < 100 times (or more?), as rich as the Bacteria, their primary hosts, in terms of both abundance and biodiversity. Conversely, a few studies show a V%B ratio around 1:1 suggesting both be raised to 107° species? From Blakemore (2023), since both global and Soil alone bacterial biodiversity are in the order of 2 x 1074, then virus diversity may range from at least as many up to 107°-10*° total Soil viral species. Meanwhile, Anthony et al. (2023) in a Supplementary file had an intermediate value of 1,000 “Phage” species per bacterial species. They said: “Using the upper estimate of bacterial diversity (3.7 x 10°) and a ratio of 1000:1, we predicted the upper and lower ranges of viral diversity.” Despite this, they appear not to have ap- plied it to their table 1 having just 3.7 x 10" global “Phages” rather than 3.7 x 10" species as they intimated. This again indicates their report needs a through review. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 298 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Review of Soil abundance enumerations An upper diversity “Phage” value in Anthony et al. (2023: table 1) of 3.7 x 101’ species is well below current estimates about 10% viral varieties found mainly in soils. However, viruses are excluded from strict biodiversity as- says by failing to conform as free-living and independent entities according to most definitions of the entities of Life with all their attributes and, often mutual, relationships. Prior to 2022, an oft-repeated claim that soils support 25% of global biota was seemingly attributable to Decaéns et al. (2006: figs 1, 2) that had: “A rapid survey of invertebrate and vertebrate groups reveals that at least 1/4 [i.e., 25%] of described living species are strictly soil or litter dwellers, the main part of which is insects and arachnids (Fig. 1)”. [Fig. 1]. Note that key Soil microbes and fungi are entirely ignored. Since those authors’ data had total described species numbering ~ 1,500,000, their soils would presumably total just 375,000 species (they show with an unrealistically low < 5% Bacteria, viruses, and Fun- gi within this total, or ~ 18,750 microbial taxa?). Of ~ 360,000 soil animals in Decaéns et al. (2006: fig. 2), only 1% “Annelida” is shown, presumably 3,600 earthworm species, a wide underestimation, approximately half the true count of described species as known at that time. Because Anthony et al. (2023) overlooked key studies (not least by Benton 2001; Williamson et al. 2017; Bickel and Or 2020; Blakemore 2018b, 2022, and Zhao et al. 2022) also ignoring GBIF (2016), they implied Decaéns et al. (2006) was the only previous work on soil biodiversity. Thus, Anthony et al. (2023) improperly conceded that, rather than 25% as claimed by soil “experts”, soils held 59% (stated as: “an average of 58.5% of life inhabits soil” and “considering most life on Earth together, the average proportion of species in soil across all three estimates (lower, central, and upper) is 58.5 + 14.7%, excluding phage [sic]”), i.e., with a range of 44-74% of global biodiversity. This conclusion is nonetheless unsupported in their table 1 data with Earth’s 1.01 x 10" and Soil’s 1.04 x 10'° of species that is ~ 10% (as in Table 3), mainly composed of “Phages”, which their figures show total 1 x 10’ species with 9.9 x 10° (or implausibly just 9.9% of viruses!) in their soils. “Phages”, if excluded from their totals, give Earth and Soil taxa values of non-Phage biota of 1 x 10° and 0.5 x 10°, respectively, or with ~ 50% biota in soil. This value, of 500 million soil species, is orders of magnitude lower than values of 10"' soil microbes (mainly Bacteria) reported by Zhao et al. (2022), < 1073 in Fishman and Lennon (2022), and 2.1 x 1074 taxa (almost all Bacteria) in Blakemore (2022, 2023). These latter studies reasonably exclude viruses which are difficult to accommodate within most definitions of true living entities, as has already been remarked on and adhered to herein. In summary, of their 1.04 x 10'° soil species, just 500 million would be non-Phages but, of these, seemingly 4.4 x 10° are “Microbes” composed main- ly of 4.3 x 10° “Bacteria”. Subtracted from 5.0 x 108 non-Phage soil species, implies there are ~ 0.7 x 10° or 70 million non-Phage, non-Bacterial species anticipated in their mean soil taxa total. Discrepancy in their table is that this figure appears to be higher than Earth's total 0.1 x 10° or 10 million non-Phage, non-Bacterial species! Such issues indicate a need for self-correction quality controls, possibly acknowledged correction or retraction. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 299 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Restating conclusions as herein, Zhao et al. (2022) reasoned that “soil is the most microbiologically abundant ( 102°) and diverse (1 10") environment on the Earth”, however, this data was updated in Blakemore (2022, 2023) to an abundance of 2.1 x 10°%° cells and 2.1 x 10% soil taxa both comparing poorly with Anthony et al.’s (2023) central value of just 1.04 x 10° total soil taxa. Dif- fering by a factor of two and an order of x 10%, or a hundred trillion times, this disparity needs remedy in properly directed Soil research as an urgent priority if a dedicated Soil Ecology Institute emerges. Resolution of shortcomings continues, as Wiens (2023) pointed out: “Mora and colleagues estimated approximately 10,000 bacterial species (roughly the number of described species). They acknowledged that these projections were likely underestimates. Yet, prokaryotes may be a major driver of Earth’s overall species richness. Recent studies have estimated a staggering range of species numbers for bacteria, from low millions to hundreds of millions, to low trillions. All were based on extrapolations from molecular studies.” He continued: “Clear- ly, controversies about global biodiversity cannot be resolved without better re- solving bacterial richness”. Accepting that this is still a young and growing area of research, | wholeheartedly concur, adding that Soil is foundational. Context of Soil species extinctions As biodiversity estimates climb, actual on-the-ground species decline due to rapidly increasing extinctions, up to 100-1,000 x above expected rates from IPBES (2019: fig. SMP3) of: “background rate of 0.1-2 extinctions per million species per year”. However, IPBES lacks both “Context and Triage”, thereby losing credibility, appearing to give equal status to Land:Sea:Freshwater when in factual reality these respectively provide 99.9:0.1:0.0% to biodiversity (or to humanity's thriving). Extinction is a large, complex topic, but some key refer- ences are E.O. Wilson's (1992) prediction from rain forests of 27,000 extinc- tions per year (74 per day) and IPBES (2019) reportedly having a rate < 200 species lost per day, mainly on land, and mainly for larger, charismatic taxa rather than the 99% of lesser, understudied invertebrates (so true base rate may be 100 x higher at 20,000 per day?). Albeit soil faunal lists grow exponentially, our soils are being subjected to severe and accelerating destruction from erosion, desertification, chemical poi- soning, capping, and rapidly increasing soil acidity — a critical global issue that is mostly ignored (cf. Raza et al. 2021; Zamanian et al. 2021). Soil loss inevita- bly results in silent species loss, mostly of microbes that are most dominant in soils (as this report indicates), but also of more obvious soil macrobes (e.g., Veresoglou et al. 2015), and specifically of earthworms (Blakemore 201 8a) that in this regard are also remarkably understudied. In the context of soil losses, no wholly marine mammal, shark/ray, fish nor coral is confirmed extinct in the last 250 years (Vermeij 1993), and nary a poly- chaete marine worm either (https://recentlyextinctspecies.com/databases/ annelids). Freshwater losses have occurred, but the biodiversity of this biome is relatively minor and these almost always relate to the surrounding soils. The next section measures the magnitude of macrobe losses, with terrestrial Gas- tropoda (e.g., slugs or snails) as a useful model for proportionate extrapolation to the specifics of earthworm extinctions. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 300 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Earthworm extinction losses An extinction website (https://web.archive.org/web/20230718152549/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_invertebrates) cat- alogues just three Annelida (earthworms), one each from Tasmania, NZ and Japan (each surveyed, evaluated and reported by myself, as per Blake- more 2018a), against 25 better-studied Arachnids (spiders). For terrestrial Mollusca gastropods (snails and slugs) their link (https://web.archive.org/ web/202404061 71442/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_ex- tinct_molluscs) has a higher total of about 428 extinct taxa. Compared to earthworms, some confounding factors are approximately an equal num- ber of molluscs are marine or aquatic (although no wholly marine snail, nor worm, is confirmed as extinct in the last 250 years since Linnaeus’ Volume 1), while only a few earthworms are littoral or aquatic (~ 60 as remarked on earlier), thus land-based taxa approximations may be reasonably commen- surate. Published extinction reports are presumably verifiable, whereas true extinction totals may be much higher since only a proportion of existing species are known, fewer evalutated. For earthworms, ~ 7,000 species are described with 30,000-35,000 total taxa expected; this corresponds well with terrestrial gastropods having a higher proportion of ~ 24,000 known species, but estimated total also around 35,000 species (Barker 2001). Although gastropods as mostly superficial feeders are provisionally exclud- ed from some soil fauna lists, they are like earthworms in two respects: They are wingless, thus are often highly endemic, plus the predicted total numbers of their taxa are on par. This is important because the better known and re- searched molluscs have published extinctions of ~ 400 species which may reasonably be applied to earthworms if their researchers had the same level of support as do Malacologists. Seemingly, due to such research disparities, ~ 42% of all studied and reported animal extinctions have occurred within this popular gastropod group (Lydeard et al. 2004). Economic arguments that mol- luscs attack plants are nullified by primal and proven enhancement of vegeta- tion or crops due to earthworm activities. How supportable is a > 400 earthworm species extinct estimate? Régnier et al. (2015) said: “Using data on terrestrial invertebrates, this study esti- mates that we may already have lost 7% of the [described living] species on Earth and that the biodiversity crisis is real.” And using this datum, Cardoso et al. (2020) stated: “However, it is likely that insect extinctions since the industrial era are around 5 to 10%, i.e. 250,000 to 500,000 species, based on estimates of 7% extinctions for land snails (Régnier et al. 2015). In total at least one million species are facing extinction in the coming decades, half of them being insects (IPBES, 2019).” Thus, for all ~ 7,000 currently described megadriles, a 7% loss would be ~ 490 species extinct. Q.E.D. Similar loss extrapolated to all > 30,000 of likely total megadrile earthworms (in the un- likely event anyone attempts to describe them all), would be > 2,100 extinct earthworms. Fixing the issue of potential losses of such an essential soil fauna, as was highlighted in a meta-analysis of organic farms by Blakemore (2018a), should be a major priority. A subsequent study from birdwatchers in the UK, while ignoring this global meta-analysis study, yet independently and subsequently came to a similar conclusion (Barnes et al. 2023). ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 301 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota As already noted for terrestrial invertebrates, Régnier et al. (2015) estimated critical 7% species loss while Cowie et al. (2022) had 7.5-13% loss, but the sta- tus of most taxa remains unclear. Isbell et al. (2022) regarded ~ 30% terrestrial invertebrates either threatened or extinct, which is similar to ~ 30% threatened or extinct rates in IUCN’s “Redlist” of earthworms of Japan and NZ/Australia compiled by the author in 2018. Yet most of the earthworm species in these reports were DD: “data deficient”. Microbial extinction losses Although the IPBES (2019) report barely considered microbes nor “non-charis- matic” invertebrates, they did note: “around 9 per cent of the world’s estimated 5.9 million terrestrial species — more than 500,000 species — have insufficient habitat for long-term survival, and are committed to extinction, many within decades, unless their habitats are restored.” Yet, their rate estimate of < 200 non-microbe species lost per day, is mainly on land and mainly due to often irre- versible Land-Use-Change (LUC for agriculture and/or pasture). If the massive new biodiversity estimates herein have similar and proportional rates, this may increase many-fold for the > 99.9% soil microbes in 10% taxa. Proportionately, a 7% rate of invertebrate loss (noted above) would equate to 2 million microbes per day, or ~ 23 taxa lost per second! This critical issue as alluded to in the Ab- stract was reported here: http://vermecology.wordpress.com/2021/06/20/tol/ and requires further investigation. An example for microbes is Streptomyces avermitilis (ex Burg et al., 1979) initially found only once in a soil sample collected in 1977 near a golf course at Ito, Shizuoka-ken, Japan. From this single species the Nobel-prized pharma- ceutical Avermectins were derived. Just as the loss of the soil biome should be of concern for productivity and natural remedies, increasingly it is being rec- ognized that dysbiosis of the human (or other animal) gut or superficial (skin) biome is also related to good health. This human health issue is outside the current study remit but closely relates to healthy soils. Regarding microbe extirpations on farms, Blakemore (2018a) also noted micro- bial declines under artificial compared to organic fertilizers at Rothamstead, UK by -50%, likely from the onset of their chemical farming schemes. A similar loss of -50% Bacteria and fungi in chemical compared to organic husbandry was reported from farms in the Philippines (Blakemore 2017: table 5). A meta-analysis by Lori et al. (2017) obtained similar findings and came to similar conclusions on soil loss. Bacterial (and lesser fungal) richness relates to soil carbon, and its reduction due to land use (poor farming) and climate change could cause dramatic shifts in the microbial diversity (Bastida et al. 2021). This is tenuously supported by a recent paper (Kacergius et al. 2023) at the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture on organic, sustainable, and intensive-chemical farming systems that found: “20 years ago, when analyzing soil samples from the same agricultural fields, colonies of culturable bacteria and fungi were grown and up to 1-5 x 10® CFU of organotrophic bacteria were counted, up to 1-2 x 107 nitrifying bacteria. In 2022, we counted up to 1-4 x 10° CFU during culturable bacterial colony counts, which is quite different than 20 years ago.” Although there are prob- lems with this study (e.g., having to use “culturable” counts for comparison, and a highly acidic “pine old-growth forest” control), this relative decline, if truly ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 302 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota representative, shows a 10-100 times fall in microbes in just 20 years. Losing a few species per year from just one site if applicable to farmlands globally could be significant. Were this trend more widely manifest it would be a major concern for anyone, not just Soil Ecologists, organic farmers, or policy makers. Confirmatory research is clearly required. Recently, Thaler (2021) cogently noted: “Darwin's “tangled bank” of interde- pendent organisms may be composed mostly of other microbes. There is the likelihood that as some classes of microbes become extinct, others evolve and diversify. Lack of insight into the dynamics of evolution of microbial biodiver- sity is arguably the single most profound and consequential unknown with re- gard to human knowledge of the biosphere”. In light of the current work few could now disagree with this. Summary, conclusions, and future directions for Soil loss remedy Shortcomings in Decaéns et al. (2006) soil biodiversity summary as (shown in Fig. 1) are mainly that it only reports intensity of study, not estimated totals, and mostly ignores microbes that have since become paramount. Other flaws in its premise are that since around two million species had already been described at that time (MEA 2005: Chapter 4), then their 23% in 360,000 species would likely have been closer to ~ 18%. Conversely, if their > 23% in Plants, Fungi, Bacteria, and viruses that are all mostly found in soil were added to their 23% total, the soil proportion is doubled, being raised to > 46%, albeit only ~ 1% of soil organisms are known (FAO 2020). Hence, would a likely new total for their study if 100 x and of around~ 38 million species not already have a 99% majority in soils? Moreover, it appears that estimated soil fungi alone supported as many as their claimed global total of 1.5 million species: “The estimated global fungal diversity has changed dramatically from 100, 000 in the 1940s to 1.5 million in the early 2000s, then 2.8 to 3.8 million in the 2017s, and currently 2.5 million species as the best estimate. However, 155,000 species are currently known; thus, many species are still undescribed and waiting for their discoveries” from https://mycokeys.pensoft.net/topical_collection/254/. These known fungi should also be in soil total. Anthony et al. (2023) claimed their 1.04 x 10'° soil species estimate as “ap- proximately two times greater soil biodiversity than previous estimates” but it was considerably less than Zhao et al. (2022: fig. 3A) already with 10" soil microbial OTUs that was revised upwards to 2.1 x 1074 species by Blakemore (2022). Both prior studies surpass their subsequent 2023 findings indicating a need either for rebuttal or for a thoroughly refined restatement of both local and global soil biotic enumerations. This review of vital Soil Biota aimed to clarify its true scope while indicating key areas in need of understanding. The vast array of faunal, floral, fungal, and microbial groups and their roles are mostly unexplored and open for investi- gation, emphasizing an urgent need to establish a Soil Ecology Institute. Un- til this is fully realized, in the interim, myriad Aquatic or Atmospheric facilities abound, although the naturally depauperate Ocean and void Space will mostly remain intact regardless as they do not erode, neither do they flood nor burn. Ocean issues are solved in Soil. Due to the most pressing problem of topsoil erosion and irreversible extinction losses, a major shift should be realizing the ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 303 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota overwhelming importance and fragility of our precious Soil. The need for pro- portionate fund reallocation (hence no extra costs involved) to support urgent and directed soils research — under the principles of true Context with system- atic Triage — to benefit all Life on Earth. A supporting homage to our origins and reliance on Microbes in Soils is a dia- grammatic Tree-of-Life, as alluded to in the Abstract and Introduction, showing common microbial ancestry origins and prehistoric extinction events — https:// web.archive.org/web/20240705043415/http://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws. com/images/tree_of_life/tree-of-life_2000.png. The author notes that this is a phylogenetic tree not reflecting biodiversity. This Tree-of_Life is particularly poignant with regards to a mostly mysterious soil virome as expounded by Paez-Espino et al. (2016). Williamson et al. (2017) discuss similar issues, coming to a simple conclusion: “Soils remain the most poorly understood ecosystems on Earth. At the same time, viruses represent the largest pool of untapped genetic diversity and unexplored sequence space on the planet. In this regard, the soil virome comprises an unknown quantity within an unexplored territory: a vast new frontier, ripe with opportunities for discovery.” The current report is not alone in realizing such magnitudes, nor in urging for more support for Soil Eco-taxonomic restoration in order to boldly explore this vast new frontier lying in wait directly beneath our feet, while it still exists. While focusing on fundamental soil microbiome, it is important to note this is enhanced by activities of a literal ground-breaking master of its domain as manifest in Darwin's “humble earthworm”. Promoting earthworm activity, as advocated by Blakemore (2018a, 2022, 2023), increases plant growth and provides microhabitats for soil fauna and flora, viz.: “microbes increase during digestion and after gut passage in their fresh castings by up to x 1,000 (Lee 1985: 27, 206) further enriching soils.” Presumably the viral abundance is also increased by a multi-fold magnitude due to such actions. Thus, a simple solution to soil degradation is to attempt, in any way and at all times, to preserve and enhance earthworm populations that are more accessible than microbes. As Bill Mollison, co-founder of Per- maculture and author of their Designers Manual (Mollison 1988) said: “There is one, and only one solution, and we almost have no time to try it. We must turn all our resources to repairing the natural World, and train all our young people to help. They want to; we need to give them this last chance to create forests, soils, clean waters, clean energies, secure communities, stable regions, and to know how to do it from hands-on experience.” (https://web.archive.org/ web/20240719045254/https://www.azquotes.com/quote/873849). That the Soil hosts > 99.9% of global diversity now requires a major “Sea change” in attitudes and funding to recognize its true scope. This should spur formation of at least one dedicated Soil Ecology Institute (for both natural and managed lands) tasked to catalogue, research and reverse mass degradation of our planet's most crucial, yet most neglected ecosystem — that of the Soil Realm. Acknowledgements Dave Loneragan and Rose Andrews of Kangaroo Valley and Rowan and Rob- bie of Berry, NSW kindly provided accommodations during formulation and compilation of this review. Constructive critiques of editors and referees are ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 304 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota appreciated in helping improve the paper and, although some of the enforced edits detract, | take responsibility for any unintended errors and oversight omis- sions that remain. The authors of Anthony et al. (2023) soil enumeration paper were emailed for critical comment and respectful collaboration in 2023, but they have yet to respond. Permission for use of previously published images was sought from original authors as cited, or is compliant with Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and GBIF allowed copy. Additional information Conflict of interest The author has declared that no competing interests exist. Ethical statement No ethical statement was reported. Funding No funding was reported. Author contributions The author solely contributed to this work. Author ORCIDs Robert J. Blakemore © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9797-8328 Data availability All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text. References ABRS (2009) Australian Biological Resource Service Report. https://www.dcceew.gov. au/sites/default/files/env/pages/2ee3f4a1 -f1 30-46 5b-9c 7a-79373680a067/files/ nlsaw-2nd-complete.pdf Adamczyk M, Hagedorn F, Wipf S, Donhauser J, Vittoz P Rixen C, Frossard A, Theurillat J P Frey B (2019) The Soil Microbiome of GLORIA Mountain Summits in the Swiss Alps. Frontiers in Microbiology 10: 1080. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01080 Anthony MA, Bender SF, van der Heijden MGA (2023) Enumerating soil biodiversity. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 120(33): e2304663120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2304663120 [Appendix data — www.pnas.org/doi/sup- pl/10.1073/pnas.2304663120/suppl_file/pnas.2304663120.sapp.pdf] Ashelford KE, Day MJ, Fry JC (2003) Elevated abundance of bacteriophage infecting bacteria in soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69: 285-289. https://doi. org/10.1128/AEM.69.1.285-289.2003 Bahram M, Hildebrand F, Forslund SK, Anderson JL, Soudzilovskaia NA, Bodegom PM, Bengtsson-Palme J, Anslan S, Coelho LP Harend H, Huerta-Cepas J, Medema MH, Maltz MR, Mundra S, Olsson PA, Pent M, Polme S, Sunagawa S, Ryberg M, Tedersoo L, Bork P (2018) Structure and function of the global topsoil microbiome. Nature 560: 233-237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0386-6 ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 305 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Bar-On YM, Milo R (2019) The global mass and average rate of rubisco. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 116(10): 4738-4743. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1816654116 Bar-On YM, Phillips R, Milo R (2018) The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 115: 6506-6511. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 Barker GM (2001) Gastropods on land: Phylogeny, diversity, and adaptive morphology. In: Barker GM (Ed.) The Biology of Terrestrial Molluscs, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, New Zealand, 146 pp. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851993188.0001 Barnes AE, Robinson RA, Pearce-Higgins JW (2023) Collation of a century of soil in- vertebrate abundance data suggests long-term declines in earthworms but not tipu- lids. Public Library of Science ONE 18(4): e€0282069. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0282069 Bastida F, Eldridge DJ, Garcia C, Kenny Png G, Bardgett RD, Delgado-Baquerizo M. (2021) Soil microbial diversity-biomass relationships are driven by soil carbon con- tent across global biomes. International Society for Microbial Ecology Journal 15: 2081-2091. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00906-0 Beaver RC, Neufeld JD (2024) Microbial ecology of the deep terrestrial subsurface. International Society for Microbial Ecology Journal 18(1): wrae091. https://doi. org/10.1093/ismejo/wrae091 Benham WB (1890) An attempt to classify Earthworms. Quarterly Journal of Microscop- ical Science 31: 201-315. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.s2-31.122.201 Benton MJ (2001) Biodiversity on land and in the sea. Geological Journal 36(3-4): 211- 230. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.877 Bergh O, Borsheim KY, Bratbak G, Heldal M (1989) High abundance of viruses found in aquatic environments. Nature 340: 467-468. https://doi.org/10.1038/340467a0 Bickel S, Or D (2020) Soil bacterial diversity mediated by microscale aqueous-phase pro- cesses across biomes. Nature Communications 11: 116. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-019-13966-w Blakemore RJ (2000) Tasmanian Earthworms. CD-ROM Monograph with Review of World Families. VermEcology, Kippax, ACT 2615, 800 pp. https://archive.org/details/ tasmanianearthwOOblak Blakemore RJ (2008) A Series of Searchable Texts on Earthworm Biodiversity, Ecology and Systematics from Various Regions of the World. Yokohama National University, Tokiwadai, Japan. https://web.archive.org/web/20230501052317 [http://www.an- nelida.net/earthworm/] Blakemore RJ (2011) Further records of non-cryptic New Zealand earthworms. ZooKeys 160: 23-46. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.160.2354 Blakemore RJ (2012) Call for a Census of Soil Invertebrates (CoSI). Zoology in the Mid- dle East 58: suppl. 4: 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09397140.2012.10648999 Blakemore RJ (2013) The major megadrile families of the world reviewed again on their taxonomic types (Annelida: Oligochaeta: Megadrilacea). Opuscula Zoologica, Budapest 44(2): 107-127. https://opuscula.elte.hu/PDF/Tomus44_2/Blakemore_Families.pdf Blakemore RJ (2016) Cosmopolitan Earthworms — an Eco-taxonomic guide to the pere- grine species of the world. 5" edn. VermEcology, Yokohama, 800 pp. Blakemore RJ (2017) Veni, Vidi, Vermi... Il. Earthworms in organic fields restore SOM & H,O and fix CO,. VermEcology Occasional Papers (Veop) 2(2): 1-26. https://doi. org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11022.97608 ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 306 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Blakemore RJ (2018a) Critical Decline of Earthworms from Organic Origins under Intensive, Humic SOM-Depleting Agriculture. Soil Systems 2(2): 33. https://doi. org/10.3390/soilsystems2020033 Blakemore RJ (2018b) Non-Flat Earth Recalibrated for Terrain and Topsoil. Soil Systems 2(4): 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems2040064 Blakemore RJ (2019) Humic Carbon to Fix Extinction, Climate and Health. VermEcology Occasional Papers (Veop) 3: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201904.0109.v1 Blakemore RJ (2022) New Global Species Biodiversity: Soil soars, Ocean flounders. Ver- mEcology Occasional Papers (Veop) 5: 1—9. https://doi.org/10.32942/OSF.10/DGPTW Blakemore RJ (2023) Biotic SOC Stock: What We Had & What We Lost. VermEcology Occasional Papers (Veop) 6: 1-59. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7825446 Blakemore RJ (2024). Biomass Refined: 99% of Organic Carbon in Soils. Biomass 4(4): 1257-1300. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass4040070 Cao M-M, Liu S-Y, Bi L, Chen S-J, Wu H-Y, Ge Y, Han B, Zhang L-M, He J-Z, Han L-L (2022) Distribution Characteristics of Soil Viruses Under Different Precipitation Gradients on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Frontiers in Microbiology 13: 848305. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.848305 Cardoso P Barton PS, Birkhofer L, Chichorro F, Deacon C, Fartmann T, Fukushima CS, Gaigher R, Habel JC, Hallmann CA, Hill MJ, Hochkirch A, Kwak ML, Mammola §S, Norie- ga JA, Orfinger AB, Pedraza F, Pryke JS, Roque FO, Simaika JSP, Stork NE, Suhling F, Vorster C, Samways MJ (2020) Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biological Conservation 242: 108426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108426 Cobian-Giiemes AG, Youle M, Cantu VA, Felts B, Nulton J, Rohwer F (2016) Viruses as Winners in the Game of Life. Annual Review of Virology 3(1): 197-214. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-virology-100114-054952 CoML (2010) Census of Marine Life. http://www.coml.org/ Coupland GT, McDonald JI (2008) Extraordinarily high earthworm abundance in depos- its of marine macrodetritus along two semi-arid beaches. Marine Ecology Progress Series 361: 181-189. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07351 Cowie RH, Bouchet P Fontaine B (2022) The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or spec- ulation?. Biological Review 97: 640-663. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12816 Cragg JB (1963) Some Aspects of the Ecology of Moorland Animals. Journal of Ecology 49(2): 477-506. https://doi.org/10.2307/2257219 Decaéns T, Jiménez CC, Gioia C, Measey G, Lavelle P (2006) The values of soil animals for conservation biology. European Journal of Soil Biology 42: S23-S38. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.07.001 Damer B (2016) A Field Trip to the Archaean in Search of Darwin's Warm Little Pond. Life 6(2): 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/life6020021 Emerson JB (2019) Soil Viruses: A New Hope. mSystems 4. https://doi.org/10.1128/ msystems.001 20-19 FAO (2020) Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN: State of knowledge of soil biodiversity - Status, challenges and potentialities. Report, FAO, Rome. https://doi. org/10.4060/cb1928en Fierer N, Breitbart M, Nulton J, Salamon P, Lozupone C, Jones R, Robeson M, Edwards RA, Felts B, Rayhawk S, Knight R, Rohwer F, Jackson RB (2007) Metagenomic and Small-Subunit rRNA Analyses Reveal the Genetic Diversity of Bacteria, Archaea, Fungi, and Viruses in Soil. Applied Environmental Microbiology 73: 21. https://doi. org/10.1128/AEM.00358-07 ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 307 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Fierer N, Strickland MS, Liptzin D, Bradford MA, Cleveland CC (2009) Global patterns in belowground communities. Ecological Letters 12(11): 1238-1249. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01360.x Fishman FJ, Lennon JT (2022) Macroevolutionary constraints on global microbial diver- sity. Ecological Evolution 13(8): e10403. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10403 Flemming HC, Wuertz S (2019) Bacteria and archaea on Earth and their abundance in biofilms. National Review of Microbiology 17: 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/ $41579-019-0158-9 Fulthorpe RR, Roesch LF, Riva MA, Triplett EW (2008) Distantly sampled soils carry few species in common. Multidisciplinary Journal of Microbial Ecology 2(9): 901-910. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2008.55 Gans J, Woilinsky M, Dunbar J (2005) Computational improvements reveal great bac- terial diversity and high metal toxicity in soil. Science 309: 1387-1390. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1112665 Garcia-Rosell6 E, Gonzalez-Dacosta J, Lobo JM (2023) The biased distribution of ex- isting information on biodiversity hinders its use in conservation, and we need an integrative approach to act urgently. Biological Conservation 283: 110118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110118 GBIF (2016) Global Biodiversity Information Facility: Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas. https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/public_path/shared_folder/Atlases/JRC_global_soil- bio_atlas_low_res-201 9-06-13.pdf Gijsman AJ (1991) Deforestation and Land Use: Changes in Physical and Biological Soil Properties in Relation to Sustainability. https://inclusive-finance.tropenbos.org/file. php/1454/tropdocl.pdf Glasby CJ, Read GB, Lee KE, Blakemore RJ, Fraser PM, Pinder AM, Erséus C, Moser WE, Burreson EW, Govedich FR, Davies RW, Dawson EW (2009) Chapter 17. Phylum An- nelida: Bristle-worms, Earthworms, Leeches. In: The New Zealand Inventory of Biodi- versity. Volume 1. Kingdom Animalia: Radiata, Lophotrochozoa, and Deuterostomia. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, 312-358. Gobat JM, Aragno M, Matthey W (2004) The living soil: fundamentals of soil science and soil biology. Science Publishers, Enfield, 568 pp. Graham EB, Camargo AP, Wu R, Neches RY, Nolan M, Paez-Espino D, Kyrpides NC, Jans- son JK, McDermott JE, Hofmockel KS (2023) Soil Virosphere Consortium: Glob- al Biogeography of the Soil Virosphere. bioRxiv. 2023.11.02.565391. https://doi. org/10.1101/2023.11.02.565391 Graham EB, Camargo AP, Wu R, Neches RY, Nolan M, Paez-Espino D, Kyrpides NC, Jans- son JK, McDermott JE, Hofmockel KS (2024) A global atlas of soil viruses reveals unexplored biodiversity and potential biogeochemical impacts. Nature Microbiology 9: 1873-1883. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-024-01 686-x Grosberg RK, Vermeij GJ, Wainwright PC (2012) Biodiversity in water and on land. Cur- rent Biology 22: R900-R903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.050 Gulik van der PTS, Hoff WD, Speijer D (2024) The contours of evolution: In defence of Darwin's tree of life paradigm. Bioessays 46(5): e2400012. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bies.202400012 Hendrix RW, Smith MC, Burns RN, Ford ME, Hatfull GF (1999) Evolutionary relationships among diverse bacteriophages and prophages: All the World's a phage. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96: 2192-2197. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.96.5.2192 ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 308 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Hoshino T, Doi H, Uramoto G-Il, Wormer L, Adhikari RR, Xiao N, Morono Y, D'Hondt S, Hinrichs K-U, Inagaki F (2020) Global diversity of microbial communities in marine sediment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 117(44): 27587-27597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919139117 IPBES (2019) Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat- form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat: 1753. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.3831 673 Isbell F, Balvanera PR, Mori AS, He J-S, Bullock JM, Regmi GR, Seabloom EW, Ferrier S, Sala OE, Guerrero-Ramirez NR, Tavella J, Larkin DJ, Schmid B, Outhwaite CL, Pramual P Borer ET, Loreau M, Omotoriogun TC, Obura DO, Anderson M, Portales-Reyes C, Kirkman K, Vergara PM, Clark AT, Komatsu KJ, Petchey OL, Weiskopf SR, Williams LJ, Collins SL, Eisenhauer N, Trisos CH, Renard D, Wright AJ, Tripathi P Cowles J, Byrnes JEK, Reich PB, Purvis A, Sharip Z, O'Connor MI, Kazanski CE, Haddad NM, Soto EH, Dee LE, Diaz S, Zirbel CR, Avolio ML, Wang S, Ma Z, Liang J, Farah HC, Johnson JA, Miller BW, Hautier Y, Smith MD, Knops JMH, Myers BJE, Harmackova ZV, Cortés J, Harfoot MBJ, Gonzalez A, Newbold T, Oehri J, Mazon M, Dobbs C, Palmer MS (2022) Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people. Frontiers of Ecological Environment 21(2): 94-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2536 James MT, Farrisi ST, Shah S, Shah V (2022) Identification of Major Organisms Involved in Nutritional Ecosystem in the Acidic Soil From Pennsylvania, USA. Frontiers of Envi- ronmental Science 10: 766302. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.766302 Jansson JK (2023) Soil viruses: Understudied agents of soil ecology. Environental Mi- crobiology 25(1): 143-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.16258 Jia X, Dini-Andreote F, Salles JF (2022) Unravelling the interplay of ecological processes structuring the bacterial rare biosphere. Multidisciplinary Journal of Microbial Ecolo- gy 2: 96. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43705-022-00177-6 Kaéergius A, Sivojiené D, Gudiukaité R, BakSiené E, Maseviciené A, Ziékiené L (2023) Comparison of the Structure of Soil Microbial Communities of Different Ecosys- tems Using the Microbiome Sequencing Approach. Soil Systems 7: 70. https://doi. org/10.3390/soilsystems 7030070 Kallmeyer J, Pockalny R, Adhikari RR, Smith DC, D’Hondt S (2012) Global distribution of microbial abundance and biomass in subseafloor sediment. Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences of the USA 109: 16213-16216. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1203849109 Kannoly S, Oken G, Shadan J, Musheyev D, Singh K, Singh A, Dennehy JJ (2022) Sin- gle-Cell Approach Reveals Intercellular Heterogeneity in Phage-Producing Capaci- ties. Microbiological Spectroscopy 11(1): e0266321. https://doi.org/10.1128/spec- trum.02663-21 Koonin EV, Krupovic M, Dolja VV (2023) The global virome: How much diversity and how many independent origins? Environmental Microbiology 25(1): 40-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.16207 Kuzyakov Y, Mason-Jones K (2018) Viruses in soil: Nano-scale undead drivers of mi- crobial life, biogeochemical turnover and ecosystem functions. Soil Biology and Bio- chemistry 127: 305-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.09.032 Labouyrie M, Ballabio C, Romero F, Panagos P, Jones A, Schmid MW, Mikryukov V, Dulya O, Tedersoo L, Bahram M, Lugato E, van der Heijden MGA, Orgiazzi A (2023) Pat- terns in soil microbial diversity across Europe. Nature Communication 14: 3311. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37937-4 ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 309 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Larsen BB, Miller EC, Rhodes MK, Wiens JJ (2017) Inordinate Fondness Multiplied and Redistributed: the Number of Species on Earth and the New Pie of Life. The Quarterly Review of Biology 92: 3. https://doi.org/10.1086/693564 Lavelle P Spain AV (2001) Soil Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, 654 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48162-6 Lee KE (1959) The Earthworm Fauna of New Zealand. NZ DSIR, Wellington, 600 pp. Lee KE (1985) Earthworms their Ecology and Relationships with Soils and Land Use. Ac- ademic Press, Sydney, 585 pp. https://archive.org/details/earthwormstheire0000leek Lennon JT, Locey KJ (2020) More support for Earth’s massive microbiome. Biology Direct 15: 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-020-00261-8 Locey KJ, Lennon JT (2016) Scaling laws predict global microbial diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113(21): 5970-5975. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1521291113 Lori M, Symnaczik S, Mader P. De Deyn G, Gattinger A (2017) Organic farming enhanc- es soil microbial abundance and activity—A meta-analysis and meta-regression. Public Library of Science ONE 12(7): e0180442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0180442 Louca S (2022) The rates of global bacterial and archaeal dispersal. Multidisciplinary Jour- nal of Microbial Ecology 16: 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01069-8 Louca S, Shih PM, Pennell MW, Fischer WW, Parfrey LW, Doebeli M (2018) Bacterial diver- sification through geological time. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2: 1458-1467. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0625-0 Louca S, Mazel F, Doebeli M, Parfrey LW (2019) A census-based estimate of Earth’s bac- terial and archaeal diversity. Public Library of Science Biology 17: e3000106. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000106 Lydeard C, Cowie RH, Ponder WF, Bogan AE, Bouchet P, Clark SA, Cummings KS, Frest TJ, Gargominy O, Herbert DG, Hershler R, Perez KE, Roth B, Seddon M, Strong EE, Thompson FG (2004) The global decline of nonmarine mollusks. BioScience 54(4): 321-330. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0321:TGDONM]2.0.CO;2 Magnabosco C, Lin LH, Dong H, Bomberg M, Ghiorse W, Stan-Lotter H, Pedersen K, Kieft TL, van Heerden E, Onstott TC (2018) The biomass and biodiversity of the continental sub- surface. Nature Geoscience 11: 707-717. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0221-6 Martin P, Martinez-Ansemil E, Pinder A, Timm T, Wetzel MJ (2008) Global diversity of oligochaetous clitellates (“Oligochaeta”; Clitellata) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595: 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9009-1 May RM (1994) Biological Diversity: Differences between Land and Sea. Philosophi- cal Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 343(1303): 105-111. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1994.0014 McMahon §, Parnell J (2013) Weighing the deep continental biosphere. FEMS Microbiol- ogy Ecology 87(1): 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6941.12196 McNear DH (2013) The Rhizosphere - Roots, Soil and Everything In Between. Nature Education Knowledge 4(3): 1. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/ the-rhizosphere-roots-soil-and-6750061 7/ MEA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://www.mil- lenniumassessment.org/documents/document.273.aspx.pdf Miller H, Mulhall J, Pfau LA, Palm R, Denkenberger DC (2024) Can Foraging for Earth- worms Significantly Reduce Global Famine in a Catastrophe? Biomass 4(3): 765-783. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass4030043 ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 310 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Mollison, W (1988) Permaculture- A Designer’s Manual. Tagari Press, Australia, 576 pp. Mora C, Tittensor DP Adl S, Simpson AGB, Worm B (2011) How many species are there on Earth and in the Ocean? Public Library of Science Biology 9: e1001127. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127 Muscatt G, Cook R, Millard A, Bending GD, Jameson E (2023) Viral metagenomics reveals diverse virus-host interactions throughout the soil depth profile. mBio 14: e02246-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbi0.02246-23 Mushegian AR (2020) Are There 10°" Virus Particles on Earth, or More, or Fewer? Journal of Microbiology 202(9): 20. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00052-20 Paez-Espino D, Eloe-Fadrosh EA, Pavlopoulos GA, Thomas AD, Huntemann M, Mikhai- lova N, Rubin E, lvanova NN, Kyrpides NC (2016) Uncovering Earth's virome. Nature 536(7617): 425-430. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19094 Parkes RJ, Cragg V, Roussel E, Webster G, Weightman A, Sass H (2014) A review of pro- karyotic populations and processes in sub-seafloor sediments, including biosphere:- geosphere interactions. Marine Geology 352: 409-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. margeo.2014.02.009 Plassart P Prévost-Bouré NC, Uroz S, Dequiedt S, Stone D, Creamer R, Griffiths RI, Bailey MJ, Ranjard L, Lemanceau P (2019) Soil parameters, land use, and geographical dis- tance drive soil bacterial communities along a European transect. Science Reports 9: 605. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41 598-018-36867-2 Pratama AA, Terpstra J, de Oliveria ALM, Salles JF (2020) The role of rhizosphere bac- teriophages in plant health. Trends in Microbiology 28(9): 709-718. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tim.2020.04.005 Raynaud X, Nunan N (2014) Spatial ecology of bacteria at the microscale in soil. Public Library of Science ONE 9: e87217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.008721 7 Raza §S, Irshad A, Margenot A, Zamanian K, Li N, Ullah S, Mehmood K, Khan MA, Siddique N, Zhou J, Mooney SJ, Kurganova |, Zhao X, Kuzyakov Y (2021) Inorganic carbon is overlooked in global soil carbon research: A bibliometric analysis. Geoderma 443: 116831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.116831 Régnier C, Achaz G, Lambert A, Cowie RH, Bouchet P, Fontaine B (2015) Mass extinction in poorly known taxa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 112(25): 7761-7766. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502350112 Roesch LF, Fulthorpe RR, Riva A, Casella G, Hadwin AK, Kent AD, Daroub SH, Camargo FA, Farmerie WG, Triplett EW (2007) Pyrosequencing enumerates and contrasts soil microbial diversity. ISME J. 1: 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2007.53 Ryals R, Zhu B, Min K, Cooper A, Goldsmith S, Pett-Ridge J, Torn M, Berhe AA (2023) The deep soil organic carbon response to global change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 54: 375-401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102320-085332 Dubeux JCB, de Souza TC, Mackowiak C, Wright D, George S, Pires T, Santos E (2021) Organic carbon is mostly stored in deep soil and only affected by land use in its su- perficial layers. Agrosystems, Geosciences and Environment 4(1): e20135. https:// doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20135 Roman-Palacios C, Moraga-Lopez D, Wiens JJ (2022) The origins of global biodiver- sity on land, sea and freshwater. Ecology letters 25(6): 1376-1386. https://doi. org/10.1111/ele.13999 Roux S, Emerson JB (2022) Diversity in the soil virosphere: to infinity and beyond? Trends in Microbiology 30(11): 1025-1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2022.05.003 Sagan (Margulis) L (1967) On the Origin of Mitosing Cells. Journal of Theoretical Biology 14: 225-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(67)90079-3 ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 311 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Schloss PD, Handelsman J (2006) Toward a Census of Bacteria in Soil. Public Library of Science Computer Biology 2(7): e92. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020092 Shangguan W, Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Yuan H, Dai Y (2017) Mapping the global depth to bedrock for land surface modeling. Journal of Advance Model Earth Sys- tems 9: 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000686 Soares A, Edwards A, An D, Bagnoud A, Bradley J, Barnhart E, Bomberg M, Budwill K, Caffrey SM, Fields M, Gralnick J, Kadnikov V, Momper L, Osburn M, Mu A, Moreau JW, Moser D, Purkamo L, Rassner SM, Sheik CS, Sherwood Lollar B, Toner BM, Voor- douw G, Wouters K, Mitchell AC (2023) A global perspective on bacterial diversity in the terrestrial deep subsurface. Microbiology (Reading) 169(1): 001172. https://doi. org/10.1099/mic.0.001172 Springett JA (1967) An ecological study of moorland Enchytraeidae. Durham PhD theses, Durham University, UK. Available at Durham E-Theses. http://etheses.dur. ac.uk/8869/ Sun Q, Li H-Y, Li K, Zhang X-Q, Shi Y, Wu Y, Li X, Li Z, Zhang J, Wang L-X, Liang C-Z (2023) Climatic factors regulate the assembly processes of abundant and rare microbial communities in desert soil. Journal of Plant Ecology16(6): rtad032. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtad032 Suttle CA (2005) Viruses in the sea. Nature 437: 356-361. https://doi.org/10.1038/na- ture04160 Thaler DS (2021) Is Global Microbial Biodiversity Increasing, Decreasing, or Staying the Same? Front. Ecol. Evol. 19 Sec. Phylogenetics, Phylogenomics, and Systematics 9: 2011. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.565649 Torsvik V, Goks@yr J, Daae FL (1990) High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. Applied Environmental Microbiology 56(3): 782-787. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.56.3.782- 787.1990 Veresoglou S, Halley J, Rillig M (2015) Extinction risk of soil biota. Nature Communica- tion 6: 8862. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9862 Vermeij GJ (1993) Biogeography of Recently Extinct Marine Species: Implications for Conservation. Conservation Biology 7(2): 391-397. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523- 1739.1993.07020391.x White RA III, Rosnow J, Piehowski PD, Brislawn CJ, Moran JJ (2021) In Situ Non-De- structive Temporal Measurements of the Rhizosphere Microbiome ‘Hot-Spots’ Using Metaproteomics. Agronomy 11(11): 2248. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrono- my11112248 Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ (1998) Prokaryotes: The Unseen Majority. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 95: 6578-6583. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578 Wiens JJ (2023) How many species are there on Earth? Progress and problems. Pub- lic Library of Science Biology 21(11): e3002388. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pbio.3002388 Williamson KE, Radosevich M, Wommack KE (2005) Abundance and diversity of vi- ruses in six Delaware soils. Applied Environmental Microbiology 71: 3119-3125. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.6.3119-3125.2005 Williamson KE, Fuhrmann JJ, Wommack KE, Radosevich M (2017) Viruses in soil eco- systems: an unknown quantity within an unexplored territory. Annual Review of Virol- ogy 4: 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-101416-041639 ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 o19 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Wilson EO (1992) The diversity of life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 424 pp. Zamanian K, Zhou J, Kuzyakov Y (2021) Soil carbonates: the unaccounted, irrecov- erable carbon source. Geoderma 384: 114817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoder- ma.2020.114817 Zhao J, Jin L, Wu D, Xie JW, Li J, Fu XW, Cong ZY, Fu PQ, Zhang Y, Luo XS, Feng XB, Zhang G, Tiedje JM, Li X (2022) Global airborne bacterial community-interactions with Earth’s microbiomes and anthropogenic activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 119(42): e2204465119. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2204465119 Appendix 1 Biomass of earthworms and microbes, as major soil organisms in the various biomes, are compared to minor microdriles (viz. Enchytraeid potworms that were given inordinate importance by Anthony et al. (2023)). These data are presented in Table A1: Earthworm biomass at 3.8 Gt C and Microbes at 209.6 Gt C are slightly high- er than 2.3-3.6 Gt C and 200 Gt C, respectively, as estimated by Blakemore (2023: table 2) confirming importance of both groups to Soil Ecology. This new earthworm value of 3.8 Gt C may be doubled to ~ 7.6 Gt for dry bio- mass which is substantially higher than the 0.9 Gt (and thus 0.45 Gt C?) as lately reported in Miller et al. (2024). Their paper overlooked 4.5 Gt dry and 2.25 Gt C data in Blakemore (2017 -https://vermecology.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/ nature-article-to-commemorate-charles-darwins-birthday-on-1 2th-feb/) inde- pendently extrapolated from the extensive works compiled by the leading earth- worm ecologist and taxonomist, my PhD assessor and mentor, Dr Ken Lee (1985). Table A1. Biome Carbon biomass of Enchytraeids, Earthworms and Microbes selected from Fierer et al. (2009: table 1- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01360.x) in g/m? C, with Biome areas from Whitman et al. (1998: table 2 — http://rpdata.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/whitman98.pdf) in Gigahectares (Gha). Enchytraeid Earthworm Microbe (g/ Total Enchy. Total E/worm | Total Microbe Biome (g/m? C) (g/m? C) m?C) Biome:(Gha) (Gt C) (Gt C) (Gt C) Boreal forest 0:32 0.3 57 ipo 0.04 0.03 6.84 Desert 0 0 43 1.8 0.00 0.00 7.74 Temp. conif. 0.80 2. 175 0.5 0.04 0.06 8.75 Temp. decid. 0.64 2.0 116 0.7 0.04 0.14 8.12 Temp. grass 0.31 3.8 13a 0.9 0.03 0.34 WZO Tropical forest* 0.10 4.9 203 2.5 0.03 1:23 50.75 Tundra 0.99 1.4 136 0.8 0.08 0.11 10.88 TOTAL 8.4 0.26 1.9 104.8 Terrain x 2** 16.8 0.52 3.8 209.6 *Tropical forest Enchytraeid data infilled from (https://edepot.wur.nl/202864 1991: table 2.2 with 0.02-0.20 g dry wt. thus < 0.1 gC similar to FW (fresh weight) data extracted from https://soil-organisms.org/index.php/SO/article/view/155 2021:tabs 4, 5). Note that earthworms are usually the most important elements of Tropical forests biota, contrary to some misguided reports, as clearly explained by practical Soil Ecologist fieldworkers, e.g., Gijsman (1991). Enchytraeids have ~ 700 known species compared to ~ 7,000 described earthworms, or x 10, and biomass of earthworms is x 7 too. **Terrain doubling from Blakemore (2018b) allows for landscape's coarse terrain progressively overlain by finer layers of microtopography and soil rugosity, less so in bogs. ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 313 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Appendix 2 Virus-Like Particle (VLP) counts (Global and in Soil alone) All viral estimates in Anthony et al. (2023: table 1) had speculative uncertainty marked “?”. Indeed, Williamson et al. (2017) found soil viral diversity severe- ly underestimated and under-sampled, albeit their measures of viral richness were much higher for soils than for aquatic ecosystems. Many soil virus re- ports show s 10’? -10"' virions per gram of soil and a global best-estimate tally was of > 10°" virus-like-particles (VLP) that are infecting microbial populations at any one time (Mushegian 2020 originally cited from Hendrix et al. 1999). If 10’° -10"' virions per g occur, this is 10'* -10"” per tonne of soil. Further, if there exist 2.1 x 10" t topsoil to 1 m depth (from Blakemore 2022), then a range is 2.1 x 10°°-10*' virions (with a median value ~ 1.5 x 108’). This total is approximately the same as that calculated by other authors, e.g., Mushegian (2020) or Cobidn-Giiemes et al. (2016) of between 10°! and 4.8 x 10°" viral phages. Comparatively, Suttle (2005) extrapolated counts of Marine viruses from local samples to the entire World, arriving at an estimate of 4 x 10°° virus particles in well-mixed oceanic waters (i.e., ~ 10%). Mushegian (2020: ta- ble 1) arrived at a similar estimate to this at 2 x 10°° virions in the Ocean, i.e., a range of just 2-—4% of Ocean virions in a global total of ~ 10*' virions. Previous range of Ocean virus proportions is then just 2-10% of global totals with much of the remainder (90-98%) in Soil. True Soil counts are variable, as shown below, further reducing the proportional Ocean values. While initial estimates of virus abundance in Soil ranged from 10’ to 10° virus like particles (VLP) per gram of dry soil (Williamson et al. 2005, 2017) with a mean ~ 108, Pratama et al. (2020) found a higher mean of 10° VLP per g froma range of catalogued soils and Graham et al. (2023) had 10’ to 10”° viruses per g of soil. This agrees with Jansson (2023) for different soil types at 10°-10"° VLP per g dry soil (mean also 10°), but she noted the true number may be high- er than that obtained by microscopy because many soil viruses are intracellu- lar and not able to be imaged separately. Kannoly et al. (2022) shows < 1,430 plaque-forming-units (PFU) per lysogenic bacterial cell-burst (a so-called “burst size” of viral particles). Thus, an exponential order or two is easily added, pos- sibly to allow reasonable estimates of around 10'°-10"' VLP per g of dry soil? Especially relevant, a study by Cobidn-Giiemes et al. (2016) estimated 4.8 x 10°" VLPs on Earth but comprising an unrealistic minimum of 257,698 different viral genotypes (sic). They quoted reports with only 3.9 x 10° < 2 x 10? total varieties (or one variety per 1077-1075 VLP), which seems a wide underestimation compared to other studies. Their VtB ratios (in their table 1) were skewed by a low “Human asso- ciated” ratio of just 0.1 and a high “Other host-associated” of 25, to give a median ra- tio for all their biomes of 12. Their Soil VtB was 19.1. Here revised microbial counts in Blakemore (2022, 2023) give a global total of > 5.1 x 10°’ VLPs with ~ 4.1 x 103! (~ 80%) virions in soils (to full depth?) and a Soil alone VtB near ~ 20:1, as in Table A2: Whitman et al.’s (1998: table 5) 3.6 and 2.5 x 10°° cells in Oceanic or Terres- trial sub-surfaces were downgraded by Kallmeyer et al. (2012), Parkes et al. (2014), Magnabosco et al. (2018) and Hoshino et al. (2020) to just 3-5 and 2-6 x 107°, or ~ 4 x 107° each, and with sub-surface biomass of 4 and 23-31 Gt C, respectively. Bar-On et al. (2018: supp: 62) for Marine, Sub-Ocean, and Sub-Soil, ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 314 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Table A2. Virus-Like Particles (VLP) from Microbes/Bacteria (VtB) ratios modified after Cobidn-Gliemes et al. (2016: table 1) and Microbes abundances from (Blakemore 2022, 2023 cf. those given in Table 2 of main text above). BIOME Marine Freshwater Sub-Ocean Sub-Terrestrial Soil:* TOTAL Microbes/Biome x 107 VtB ratio VLP/Biome x 10°! Microbe % Virus % 12 12.76 0.15 4.0 3.0 0.02 14 0.00 0.0 0.0 40 11 0.44 13.2 8.6 40 11 0.44 LZ 8.6 210 19.5 (~ 20) 4.10 69.5 79.8 (~ 80) 302.0 (Mean 11.4) 5.13 100.0% 100.0% *Their soil microbe value was 2.50 (truly 2.556) x 102° whereas Blakemore (2022, 2023: table 3) had 210 x 1078 (cf. Table 2). Data was based upon Whitman et al. (1998) for Prokaryote cells, as revised by Blakemore (2022) and corrected (as detailed in text), with com- bined Sub-Ocean and Sub-Terrestrial values averaged out. had 1.2 x 107°, 4 x 10”? and 20 x 107? cells, respectively. For Soil, their Prokaryote total was = 3 x 10° cells, similar to the values presented herein. The mean VtB ratio 11.4 is approximately the same as Cobian-Giuiemes et al. (2016: table 1) median VtB of 12, both above Bergh et al. (1989) ~ 10:1 aquatic VtB. If 11.4 is applied to 302 x 1078 Microbes a total is ~ 5 x 10%’ VLPs. However, Soil alone VtB is double at ~ 20:1 that, for 210 x 1078 Microbes, is ~ 4 x 103’ VLPs (~ 80%). Thus, proportion of viruses in Soil from total viruses is ~ 80% as noted in the Ab- stract (cf. Ocean 2-10% noted above), with the remainder in the deep-subsurfaces. Although most samples are superficial, often in just the top 5 or 10 cm of soils, viral activity persists throughout the soil profile, to at least 1 m depth according to Muscatt et al. (2023). Interestingly, these latter authors stated: “Viral contribu- tions to soil ecology are largely unknown due to the extreme diversity of the soil virosphere. Despite variation in estimates of soil viral abundances (10 to 10”° vi- ruses per gram of soil), it is clear that soils are among the largest viral reservoirs on Earth. Early metagenomics investigations have revealed high genetic diversity in soil viruses, with putative impacts on global biogeochemistry. Still, less than 1% of publicly available viral metagenomic sequences are from soil, reflecting the lack of knowledge about soil viruses and their ecological roles”. Accordingly, as soil is so under-represented, Graham et al. (2023, 2024) argue that understanding the rdle of viruses in soil is most pressing of any of our ecological challenges. Virus to Bacteria (VtB) ratio abundances As already noted, Mushegian (2020) had an approximate 10-fold excess of phages over bacterial cells (as per Bergh et al. 1989), whereas Cobian-Gliemes et al. (2016: table 1, fig. 1) median VtB was around 12:1 and in Soil alone ~ 20:1 (or 100:1 mean soil ratio in their figure which is an order higher that all other ratios). Applied to Table A2 totals, a 12:1 ratio for all ~ 3.78 x 10°° global microbe cells would be ~ 4.6 x 10°" VLPs with 4.1 x 10°", or 89%, of viruses in Soil. But this too may be out by an order or more, not least to account for those active intracellular virus particles that are mostly overlooked in general surveys, or in the Soil’s VtB ratios. Early on, Ashelford et al. (2003) averaged soil virus numbers at 1.5 x 108 per g, which they said was equivalent to 4% of total bacteria population (of 3.6 x 10° per g) giving a virus-to-bacterium ratio (VtB) in their soil of 0.04:1. Subsequent- ly, other authors found much higher numbers, e.g. Cobidn-Giiemes et al. (2016: fig. 1) had mean Soil VtB ratio ~ 100:1 but selected a median value of ~ 20:1 as in their table 1 (cf. Table A2). ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 315 Robert J. Blakemore: Diversity restated: >99.9% of global species in Soil Biota Cao et al. (2022) reported highly variable virus-to-bacteria ratios (VtB) in soils as ranging from 0.001 to 8,200 (six orders of magnitude!) although their study found abundance of virus-like particles (VLPs) ranged from 2.0 x 10” to 1.0 x 10° and mi- crobial abundance ranged from 1.0 x 10° to 8.2 x 10° per gram of dry soil, to give a VtB ratio from ~ 0.1 to 98.3 (near three orders of magnitude range), settling around a me- dian VtB ratio value of 10:1 compliant with Cobidn-Giiemes etal. (2016: table 1, fig. 1) but including depauperate aquatic biomes. Wide ranging (VTM/VBR = VtB) estima- tions, pertinent for soil, mostly vary ~ 10:1 to 100:1 which is interesting as this com- plies with a virus species to host species range as assumed by Koonin et al. (2023). VtB ratios (= VTM/VBR) for species diversity Although an answer is complex, a preliminary estimate in Fierer et al. (2007: table 3) had bacterial OTUs of 10%-¢ (median ~ 5 x 104) while viral VOTUs ranged 10%°8 (median 10°) thus, extrapolating data, soil viruses may appear 10-100 times more diverse than Bacteria as a rough indication of mutual biodiversity crosscheck. As just noted, Koonin et al. (2023) conservative range estimate was 10:1 to 100:1 for their host species ratio. Muscatt et al. (2023) determined: “overall vVOTU per host ratio was 0.42 (median = 0) [sic], reflecting the predominance of unique host asso- ciations for individual vVOTUs”. This suggests viral diversity is commensurate with Bacteria/Archaea diversity (VOTU:bOTU) and vice versa. So, for 2.1 x 10% soil mi- crobe species, viral diversity would be at least (2.1 x 0.42 = 0.88) or around 0.88 x 1073 vVOTUs. Viral richness (~ 10% per 10°'-*? virions) would then be ~ 1 unique ‘variety’ for each 10° virions, or roughly two or three orders lower than bacterial richness which, as noted, is around one bacterial taxon per million cells. Q.E.D. Conversely, Roux and Emerson (2022) quote: “estimates of soil viral richness suggested the presence of 1000 to 1 000 000 genotypes per sample” and sam- ples were traced as ~ 200 g wet soil, say ~ 100 g dry, to give around 10-10,000 soil genotypes per gramme (or around 10% in a mean of 10° virus particles per g which is also ~ 1 vVOTU per million virion cells as with bacterial estimates). Thus, both are at a mutual 1:1 ratio. Recently, Graham et al. (2024) quoted 10’-10"° viruses per gramme of soil showing soils as the largest viral reservoirs on Earth and they reported averages of 40.01 (range 1—2,124), 35.48 (range 1-1,651) and 24.91 (range 1-896) unique viral clusters per soil sample (presumably 1 g?) at the species, genus, and family levels. This suggests four viral species for each one million, up to a billion soil virions, a bit higher than for Bacteria. A likely summary is that viruses are most abundant in soils and at least ten or 100 times as rich as the Bacteria, their primary hosts. From Blakemore (2023), as both Global and Soil alone bacterial biodiversity are in the order of 2 x 10%4, then virus diversity may range from at least as many, < 10*°-10* viral species in total. Alternatively, as ~ 10°' viruses are known, may soil Bacteria reasonably range 107°-10°° species? Support is found in Kuzyakov and Mason-Jones (2018), viz.: “The total num- ber of viruses (including intracellular viruses inside bacteria) is probably 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than the bacterial populations” From this we may again conclude in circular argument that Bacteria are 1-2 orders less in terms of both cells and species. Finally, we may concur with Williamson et al. (2017): “To understand the soil virome, much work remains.” ZooKeys 1224: 283-316 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1224.131153 316