Aboveground and belowground plant responses.......In coastal wetlands, plant biomass can be a key component of whether or not the ecosystem will survive rising sea levels, especially highly organic sites like GCREW. In the first two years of SMARTX, we discovered that plants respond asynchronously to warming, with a large increase in belowground biomass occurring at +1.7°C, an effect that we attribute to changes in N cycling under the different warming scenarios.......read on.......  https://serc.si.edu/gcrew/warming ...........AND.......  Visit the Global Change Research Wetland homepage

Meat's Environmental Impact Stanford- Woods Institute for the Environment From greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation to water use and pollution, meat production plays a significant role in the planet’s changing climate. Is eating meat bad for the environment? Livestock production accounts for 14-18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, including 32 percent of methane gas emissions worldwide.
More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption.
 

While the global meat industry provides food and livelihoods for billions of people, research shows it also has significant consequences for the planet -- from greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation to water use and pollution. Worldwide consumption of pork, beef, poultry and other livestock is projected to reach over 500 million tonnes by 2050 – double what it was in 2000. As demand continues to rise, Stanford researchers are studying how meat production affects the environment and identifying sustainable solutions to reduce its impact.
This page brings together the latest research from Stanford scholars to explain how meat production affects the climate, land, water, and biodiversity. It’s meant to help readers quickly understand the science behind one of the largest drivers of land use and agricultural emissions.

Common questions about meat's environmental impact -- and what the research says.
Q: How much land is used for livestock production?A: Globally, agriculture occupies about half of the world’s habitable land, and nearly 80 percent of that farmland is devoted to livestock. Large areas of pasture and feed cropland replace native ecosystems that would otherwise store carbon. Transitioning that land back to natural vegetation could unlock massive carbon gains through biomass recovery. Stanford modeling shows that restoring native ecosystems on former livestock land could sequester up to 800 gigatons of CO₂ over several decades — while simultaneously reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock. Together, these changes could freeze the growth of global warming potential for ~30 years and deliver emissions reductions equivalent to 68 percent of today’s global CO₂ output.Explore the research.

Q What types of meat have the most environmental impact? A: Beef and other ruminant meats (like lamb, goat, and buffalo) have the largest environmental footprint. Ruminants are a type of animal with a four-chambered digestive system that allows them to digest tough, fibrous plants such as grasses, producing methane as a byproduct. A recent inventory of livestock emissions shows that ruminants account for about 80 percent of livestock methane – a powerful greenhouse gas – even though they’re just one slice of the world’s diet. Pigs and chickens contribute much less methane, and life-cycle studies show they also use 8–10 times less land per gram of protein than beef. That means shifting even part of our diets away from beef and lamb toward lower-impact meats or plant-based proteins can free up land and significantly cut warming pollution.Explore the research

Q How can I reduce my diet's carbon footprint? A: Research shows that simple swaps – like replacing beef wichicken or plant-based proteins – can deliver big environmental benefits with minimal disruption to dietary habits. A 2023 study found that small substitutions within the same food group (e.g. swapping high-carbon meats for low-carbon ones) could reduce the average American’s dietary carbon footprint by up to 38 percent, while also improving overall diet quality by up to 10 percent. The study suggests that men and adults – who tend to have the highest diet-related emissions – would offer the biggest climate benefit from making these changes. But it also cautions that dietary shifts should account for nutritional needs, especially for groups like women and children, who require more micronutrients such as iron and zinc.Explore the research. 
Q.How does increased meat consumption impact biodiversity?........read on- there's more         https://woods.stanford.edu/news/meats-environmental-impact 

Nitrogen fertilisers, manure and other agricultural sources drove almost three-quarters of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions in recent years. That is according to the Global Carbon Project’s second “global nitrogen budget” – an assessment of the origins and climate impacts of the world’s nitrous oxide emissions. The research, published in Earth System Science Data, finds that nitrous oxide emissions from human activities rose by 40% over the past four decades, partly driven by growing global demand for meat and dairy.  Nitrous oxide emissions over the past decade exceeded even the highest projected levels in emissions pathways, the research finds.  Continuing to emit the greenhouse gas at current rates would “really affect” the world’s ability to achieve the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to “well below” 2C, the lead author of the study tells Carbon Brief. One expert, who was not involved in the research, says the findings show “all too clearly” that nitrous oxide emissions “are still going rapidly in the wrong direction”.