Milo Lab @WIS

5/ Quantifying the biomass movement of all animals and humans reveals the dominant place of humanity on Earth. It is associated with key ecological functions that shape ecosystems and climate, and highlights species whose movement may matter more for conservation.

4/ The awe-inspiring African Serengeti migration, with ~1 million wildebeest, zebras & gazelles, barely moves as much biomass as attending the FIFA World Cup or an annual Hajj. But the biggest migration of all? The daily vertical dance of plankton & tiny fish in the ocean.

3/ The ocean still holds the most biomass movement on Earth, but it has been down 60% since 1850, mainly from over-fishing and whaling. Meanwhile, human biomass movement rose by 4000% driven by industrialization and population growth.

2/ Biomass movement = the total mass of animal species × the distance it travels per year.
We used hundreds of studies and datasets to quantify it globally.
On land, birds, mammals & insects move most, but their combined biomass movement is ~40× smaller than that of humans.

1/ Earth is teeming with life on the move, from whales crossing oceans to humans commuting to work. But how does the movement of animals compare to humanity's?
Our new study in @natecoevo.nature.com answers just that!
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

5/ Quantitative estimates such as these establish historical baselines of wild animal populations, so that we can avoid the shifting baseline syndrome - a gradual change in the accepted norms for the condition of the natural environment

4/ While historical wild mammal biomass estimates have various uncertainties and caveats, they provide a complementary perspective to species extinctions and other metrics in tracking the status of wildlife

3/ Zooming in on marine mammals, their global biomass declined by ≈70% since the 1850s, despite a moderate increase in recent decades. This provides a broader perspective to observed extinctions, with ≈2% of marine mammal species recorded as extinct during the same period

2/ We estimate that wild mammal biomass globally in 1850 was ≈200 Mt, roughly equal to that of humans and their domesticated mammals combined at the time. Since then, human and domesticated mammal biomass has risen to ≈1100 Mt, while wild mammal biomass decreased to ≈60 Mt

1/ Wild mammals now comprise ≈5% of mammal biomass globally. How did this come to be? In our new study in @NatureComms, we estimate that in 1850, wild mammals comprised ≈50% of mammal biomass globally www.nature.com/articles/s41...

6/ Advances in efficiency and low-impact electricity sources could improve the future outlook for vertical farming. Ultimately, we need to carefully consider whether and how best vertical farming contributes to sustainable and secure food production roadmaps

5/ Electricity use alone also leads to substantial greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water consumption. Overall, we find limited environmental benefits afforded by vertical farming with current electricity options

4/ For vertically-farmed vegetable production, electricity is also at least as costly as current production in the field. However, future advances in vertical farming and electricity generation may improve the longer-term economic viability of vertically-farmed vegetables

3/ Using back-of-the-envelope calculations, we find that the electricity cost alone of vertical farming is over one order-of-magnitude (>10x) more expensive than producing current dried staple crops (e.g. wheat and rice)

2/ In recent years, billions of dollars have been invested in growing plants indoors on stacked shelves (vertical farming) as a potential resilient and sustainable food source. However, vertical farming needs a lot of electricity for powering plant growth using artificial light

1/ Is the future of sustainable and resilient food production growing plants in skyscrapers? Check out our latest article in ‪@plantphys.bsky.social‬ where we explore whether vertical farms are economically viable and offer environmental benefits
doi.org/10.1093/plph...

6/ Advances in efficiency and low-impact electricity sources could improve the future outlook for vertical farming. Ultimately, we need to carefully consider whether and how best vertical farming contributes to sustainable and secure food production roadmaps

5/ Electricity use alone also leads to substantial greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water consumption. Overall, we find limited environmental benefits afforded by vertical farming with current electricity options

4/ For vertically-farmed vegetable production, electricity is also at least as costly as current production in the field. However, future advances in vertical farming and electricity generation may improve the longer-term economic viability of vertically-farmed vegetables

3/ Using back-of-the-envelope calculations, we find that the electricity cost alone of vertical farming is over one order-of-magnitude (>10x) more expensive than producing current dried staple crops (e.g. wheat and rice)

2/ In recent years, billions of dollars have been invested in growing plants indoors on stacked shelves (vertical farming) as a potential resilient and sustainable food source. However, vertical farming needs a lot of electricity for powering plant growth using artificial light

7/ This was part of a wonderful effort together with
@dorianleger.bsky.social , @flamholz.bsky.social and Asaf Tzachor, as well as the many other experts who joined us on this incredible journey. Thank you as well to
@natbiotech.nature.com for making this happen!

6/ However, we find limited economic and environmental viability for fuels produced from microbes using electricity and CO2, even when considering possible advances in the coming decades

5/ In the longer-term (decades), with substantial economic changes, microbial food may even be cheap enough to compete with major crops, like wheat. This could unlock additional benefits for future food security and help to mitigate environmental challenges

4/ In a best case, microbial foods may be cheap enough to compete with animal foods (e.g. meat & milk), in the next decade. Microbial foods may also offer major environmental benefits over animal products. This could catalyse shifts away from unsustainable animal-based foods

3/ We quantify the minimum cost and environmental impacts of producing foods and fuels from microbes grown using CO2 and electricity (called electro-microbial production)

2/ Microbes can produce a range of commodities, including foods and fuels. These can be made using CO2 as the carbon source, and hydrogen or other feedstocks generated using electricity for powering microbial growth

1/ We need new ways of producing foods and fuels to minimise our impact on our planet. Our new paper now in
@natbiotech.nature.com examines whether microbes hold the key to producing foods and fuels in the future
Open access: rdcu.be/eiIUu
nature.com/articles/s41...

7/ This was part of a wonderful effort together with
@dorianleger.bsky.social , @flamholz.bsky.social and Asaf Tzachor, as well as the many other experts who joined us on this incredible journey. Thank you as well to @natbiotech.nature.com for making this happen!

6/ However, we find limited economic and environmental viability for fuels produced from microbes using electricity and CO2, even when considering possible advances in the coming decades