Silvopasture, the integration of trees with livestock and forage, has been widely promoted as a major climate mitigation opportunity in the wetter eastern United States. This working paper reviews the evidence behind those claims and asks whether converting eastern United States pasturelands to silvopasture can meaningfully reduce net greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining animal yields, and what strategies could make that realistic.

Using a “rapid, narrative umbrella review” of the review-level literature (supplemented with targeted checks of key primary studies), the paper finds that the overall evidence base is thin, inconsistent, and often insufficient to support expansive mitigation estimates. Across the limited studies available, silvopasture can increase carbon stored in tree biomass, but it commonly reduces forage production and livestock output per acre, especially as tree density increases or trees mature. If adopted at scale while demand for meat and milk remains constant, these productivity losses could shift production elsewhere, creating leakage through land-use change and undermining net climate benefits.

The paper also evaluates “over-yielding,” where combined wood and livestock production can exceed what separate land uses would produce. While promising in concept, it faces major practical and economic barriers and can reduce net sequestration benefits if silvopasture is adopted by converting some wood-producing lands. Evidence for soil carbon gains in temperate pasture-to-silvopasture transitions is limited and often shows little change or possible losses. Some evidence suggests resilience benefits, such as moderating heat stress in livestock, alongside potential environmental co-benefits, such as water regulation and reduced erosion.

Overall, the paper concludes that relying on large-scale silvopasture adoption as a major U.S. climate mitigation strategy is not justified by current evidence and recommends targeted pilot projects and rigorous research that jointly measure carbon outcomes, productivity impacts, and leakage risks.