I shoot RAW, so as was just pointed out I can just select whatever colorspace i like after the fact. But i always use sRGB. years ago i took some test shots and printed the images myself in both adobe and sRGB. The images had lots of green foliage. The human eye is most sensitive to green, and if memory serves me green shows the largest improvement in colorspace range when you compare sRGB to adobe. So if adobe was going to be an improvement, this would show it. End result, the images looked slightly different, but just barely and I couldn't say i liked the adobe more. stick with sRGB. you don't want to start fooling with adode unless you have lots of time and money to spend. you don't want to start moving sliders around , adjusting an image when you can't really see what it is you're doing. so you need a new monitor. you probably don't want to see what they cost, and that's only the beginning of the fun.
It's actually a fallacy that Adobe vs sRGB is only about the greens. People base that on a single 2D slice of the 3D gamuts and all they see is a giant chunk of green added.
Crazy saturated intense greens are actually somewhat rarer to come across in nature so it's actually reds, purples, oranges, yellows that are where you'd see the most difference between say ProphotoRGB and sRGB viewing on a wide gamut monitor. Try to make a deep red rose or deep purple petunia look realistic in sRGB and it just can't be done, same for many flowers, use prophotorgb and a wide gamut monitor and suddenly they look vastly more like real life. Shoot a sunset and in sRGB some bright saturated cloud bands disappear but pop back right out at you on a wide gamut.
I have noticed the differences mentioned for the colors highlighted and in deep blues being more realistic and more accurately portrayed.