Cargando…

Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data

One of the key questions in ecosystem restoration is the choice of the seed material for restoring plant communities. The most common strategy is to use local seed sources, based on the argument that many plants are locally adapted and thus local seed sources should provide the best restoration succ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bucharova, Anna, Durka, Walter, Hölzel, Norbert, Kollmann, Johannes, Michalski, Stefan, Bossdorf, Oliver
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5743477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29299248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3585
_version_ 1783288573114449920
author Bucharova, Anna
Durka, Walter
Hölzel, Norbert
Kollmann, Johannes
Michalski, Stefan
Bossdorf, Oliver
author_facet Bucharova, Anna
Durka, Walter
Hölzel, Norbert
Kollmann, Johannes
Michalski, Stefan
Bossdorf, Oliver
author_sort Bucharova, Anna
collection PubMed
description One of the key questions in ecosystem restoration is the choice of the seed material for restoring plant communities. The most common strategy is to use local seed sources, based on the argument that many plants are locally adapted and thus local seed sources should provide the best restoration success. However, the evidence for local adaptation is inconsistent, and some of these inconsistencies may be due to different experimental approaches that have been used to test for local adaptation. We illustrate how conclusions about local adaptation depend on the experimental design and in particular on the method of data analysis. We used data from a multispecies reciprocal transplant experiment and analyzed them in three different ways: (1) comparing local vs. foreign plants within species and sites, corresponding to tests of the “local is best” paradigm in ecological restoration, (2) comparing sympatric vs. allopatric populations across sites but within species, and (3) comparing sympatric and allopatric populations across multiple species. These approaches reflect different experimental designs: While a local vs. foreign comparison can be done even in small experiments with a single species and site, the other two approaches require a reciprocal transplant experiment with one or multiple species, respectively. The three different analyses led to contrasting results. While the local/foreign approach indicated lack of local adaptation or even maladaptation, the more general sympatric/allopatric approach rather suggested local adaptation, and the most general cross‐species sympatric/allopatric test provided significant evidence for local adaptation. The analyses demonstrate how the design of experiments and methods of data analysis impact conclusions on the presence or absence of local adaptation. While small‐scale, single‐species experiments may be useful for identifying the appropriate seed material for a specific restoration project, general patterns can only be detected in reciprocal transplant experiments with multiple species and sites.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5743477
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57434772018-01-03 Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data Bucharova, Anna Durka, Walter Hölzel, Norbert Kollmann, Johannes Michalski, Stefan Bossdorf, Oliver Ecol Evol Original Research One of the key questions in ecosystem restoration is the choice of the seed material for restoring plant communities. The most common strategy is to use local seed sources, based on the argument that many plants are locally adapted and thus local seed sources should provide the best restoration success. However, the evidence for local adaptation is inconsistent, and some of these inconsistencies may be due to different experimental approaches that have been used to test for local adaptation. We illustrate how conclusions about local adaptation depend on the experimental design and in particular on the method of data analysis. We used data from a multispecies reciprocal transplant experiment and analyzed them in three different ways: (1) comparing local vs. foreign plants within species and sites, corresponding to tests of the “local is best” paradigm in ecological restoration, (2) comparing sympatric vs. allopatric populations across sites but within species, and (3) comparing sympatric and allopatric populations across multiple species. These approaches reflect different experimental designs: While a local vs. foreign comparison can be done even in small experiments with a single species and site, the other two approaches require a reciprocal transplant experiment with one or multiple species, respectively. The three different analyses led to contrasting results. While the local/foreign approach indicated lack of local adaptation or even maladaptation, the more general sympatric/allopatric approach rather suggested local adaptation, and the most general cross‐species sympatric/allopatric test provided significant evidence for local adaptation. The analyses demonstrate how the design of experiments and methods of data analysis impact conclusions on the presence or absence of local adaptation. While small‐scale, single‐species experiments may be useful for identifying the appropriate seed material for a specific restoration project, general patterns can only be detected in reciprocal transplant experiments with multiple species and sites. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5743477/ /pubmed/29299248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3585 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Bucharova, Anna
Durka, Walter
Hölzel, Norbert
Kollmann, Johannes
Michalski, Stefan
Bossdorf, Oliver
Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data
title Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data
title_full Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data
title_fullStr Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data
title_full_unstemmed Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data
title_short Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data
title_sort are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? it depends on how you analyze the data
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5743477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29299248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3585
work_keys_str_mv AT bucharovaanna arelocalplantsthebestforecosystemrestorationitdependsonhowyouanalyzethedata
AT durkawalter arelocalplantsthebestforecosystemrestorationitdependsonhowyouanalyzethedata
AT holzelnorbert arelocalplantsthebestforecosystemrestorationitdependsonhowyouanalyzethedata
AT kollmannjohannes arelocalplantsthebestforecosystemrestorationitdependsonhowyouanalyzethedata
AT michalskistefan arelocalplantsthebestforecosystemrestorationitdependsonhowyouanalyzethedata
AT bossdorfoliver arelocalplantsthebestforecosystemrestorationitdependsonhowyouanalyzethedata