Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29299248›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2017

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

Anna Bucharova, Walter Durka, Norbert Hölzel, Johannes Kollmann, Stefan Michalski, Oliver Bossdorf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anna BucharovaPlant Evolutionary Ecology Institute of Evolution & Ecology University of Tübingen Tübingen Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5468-5426
Walter DurkaDepartment of Community Ecology Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ Halle Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6611-2246
Norbert HölzelBiodiversity and Ecosystem Research Group Institute of Landscape Ecology University of Münster Münster Germany.
Johannes KollmannDepartment of Ecology & Ecosystem Management Restoration Ecology Technical University of Munich München Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4990-3636
Stefan MichalskiDepartment of Community Ecology Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ Halle Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8969-7355
Oliver BossdorfPlant Evolutionary Ecology Institute of Evolution & Ecology University of Tübingen Tübingen Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

experimental designlocal adaptationmaladaptationprovenancereciprocal transplant experimentrestoration ecology

Identifiers

PMID29299248
PMCPMC5743477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.