ArticleEcology and evolution2017
Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling Phenotypic Trait Variation and Plasticity inEvolutionary applications · 2026Article
- Genetic diversity and morphological variation in wild Silene compacta Fischer genotypes from Türkiye.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Effects of Ecosystem Recovery Types on Soil Phosphorus Bioavailability, Roles of Plant and Microbial Diversity: A Meta-Analysis.Ecology and evolution · 2025Review
- Article
- Two common, often coexisting grassland plant species differ in their evolutionary potential in response to experimental drought.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Testing for evolutionary change in restoration: A genomic comparison betweenEvolutionary applications · 2021Article
- The importance of quantitative trait differentiation in restoration: landscape heterogeneity and functional traits inform seed transfer guidelines.AoB PLANTS · 2020Article
- Individual tree traits shape insect and disease damage on oak in a climate-matching tree diversity experiment.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Strong patterns of intraspecific variation and local adaptation in Great Basin plants revealed through a review of 75 years of experiments.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Parallel genetic adaptation across environments differing in mode of growth or resource availability.Evolution letters · 2018Article
- Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data.Ecology and evolution · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.