Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40657025›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary applications2025

The Influence of Spatial Distance and Environment on Small-Scale Genetic Variability in Eelgrass and Its Application for Restoration.

Marlene Jahnke, Stefanie R Ries, Swantje Enge, Christian Pansch, Giannina Hattich, Maru Bernal-Gómez, Pierre De Wit, Jonathan Havenhand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary applications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Marlene JahnkeDepartment of Marine Sciences-Tjärnö Marine Laboratory University of Gothenburg Strömstad Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7262-315X
Stefanie R RiesDepartment of Marine Sciences-Tjärnö Marine Laboratory University of Gothenburg Strömstad Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5487-2870
Swantje EngeDepartment of Marine Sciences-Tjärnö Marine Laboratory University of Gothenburg Strömstad Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4292-0051
Christian PanschEnvironmental and Marine Biology Åbo Akademi University Åbo/Turku Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8442-4502
Giannina HattichEnvironmental and Marine Biology Åbo Akademi University Åbo/Turku Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4660-7759
Maru Bernal-GómezDepartment of Marine Sciences-Tjärnö Marine Laboratory University of Gothenburg Strömstad Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0275-6620
Pierre De WitDepartment of Marine Sciences-Tjärnö Marine Laboratory University of Gothenburg Strömstad Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4709-3438
Jonathan HavenhandDepartment of Marine Sciences-Tjärnö Marine Laboratory University of Gothenburg Strömstad Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0253-3428

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying suitable donor sites is an important component of successful restoration and reduces the likelihood that a restoration action will have negative impacts on surrounding populations. Whether the most suitable donor site has (1) fast-growing phenotypes, (2) high genetic diversity, or (3) harbors alleles that are beneficial for the current or future environment at the restoration site is an ongoing debate in restoration genomics. It is also debated whether one single donor site is the best choice, or if a mixed provenance strategy from sites with different characteristics is preferable. For eelgrass restoration, donor material is typically sourced within a few kilometers. It is therefore also this small spatial scale that needs to be considered when testing which local meadows harbor the most beneficial donor material for a given restoration site. We here assessed micro-habitat differences at 10 eelgrass meadows across 1.5-14 km and genotyped the 10 meadows at 1689 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). We observed substantial differences in temperature regimes, genetic differentiation, and genetic diversity. We found that even on this small scale, 10% of the overall genetic variation was explained by the local environment of the meadow as well as geographic distance and genetic differentiation. We also identified putative adaptive loci associated with environmental variables and detected differences in growth in common-garden mesocosm experiments simulating ambient summer conditions as well as a marine heatwave with concurrent freshening. We highlight that the variation in environment, genetic diversity, local adaptation, the potential for preadaptation for future conditions, and differences in individual growth can be strong in eelgrass meadows even on the small spatial scale. We suggest a donor registry to take into account these differences and narrow down the pool of potential donor meadows to source the most beneficial combination of donor material for any given restoration site.

Indexed as

common garden experimentdonor site selectionEU Nature Restoration Lawlocal adaptationpreadaptationZostera marina

Identifiers

PMID40657025
PMCPMC12246960

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.