ArticleEvolutionary applications2025
The Influence of Spatial Distance and Environment on Small-Scale Genetic Variability in Eelgrass and Its Application for Restoration.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meeting Report on the Assisted Gene Flow and Climate Change Responses Workshop, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, CA, USA, 5-7 March 2025.Evolutionary applications · 2026Article
- Take a dive into seascape genomics.Nature methods · 2026Article
- The Influence of Spatial Distance and Environment on Small-Scale Genetic Variability in Eelgrass and Its Application for Restoration.Evolutionary applications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.