Abstract
For restoration purposes, nature conservation generally enforces the use of local seed material based on the “local‐is‐best” (LIB) approach. However, in some cases recommendations to refrain from this approach have been made. Here we test if a common widespread species with no obvious signs of local adaptation may be a candidate species for abandoning LIB during restoration. Using 10 microsatellite markers we compared population genetic patterns of the generalist species Daucus carota in indigenous and formerly restored sites (nonlocal seed provenances). Gene diversity overall ranged between H e = 0.67 and 0.86 and showed no significant differences between the two groups. Hierarchical AMOVA and principal component analysis revealed very high genetic population admixture and negligible differentiation between indigenous and restored sites (F CT = 0.002). Moreover, differentiation between groups was caused by only one outlier population, where inbreeding effects are presumed. We therefore conclude that the introduction of nonlocal seed provenances in the course of landscape restoration did not jeopardize regional species persistence by contributing to inbreeding or outbreeding depressions, or any measurable adverse population genetic effect. On the basis of these results, we see no obvious objections to the current practice to use the 10‐fold cheaper, nonlocal seed material of D. carota for restoration projects.
Highlights
In landscape and roadside verge restoration projects the use of nonlocal seeds has been – and often still is – common practice, as prices for nonlocal seed mixtures can be up to 10-fold lower than for local provenances, and often large quantities of indigenous genotypes are unavailable (Burton and Burton 2002; Kettenring et al 2014)
Introgression and hybridization between nonlocal and indigenous provenances can alter population genetic compositions as nonlocal genotypes might function as effective drivers for invasions below the species level (Jones 2013)
Microsatellite statistics (Table 2) for allele size ranges of markers, number of alleles, and He values partly differed from earlier publications (Cavagnaro et al 2011)
Summary
In landscape and roadside verge restoration projects the use of nonlocal seeds has been – and often still is – common practice, as prices for nonlocal seed mixtures can be up to 10-fold lower than for local provenances, and often large quantities of indigenous genotypes are unavailable (Burton and Burton 2002; Kettenring et al 2014). Introgression and hybridization between nonlocal and indigenous provenances can alter population genetic compositions as nonlocal genotypes might function as effective drivers for invasions below the species level (Jones 2013). This can lead to the homogenization, coexistence, or extinction of the regional and/or nonlocal gene pools with effects on the genotypic or allelic richness (Hughes et al 2008). As the effects of nonlocal genotypes on the indigenous flora are still not well understood, nature conservation strategies proclaim the preservation and maintenance of local genotypic identities (Jones 2013). The use of local genotypes is justified by the biodiversity conservations’ main strategy to preserve a region’s genetic legacy resulting from a history of natural selection in local environments (Reed and Frankham 2001; Sackville Hamilton 2001; Jones 2013), to preserve indigenous provenances, based on the “local-is-best”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
