Bucharova Anna, Durka Walter, Hölzel Norbert, Kollmann Johannes, Michalski Stefan, Bossdorf Oliver
Plant Evolutionary Ecology Institute of Evolution & Ecology University of Tübingen Tübingen Germany.
Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology University of Freiburg Freiburg im Breisgau Germany.
Ecol Evol. 2017 Nov 6;7(24):10683-10689. doi: 10.1002/ece3.3585. eCollection 2017 Dec.
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.
生态系统恢复中的关键问题之一是选择用于恢复植物群落的种子材料。最常见的策略是使用本地种子来源，其依据是许多植物具有本地适应性，因此本地种子来源应能带来最佳的恢复成效。然而，关于本地适应性的证据并不一致，其中一些不一致可能归因于用于测试本地适应性的不同实验方法。我们阐述了关于本地适应性的结论如何取决于实验设计，特别是数据分析方法。我们使用了来自多物种相互移栽实验的数据，并以三种不同方式进行分析：（1）在物种和地点内比较本地植物与外来植物，这对应于生态恢复中“本地最好”范式的测试；（2）在物种内跨地点比较同域种群与异域种群；（3）跨多个物种比较同域和异域种群。这些方法反映了不同的实验设计：虽然即使在单个物种和地点的小型实验中也可以进行本地与外来的比较，但其他两种方法分别需要一个或多个物种的相互移栽实验。这三种不同的分析得出了截然不同的结果。虽然本地/外来方法表明缺乏本地适应性甚至适应不良，但更通用的同域/异域方法则更倾向于本地适应性，而最通用的跨物种同域/异域测试为本地适应性提供了重要证据。这些分析表明实验设计和数据分析方法如何影响关于本地适应性存在与否的结论。虽然小规模的单物种实验可能有助于为特定的恢复项目确定合适的种子材料，但只有在涉及多个物种和地点的相互移栽实验中才能检测到一般模式。
