Conservation Genetics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 7–17 | Cite as

Mix and match: regional admixture provenancing strikes a balance among different seed-sourcing strategies for ecological restoration

  • Anna BucharovaEmail author
  • Oliver Bossdorf
  • Norbert Hölzel
  • Johannes Kollmann
  • Rüdiger Prasse
  • Walter Durka


One of the main questions in ecosystem restoration is where to obtain the seeds to re-establish plant communities. While the most commonly advocated approach is to use seeds from local sources, some experts argue against this because local populations may harbour little genetic variability for the restored populations to be able to adapt to and survive global change. Instead, they propose alternative strategies such as mixing seeds from various sources to increase genetic variability and adaptive potential, or using seeds from populations that have a similar climate as predicted for the target locality in the future. All these alternative seed-sourcing strategies have in common that they involve a transplanting of plant ecotypes, sometimes over large spatial scales. This is risky because plants from distant origins may be maladapted to the current local abiotic and biotic environment. In addition, introduction of non-local provenances will disrupt natural patterns of within-species biodiversity and will affect ecological networks, with unpredictable consequences. To balance the value of local adaptation with the need for future adaptation potential, we propose ‘regional admixture provenancing’ as a compromise strategy. Here seeds are sourced from multiple populations within the same region as the target locality and mixed prior to use. The mixing of seeds will increase the genetic diversity necessary for future adaptation, while restricting seed origins to a regional scale will maintain regional adaptation and reduce the risk of unintended effects on other biota. This approach is feasible in practice and has recently been implemented in Germany. We believe that it represents a compromise to reconcile opposing views on ecological restoration.


Local adaptation Regional adaptation Region of origin Seed mixture Seed sourcing strategy Seed transfer zone 



AB thanks the Bridging Funds Program of University Tübingen for financing her stay at that institute.


  1. Abdala-Roberts L, Marquis RJ (2007) Test of local adaptation to biotic interactions and soil abiotic conditions in the ant-tended Chamaecrista fasciculata (Fabaceae). Oecologia 154:315–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitken SN, Bemmels JB (2016) Time to get moving: assisted gene flow of forest trees. Evol Appl 9:271–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander JM, Diez JM, Levine JM (2015) Novel competitors shape species’ responses to climate change. Nature 525:515–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo MB, Luoto M (2007) The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:743–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aubry C, Shoal R, Erickson V (2005) Grass cultivars: their origins, development, and use on national forests and grasslands in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest ServiceGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbour MA, Fortuna MA, Bascompte J et al (2016) Genetic specificity of a plant-insect food web: implications for linking genetic variation to network complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:2128–2133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Baudis M, Ellerbrock RH, Felsmann K et al (2014) Intraspecific differences in responses to rainshelter-induced drought and competition of Fagus sylvatica L. across Germany. For Ecol Manage 330:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker U, Colling G, Dostal P et al (2006) Local adaptation in the monocarpic perennial Carlina vulgaris at different spatial scales across Europe. Oecologia 150:506–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Beierkuhnlein C, Thiel D, Jentsch A et al (2011) Ecotypes of European grass species respond differently to warming and extreme drought. J Ecol 99:703–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bischoff A, Trémulot S (2011) Differentiation and adaptation in Brassica nigra populations: interactions with related herbivores. Oecologia 165:971–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bjorkman AD, Vellend M, Frei ER, Henry GHR (2017) Climate adaptation is not enough: warming does not facilitate success of southern tundra plant populations in the high Arctic. Glob Chang Biol 23:1540–1551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L et al (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bower AD, Bradley St Clair J, Erickson V (2014) Generalized provisional seed zones for native plants. Ecol Appl 24:913–919CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradley St Clair J, Kilkenny FF, Johnson RC et al (2013) Genetic variation in adaptive traits and seed transfer zones for Pseudoroegneria spicata (bluebunch wheatgrass) in the northwestern United States. Evol Appl 6:933–948CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Breed MF, Stead MG, Ottewell KM et al (2013) Which provenance and where? Seed sourcing strategies for revegetation in a changing environment. Conserv Genet 14:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Breed MF, Harrison PA, Bischoff A et al (2018) Priority actions to improve provenance decision making. Bioscience (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Broadhurst LM, Lowe A, Coates DJ et al (2008) Seed supply for broadscale restoration: maximizing evolutionary potential. Evol Appl 1:587–597PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Bucharova A (2017) Assisted migration within species range ignores biotic interactions and lacks evidence. Restor Ecol 25:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bucharova A, Durka W, Hermann J-M et al (2016a) Plants adapted to warmer climate do not outperform regional plants during a natural heat wave. Ecol Evol 6:4160–4165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Bucharova A, Frenzel M, Mody K et al (2016b) Plant ecotype affects interacting organisms across multiple trophic levels. Basic Appl Ecol 17:688–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bucharova A, Durka W, Hölzel N et al (2017a) Are local plants the best for ecosystem restoration? It depends on how you analyze the data. Ecol Evol 7:10683–10689CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Bucharova A, Michalski S, Hermann J-M et al (2017b) Genetic differentiation and regional adaptation among seed origins used for grassland restoration: lessons from a multi-species transplant experiment. J Appl Ecol 54:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Byrne M, Yeates DK, Joseph L et al (2008) Birth of a biome: insights into the assembly and maintenance of the Australian arid zone biota. Mol Ecol 17:4398–4417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Crémieux L, Bischoff A, Müller-Schärer H, Steinger T (2010) Gene flow from foreign provenances into local plant populations: fitness consequences and implications for biodiversity restoration. Am J Bot 97:94–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Crowe KA, Parker WH (2008) Using portfolio theory to guide reforestation and restoration under climate change scenarios. Clim Change 89:355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Kort H, Vandepitte K, Honnay O (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of plant traits and geographical scale on the magnitude of adaptive differentiation as measured by the difference between QST and FST. Evol Ecol 27:1081–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dounavi A, Netzer F, Celepirovic N et al (2016) Genetic and physiological differences of European beech provenances (F. sylvatica L.) exposed to drought stress. For Ecol Manage 361:226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Durka W, Michalski SG, Berendzen KW et al (2017) Genetic differentiation within multiple common grassland plants supports seed transfer zones for ecological restoration. J Appl Ecol 54:116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edmands S (2007) Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management. Mol Ecol 16:463–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellis AG, Weis AE, Gaut BS (2007) Spatial scale of local adaptation and population genetic structure in a miniature succulent, Argyroderma pearsonii. New Phytol 174:904–914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Elmendorf SC, Henry GHR, Hollister RD et al (2015) Experiment, monitoring, and gradient methods used to infer climate change effects on plant communities yield consistent patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:448–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ennos RA (2015) Resilience of forests to pathogens: an evolutionary ecology perspective. Forestry 88:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ErMiV (2011) Regulation about the placing on the market of seed of conservation mixtures. Bundesgesetzblatt I 65:2641–2646Google Scholar
  34. Espeland EK, Emery NC, Mercer KL et al (2017) Evolution of plant materials for ecological restoration: insights from the applied and basic literature. J Appl Ecol 54:102–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Etterson JR (2004) Evolutionary potential of Chamaecrista fasciculata in relation to climate change. II. Genetic architecture of three populations reciprocally planted along an environmental gradient in the great plains. Evolution 58:1459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Fernández M, Gil L, Pardos JA (1999) Response of Pinus pinaster Ait. provenances at early age to water supply. I. Water relation parameters. Ann For Sci 56:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Frankham R (2015) Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol Ecol 24:2610–2618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Eldridge MDB et al (2011) Predicting the probability of outbreeding depression. Conserv Biol 25:465–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Garrido E, Andraca-Gómez G, Fornoni J (2012) Local adaptation: simultaneously considering herbivores and their host plants. New Phytol 193:445–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Gellie NJC, Breed MF, Thurgate N et al (2016) Local maladaptation in a foundation tree species: implications for restoration. Biol Conserv 203:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ghilarov AM (2000) Ecosystem functioning and intrinsic value of biodiversity. Oikos 90:408–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gibson A, Nelson CR (2017) Comparing provisional seed transfer zone strategies for a commonly seeded grass, Pseudoroegneria spicata. Nat Areas J 37:188–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gilhaus K, Vogt V, Hölzel N (2015) Restoration of sand grasslands by topsoil removal and self-greening. Appl Veg Sci 18:661–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gimenez-Benavides L, Escudero A, Iriondo JM (2007) Local adaptation enhances seedling recruitment along an altitudinal gradient in a high mountain Mediterranean plant. Ann Bot 99:723–734CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Gray LK, Gylander T, Mbogga MS et al (2011) Assisted migration to address climate change: recommendations for aspen reforestation in western Canada. Ecol Appl 21:1591–1603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hamann E, Kesselring H, Armbruster GFJ et al (2016) Evidence of local adaptation to fine- and coarse-grained environmental variability in Poa alpina in the Swiss Alps. J Ecol 104:1627–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hancock N, Hughes L (2014) Turning up the heat on the provenance debate: testing the “local is best” paradigm under heatwave conditions. Austral Ecol 39:600–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Harvey E, Gounand I, Ward CL, Altermatt F (2017) Bridging ecology and conservation: from ecological networks to ecosystem function. J Appl Ecol 54:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Havens K, Vitt P, Still S et al (2015) Seed sourcing for restoration in an era of climate change. Nat Areas J 35:122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Herrera AM, Carruthers RI, Mills NJ (2011) No evidence for increased performance of a specialist psyllid on invasive French broom. Acta Oecol 37:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hölzel N, Buisson E, Dutoit T (2012) Species introduction: a major topic in vegetation restoration. Appl Veg Sci 15:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hufford KM, Mazer SJ (2003) Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 18:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hufford KM, Krauss SL, Veneklaas EJ (2012) Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in Stylidium hispidum: implications for mixing seed sources for ecological restoration. Ecol Evol 2:2262–2273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Hull-Sanders HM, Clare R, Johnson RH, Meyer GA (2007) Evaluation of the evolution of increased competitive ability (EICA) hypothesis: loss of defense against generalist but not specialist herbivores. J Chem Ecol 33:781–799CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Jay F, Manel S, Alvarez N et al (2012) Forecasting changes in population genetic structure of alpine plants in response to global warming. Mol Ecol 21:2354–2368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Jones TA (2003) The restoration gene pool concept: beyond the native versus non-native debate. Restor Ecol 11:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kadu CAC, Konrad H, Schueler S et al (2013) Divergent pattern of nuclear genetic diversity across the range of the Afromontane Prunus africana mirrors variable climate of African highlands. Ann Bot 111:47–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Kalske A, Muola A, Laukkanen L et al (2012) Variation and constraints of local adaptation of a long-lived plant, its pollinators and specialist herbivores. J Ecol 100:1359–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kalske A, Leimu R, Scheepens JF, Mutikainen P (2016) Spatiotemporal variation in local adaptation of a specialist insect herbivore to its long-lived host plant. Evolution 70:2110–2122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Kebede M, Ehrich D, Taberlet P et al (2007) Phylogeography and conservation genetics of a giant lobelia (Lobelia giberroa) in Ethiopian and Tropical East African mountains. Mol Ecol 16:1233–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Keller M, Kollmann J, Edwards PJ (1999) Palatability of weeds from different European origins to the slugs Deroceras reticulatum Müller and Arion lusitanicus Mabille. Acta Oecol 20:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kettenring KM, Mercer KL, Reinhardt Adams C, Hines J (2014) Application of genetic diversity-ecosystem function research to ecological restoration. J Appl Ecol 51:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kiehl K, Kirmer A, Shaw N, Tischew S (2014) Guidelines for native seed production and grassland restoration. Cambridge Scholar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  64. Kramer AT, Wood TE, Frischie S, Havens K (2018) Considering ploidy when producing and using mixed-source native plant materials for restoration. Restor Ecol 26:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kranabetter JM, Stoehr M, O’Neill GA (2015) Ectomycorrhizal fungal maladaptation and growth reductions associated with assisted migration of Douglas-fir. New Phytol 206:1135–1144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Laine A-L (2005) Spatial scale of local adaptation in a plant-pathogen metapopulation. J Evol Biol 18:930–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Laukkanen L, Leimu R, Muola A et al (2012) Plant chemistry and local adaptation of a specialized folivore. PLoS ONE 7:e38225CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Leger EA, Baughman OW (2015) What seeds to plant in the Great Basin? Comparing traits prioritized in native plant cultivars and releases with those that promote survival in the field. Nat Areas J 35:54–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Leger EA, Forister ML (2005) Increased resistance to generalist herbivores in invasive populations of the California poppy (Eschscholzia californica). Divers Distrib 11:311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Leimu R, Fischer M (2008) A meta-analysis of local adaptation in plants. PLoS ONE 3:e4010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Leimu R, Mutikainen P, Koricheva J, Fischer M (2006) How general are positive relationships between plant population size, fitness and genetic variation? J Ecol 94:942–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Leimu R, Muola A, Laukkanen L et al (2012) Plant-herbivore coevolution in a changing world. Entomol Exp Appl 144:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lenssen JPM, van Kleunen M, Fischer M, de Kroon H (2004) Local adaptation of the clonal plant Ranunculus reptans to flooding along a small-scale gradient. J Ecol 92:696–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lesica P, Allendorf FW (1999) Ecological genetics and the restoration of plant communities: mix or match? Restor Ecol 7:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Linhart YB, Grant MC (1996) Evolutionary significance of local genetic differentiation in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 27:237–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lu P, Parker WH, Cherry M et al (2014) Survival and growth patterns of white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss) rangewide provenances and their implications for climate change adaptation. Ecol Evol 4:2360–2374CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Matías L, González-Díaz P, Jump AS (2014) Larger investment in roots in southern range-edge populations of Scots pine is associated with increased growth and seedling resistance to extreme drought in response to simulated climate change. Environ Exp Bot 105:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. McDonald T, Jonson J, Dixon KW (2016) National standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia. Restor Ecol 24:S4–S32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McKay JK, Christian CE, Harrison S, Rice KJ (2005) “How local is local?”: a review of practical and conceptual issues in the genetics of restoration. Restor Ecol 13:432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. McLane SC, Aitken SN (2012) Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) assisted migration potential: testing establishment north of the species range. Ecol Appl 22:142–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Mealor BA, Cox S, Booth DT (2012) Postfire Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) invasion at high elevations in Wyoming. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 5:427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Merritt DJ, Dixon KW (2011) Restoration seed banks-a matter of scale. Science 332:424–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Meynen E, Schmithüsen J (1953) Handbuch der naturräumlichen Gliederung Deutschlands. Selbstverlag der Bundesanstalt für Landeskunde, Bad GoldesbergGoogle Scholar
  84. Michalski SG, Durka W (2012) Assessment of provenance delineation by genetic differentiation patterns and estimates of gene flow in the common grassland plant Geranium pratense. Conserv Genet 13:581–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Miller SA, Bartow A, Gisler M et al (2011) Can an ecoregion serve as a seed transfer zone? Evidence from a common garden study with five native species. Restor Ecol 19:268–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mody K, Collatz J, Bucharova A, Dorn S (2017) Crop cultivar affects performance of herbivore enemies and may trigger enhanced pest control by coaction of different parasitoid species. Agric Ecosyst Environ 245:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Montwé D, Isaac-Renton M, Hamann A, Spiecker H (2016) Drought tolerance and growth in populations of a wide-ranging tree species indicate climate change risks for the boreal north. Glob Chang Biol 22:806–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Oduor AMO, Leimu R, van Kleunen M (2016) Invasive plant species are locally adapted just as frequently and at least as strongly as native plant species. J Ecol 104:957–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Petit RJ, Hampe A (2006) Some evolutionary consequences of being a tree. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:187–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Prach K, Fajmon K, Jongepierová I, Řehounková K (2015a) Landscape context in colonization of restored dry grasslands by target species. Appl Veg Sci 18:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Prach K, del Moral R (2015b) Passive restoration is often quite effective: response to Zahawi et al. (2014). Restor Ecol 23:344–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Prasse R, Kunzmann D, Schröder R (2010) Development and practical implementation of minimal requirements for the verification of origin of native seeds of herbaceous plants (in German). In Cooperation with Verband Deutscher Wildsamen- und Wildpflanzenproduzenten. DBU, reference no. 23931Google Scholar
  93. Prober SM, Byrne M, McLean EH et al (2015) Climate-adjusted provenancing: a strategy for climate-resilient ecological restoration. Front Ecol Evol 3:65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Raabová J, Münzbergová Z, Fischer M (2007) Ecological rather than geographic or genetic distance affects local adaptation of the rare perennial herb, Aster amellus. Biol Conserv 139:348–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Raabová J, Münzbergová Z, Fischer M (2011) The role of spatial scale and soil for local adaptation in Inula hirta. Basic Appl Ecol 12:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Reisch C, Bernhardt-Römermann M (2014) The impact of study design and life history traits on genetic variation of plants determined with AFLPs. Plant Ecol 215:1493–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rieger ER, Feucht BI, Wieden MA (2014) Agricultural progagation of native seeds and development of a certification procedure in Germany. In: Kiehl K, Kirmer A, Shaw N, Tischew S (eds) Guidelines for native seed production and grassland restoration. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp 101–116Google Scholar
  98. Schreiber SG, Ding C, Hamann A et al (2013) Frost hardiness vs. growth performance in trembling aspen: an experimental test of assisted migration. J Appl Ecol 50:939–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sexton JP, Hangartner SB, Hoffmann AA (2014) Genetic isolation by environment or distance: which pattern of gene flow is most common? Evolution 68:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Sgrò CM, Lowe AJ, Hoffmann AA (2011) Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evol Appl 4:326–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Sinclair FH, Stone GN, Nicholls JA et al (2015) Impacts of local adaptation of forest trees on associations with herbivorous insects: implications for adaptive forest management. Evol Appl 8:972–987CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Taberlet P, Fumagalli L, Wust-Saucy AG, Cosson JF (1998) Comparative phylogeography and postglacial colonization routes in Europe. Mol Ecol 7:453–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Taeger S, Zang C, Liesebach M et al (2013) Impact of climate and drought events on the growth of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) provenances. For Ecol Manage 307:30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Taeger S, Sparks TH, Menzel A (2015) Effects of temperature and drought manipulations on seedlings of Scots pine provenances. Plant Biol 17:361–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Tahmasebi Z, Mohammadi H, Arimura G et al (2014) Herbivore-induced indirect defense across bean cultivars is independent of their degree of direct resistance. Exp Appl Acarol 63:217–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Taïbi K, del Campo AD, Aguado A, Mulet JM (2016) Early establishment response of different Pinus nigra ssp. salzmanii seed sources on contrasting environments: implications for future reforestation programs and assisted population migration. J Environ Manage 171:184–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Taïbi K, del Campo AD, Vilagrosa A et al (2017) Drought tolerance in Pinus halepensis seed sources as identified by distinctive physiological and molecular markers. Front Plant Sci 8:1202CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. Thiel D, Kreyling J, Backhaus S et al (2014) Different reactions of central and marginal provenances of Fagus sylvatica to experimental drought. Eur J For Res 133:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Toju H, Sota T (2006) Imbalance of predator and prey armament: geographic clines in phenotypic interface and natural selection. Am Nat 167:105–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Turchetto-Zolet AC, Pinheiro F, Salgueiro F, Palma-Silva C (2013) Phylogeographical patterns shed light on evolutionary process in South America. Mol Ecol 22:1193–1213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Varone L, Vitale M, Catoni R, Gratani L (2016) Physiological differences of five Holm oak (Quercus ilex L.) ecotypes growing under common growth conditions were related to native local climate. Plant Species Biol 31:196–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Vergeer P, Sonderen E, Ouborg NJ (2004) Introduction strategies put to the test: local adaptation versus heterosis. Conserv Biol 18:812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Volis S, Ormanbekova D, Yermekbayev K et al (2015) Multi-approaches analysis reveals local adaptation in the emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccoides) at macro- but not micro-geographical scale. PLoS ONE 10:e0121153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. Weißhuhn K, Prati D, Fischer M, Auge H (2012) Regional adaptation improves the performance of grassland plant communities. Basic Appl Ecol 13:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wellstein C, Cianfaglione K (2014) Impact of extreme drought and warming on survival and growth characteristics of different provenences of juvenile Quercus pubescens Willd. Folia Geobot 49:31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Whittet R, Cavers S, Cottrell J, Ennos R (2016) Seed sourcing for woodland creation in an era of uncertainty: an analysis of the options for Great Britain. Forestry 90:163–173Google Scholar
  117. Wilczek AM, Cooper MD, Korves TM, Schmitt J (2014) Lagging adaptation to warming climate in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:7906–7913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Williams AV, Nevill PG, Krauss SL (2014) Next generation restoration genetics: applications and opportunities. Trends Plant Sci 19:529–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Zytynska SE, Preziosi RF (2011) Genetic interactions influence host preference and performance in a plant-insect system. Evol Ecol 25:1321–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plant Evolutionary Ecology, Institute of Evolution and EcologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Nature Conservation and Landscape EcologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany
  3. 3.Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research Group, Institute of Landscape EcologyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  4. 4.Restoration Ecology, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem ManagementTechnical University of MünchenMunichGermany
  5. 5.Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO)ÅsNorway
  6. 6.Institute of Environmental PlanningLeibniz University HannoverHanoverGermany
  7. 7.Department of Community EcologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZHalleGermany
  8. 8.German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  9. 9.Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research Group, Institute of Landscape EcologyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations