Ecotypes of Native Species: How Local is Local in Restoration Plantings?
E. E. Knapp,K. Rice
Abstract:The growing knowledge of the threats posed by exotic species to native biodiversity has generated a great deal of interest in planting native species and restoring native plant habitat. In addition, planting native species is often an integral part of exotic plant eradication efforts. By planting native species the hope is that these plants will take over the space formerly occupied by the exotics and thereby help reduce the chances of unwanted recolonization by the latter. However, planting native species can bring a new set of "exotic vs. native" issues. If a seed source is used that evolved in a different region, in association with different climate and soil types, it can be argued that such a planted population is in reality no more "native" to that site than an exotic species would be. A basis for this argument is that extensive genetic differences are found among populations of most native species. These genetic differences can be caused by natural selection acting across a diverse array of environments, or by genetic drift, due to small population size and lack of genetic mixing (gene flow) among populations, or a combination of both. Populations that differ as a result of natural selection are known as "ecotypes" and are often best adapted to the local environmental conditions. Thus, if non-local seed sources are used for a project, the plants may not be well adapted. This can not only lead to failure of the plants to persist (see discussion in Handel et al. 1994), but can also result in genetic contamination of existing local populations of the species (Millar and Libby 1989, Libby and Rodrigues 1992, Knapp and Rice 1994, Knapp and Dyer 1997). Only recently, the importance of genetic variation within the species has been widely appreciated by restorationists (Padgett and Crow 1994). An example of this shift in thinking is that agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) now require seed of native plants for projects on Federal lands to originate from "genetically local sources." However, the lack of information on patterns of natural genetic variation in many native species makes defining "local" difficult. The USFS uses seed zones based on geographic and genetic information to dictate regions of transfer for commercially harvested conifer species (Buck et al. 1970). Rudimentary rules have been attempted for other species for which only limited, if any, genetic information is available. For example, Linhart (1995) suggested that seed of herbaceaous species be collected not more than 100 meters away, and seed of woody species not more than 1 km away. However, it is not yet known for most native plant species over what geographic ranges seed can be successfully transferred and grown over the long term, or to what extent local populations are genetically superior to non-local populations. In addition, experiments have not yet been carried out to determine what happens to seed from non-local plants. Do these plants eventually die" Can they spread like weedy species, and can these non-local genotypes contaminate local populations of the same native species? These are some of the questions we sought to answer when we initiated our research on patterns of genetic variation in native grass species. Our objective in this paper is to briefly summarize some of our findings to date and to explain the relevance of these findings to native plant restoration.