Priority Actions to Improve Provenance Decision-Making

TLDR

Selecting provenance of seed is a key decision in restoration, with a long‑standing preference for local seed to preserve local adaptation, but habitat fragmentation and climate change have prompted a theoretical debate over whether the local‑is‑best standard should be revised, thereby hindering practical decision‑making. The study outlines cross‑sector priority actions—embedding provenance trials into restoration projects, developing dynamic evidence‑based provenance policies, and strengthening research‑practitioner collaborations—to improve provenance decision‑making. The authors propose implementing these actions by integrating provenance trials, creating dynamic evidence‑based policies, and fostering research‑practitioner collaboration to satisfy the restoration sector’s requirement for appropriately provenanced seed.

Abstract

Selecting the geographic origin—the provenance—of seed is a key decision in restoration. The last decade has seen a vigorous debate on whether to use local or nonlocal seed. The use of local seed has been the preferred approach because it is expected to maintain local adaptation and avoid deleterious population effects (e.g., maladaptation and outbreeding depression). However, the impacts of habitat fragmentation and climate change on plant populations have driven the debate on whether the local-is-best standard needs changing. This debate has largely been theoretical in nature, which hampers provenance decision-making. Here, we detail cross-sector priority actions to improve provenance decision-making, including embedding provenance trials into restoration projects; developing dynamic, evidence-based provenance policies; and establishing stronger research–practitioner collaborations to facilitate the adoption of research outcomes. We discuss how to tackle these priority actions in order to help satisfy the restoration sector's requirement for appropriately provenanced seed.