Restoring damaged ecosystems starts with choosing the right seed, but this decision can be complicated. We compared guidance used by federal land management agencies with practices described in scientific literature to illustrate differences between how seed is used and how seed can be used most successfully.
The scientific literature often focuses on genetics, local adaptation, and how plants respond to climate change, while federal agencies emphasize practical needs like cost, availability, and using seeds that are suited to local environments. Although both groups share priorities, important gaps remain, especially around managing genetic risks, adapting to future climates, and increasing the supply of native seed.
Continued collaboration among researchers, land managers, and seed producers will ensure that selecting and using native seeds for land management activities will be scientifically sound and feasible to implement.
Perspective article
Bridging theory and practice to inform seed selection for restoration
Shriver L.C., Jordan S.E., Massatti R., and Munson S.M. (2025). Restoration Ecology, e70174.
Introduction
Land managers often face the critical decision of what plant materials to select for ecological restoration. Selection depends on factors that span ecological conditions and human interventions in the restoration process, which can strongly influence the recovery of a degraded ecosystem.
Objectives
To improve the seed selection process, the article compares scientific literature and guidance from five federal agencies to bridge seed selection theory and practice in the interior western and central United States.
Methods
The authors extracted recurring themes and keywords associated with abiotic, biotic, land management, and producer practices that influence seed selection and analyzed their proportional use between agency guidance and scientific literature.
Results
The review identified significant overlap between key concepts in agency guidance and scientific literature, highlighting the interconnectedness between science and management. However, nuanced patterns emerged across seed selection themes. Scientific literature placed more emphasis on local adaptation and genetic structure, ramifications of introducing gene flow and artificial selection during plant production, and provenancing strategies to address changing climatic conditions.
In contrast, agency guidance focused on genetically appropriate and environmentally suitable seed selection and practical concerns, including seed cost, availability, and diversity. Seed selection studies in the literature were concentrated in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau, scattered in the Great Plains, and were largely experimental.
Conclusions
The review suggests new opportunities for co-production of science and decision-making frameworks among researchers, land managers, and seed producers to inform seed selection guidance for restoration.
Implications for practice
Key differences between agency guidance and scientific literature indicate opportunities to integrate theory and practice to improve seed selection. Research and guidance to mitigate genetic risks associated with seed sourcing, production, and use, and to develop climate change adaptation strategies, could improve seed selection and restoration outcomes.
Incorporating observational and experimental studies into restoration and seed production could inform adaptive management and accelerate the development of seed selection guidance. Modifying seed provenancing strategies could meet emerging needs for restoration sites and strengthen outcomes. This synthesis of science-based, management-ready decision-support tools can help reduce barriers to implementing seed selection guidance in practice.
