MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412415980 · doi:10.1111/rec.70114

Testing the roles of local adaptation and genetic diversity to improve Giant kelp (<i>Macrocystis pyrifera</i>) restoration

2025· article· en· W4412415980 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren N. Dykman, S. Clay Steell, Jordan B. Bemmels, Grace K. Melchers, Brian Timmer, Gregory L. Owens, Christopher J. Neufeld, Julia K. Baum

Bibliographic record

VenueRestoration Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusASL Environmental Sciences (Canada)University of British ColumbiaBamfield Marine Sciences CentreUniversity of Victoria
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesPacific Salmon FoundationMitacsUniversity of VictoriaUniversité Laval
KeywordsKelpMacrocystis pyriferaGenetic diversityAdaptation (eye)Diversity (politics)EcologyKelp forestGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is causing significant losses of coastal foundation species globally, heightening the need for their restoration. Despite the urgency, it remains unclear if enhancing genetic diversity by using distant source populations will improve restoration outcomes, or if local sources will perform better regardless of their diversity. We conducted a reciprocal transplant with Giant kelp ( Macrocystis pyrifera ) between a warm and cool microclimate 7 km apart in Barkley Sound, British Columbia, and tracked survivorship and growth over 6 months. We seeded kelp gametophyte cultures from the warm and cool site onto small rocks (i.e. “green gravel”) in a nursery, then outplanted them into experimental plots nearby the sites where the parents were collected. The number of parents used to make the cultures was also manipulated (two vs. 10) to simulate different levels of genetic diversity (average heterozygosity). Overall, we found inconsistent evidence for local adaptation between microclimates, and possibly signs of maladaptation in kelp from the warm site. Kelp from the more genetically diverse population at the cooler site survived 16% better and grew 8% larger regardless of the outplant site. Kelp grew up to 223% larger at the cool site but had higher mortality due to either urchin grazing or gravel turnover from swell. Surprisingly, kelp produced from two‐parent cultures survived 278% better than kelp from 10‐parent cultures at 6 months, despite higher observed rates of selfing. Our study provides new insights into factors influencing the restoration of these important temperate coastal foundation species.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRestoration EcologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207