Genetic Consequences of Tree Planting Versus Natural Colonisation: Implications for Afforestation Programmes in the United Kingdom
Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
ABSTRACT The United Kingdom aims to dramatically accelerate the establishment of new woodlands by 2050, yet the impact of different afforestation strategies on landscape genetic diversity and resilience remains unclear. This study integrates environmental data, whole‐genome sequencing and phenotypic assessments to compare bioclimatic envelopes, genetic diversity and plant health indicators in naturally colonised versus planted populations of pedunculate oak and silver birch. We found that registered seed stands significantly under‐represent the wild bioclimatic envelopes of both species, as well as those of 21 out of 39 UK native species assessed, potentially limiting adaptive diversity in planted populations. Yet, genetic diversity metrics (π, HO and AR) based on genome‐wide markers in planted populations were comparable to naturally colonised woodlands. Planted populations exhibited higher within‐group coancestry and moderate genetic homogenisation among sites, possibly reducing adaptive differentiation. Naturally colonised populations showed higher inbreeding coefficients (FROH) in both species, potentially due to fragmentation of source populations. Genotype–environment associations based on redundancy analysis revealed divergent selection at functionally relevant loci, indicating distinct selective pressures in commercial tree production versus natural colonisation. Health indicators revealed reduced browsing in planted trees, and differences in mildew and leaf‐spot incidence, suggesting potential selection divergence between afforestation strategies. These findings support a role for both afforestation strategies in enhancing the resilience of future woodlands while highlighting pathway‐specific risks of introducing unintended impacts on forest diversity.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Genetic Consequences of Tree Planting Versus Natural Colonisation: Implications for Afforestation Programmes in the United Kingdom
- Date Crossref
- 01/08/2025
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Royal Botanic Gardens pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Forest Research pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
Royal Botanic Gardens et Forest Research.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.