# Structuring supply chains of native plant material of wild and local provenance in France: A contribution to ecological restoration and Nature-based solutions

Stéphane Rivière, Damien Provendier, Sandra Malaval, Baptiste Sanson, Johan Gourvil, Arnaud Albert, Jérôme Millet

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Stéphane Rivière, Damien Provendier, Sandra Malaval, Baptiste Sanson, Johan Gourvil, et al. Structuring supply chains of native plant material of wild and local provenance in France: A contribution to ecological restoration and Nature-based solutions. Nature-Based Solutions, 2022, 2, pp.100035. 10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100035. hal-04908084

HAL Id: hal-04908084

https://hal.science/hal-04908084v1

Submitted on 23 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Structuring supply chains of native plant material of wild and local provenance in France: A contribution to ecological restoration and Nature-based solutions

Stéphane Rivière<sup>a, *,</sup> , Damien Provendier<sup>b</sup> , Sandra Malaval<sup>b</sup> , Baptiste Sanson<sup>c</sup> , Johan Gourvil<sup>a</sup> , Arnaud Albert<sup>a</sup> , Jérôme Millet<sup>a</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Native plant material

Wild and local provenance

Nature-based solutions

Ecological restoration

Ecological engineering

## ABSTRACT

European policies aim to simultaneously address the biodiversity and climate crises, partially through the implementation of nature-based solutions (NbS). In parallel, the 2021–2030 United Nations decade on Ecosystem Restoration and an increasing scientific community call for prioritising native species in ecological restoration programmes. In particular, the use of native plant material of wild and local provenance yields important benefits for agroecology, ecological restoration and urban environment management and fulfills five fundamental IUCN NbS criterias. Following a growing European initiative for the production and use of native plant material of wild and local provenance, the “Végétal local” trademark was created in 2015 in France. As part of its initiation, 11 bioregions were designed to guarantee the wild and local origin through controls on the traceability of plant material throughout its supply chain, i.e., from collection to trade. Such plant material has already been mainstreamed into NbS-related programmes and this article describes how this has helped deliver a range of NbS-related environmental and societal outputs. Project managers should continue to rely on native plant material of wild and local provenance to roll out further NbS programmes and meet their objectives.

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. A need for resilient ecosystems

The objectives of the EU Biodiversity strategy for 2020 have not been met, and, due to the range of intense pressures and threats to biodiversity by human activities, there is currently an urgent need to mainstream biodiversity in all sectoral policies [1]. In this regard, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 is essential to address the biodiversity crisis [2]. In parallel, following on from the 2011–2020 United Nations Decade on Biodiversity, the 2021–2030 decade on Ecosystem Restoration was launched in June 2021 [3]. In this context of international policies, the new European Green Deal (EGD) [4] aims to make Europe climate-neutral by 2050, preserve and restore ecosystems and biodiversity, and in parallel mainstream and standardise the design and the implementation of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) [5]. NbS approaches include a range of ecological restoration and ecological engineering

practices, and in this regard experts recommend that spontaneous natural restoration should, whenever possible, prevail over other types of human-led interventions [6]. Human-induced ecological restoration may be considered if risks of further ecosystem malfunctioning, low regeneration capacity, soil erosion or establishment of invasive species are likely to occur.

### 1.2. Wild and local provenance of native species for ecological restoration

Ecological restoration operations make use of a wide range of woody and herbaceous (terrestrial or aquatic) plant material. An increasing body of literature supports calls for prioritising native species in ecological restoration programmes (e.g., [7]). In some cases, individuals and populations of native species may be of a non-local genetic provenance if they are sourced from material collected from a distant location, even within a same country [8].

Trade globalisation has fostered competition among plant and seed

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Office Français de la Biodiversité, Vincennes, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Conservatoire Botanique National des Pyrénées et de Midi-Pyrénées, Bagnères-de-Bigorre, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Afac-Agroforesteries, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: sr662@cantab.net (S. Rivière).</footnote>
suppliers, making species of all origins easily available on the market, and easily purchasable as long as the price customers have to pay is kept low. In addition, plant material sourced from lengthy and distant supply chains does not sufficiently consider plant adaptation to local environmental conditions and the potential impacts it may have on local biodiversity. Such market globalisation rules apply to seeds and plant cuttings, overlooking the fact that a plant of wild and local provenance and its genetic material have evolved under the specific local environmental conditions to which it is adapted.

A study in Norway [9] identified different spatial diversity structures for alpine plant species, most likely related to differences in reproductive strategies, phylogeographic factors, and geographic distribution. This highlights how regional sourcing of plants can therefore strike the balance between providing genetically diverse restored populations and maintaining large-scale patterns of genetic differentiation [10].

Given these elements, the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) recommends using species native to the area where the plant material is to be installed, and if possible ensure it is of local origin [6]. In Europe the use of most native plant species<fnref n="1" /> is de facto exempt from any legislation with regard to their wild and local origins and traceability. The concepts of local provenance [12] and high genotypic diversity [13] are nevertheless increasingly being considered for ecological engineering [14], with ecological restoration programmes relying on traceability systems that guarantee the origin of the plant material [15,16].

In this paper, we (i) review the specifications and characteristics of native plant material of wild and local provenance, (ii) showcase its use in ecological restoration and engineering, urban landscapes and agroecology activities and (iii) detail how it fulfils some of the IUCN's NbS criteria [17]. We will then specifically review the status of France's "Végétal local" trademark since it was created in 2015, and how over time such plant material of wild and local provenance has been integrated into NbS-related programmes nationwide. We conclude by arguing for use of such plant material to scale up the implementation of NbS initiatives.

## 2. Key features of plant material of local and wild provenance

### 2.1. Genetic conservation and adaptation

Through evolution, plant species of local and wild provenance have acquired specific adaptation features to local environmental conditions [18]. In contrast, introduced species of non-local provenance may be maladapted to local environmental conditions [19]). In particular, wild native individuals or populations of species which have been selected over generations, e.g., for ornamental purposes, and extensively used in commercial seed mixes have been subject to such extensive genetic transformation that they should no longer be considered as "wild" (e.g., see Rosa canina L., Calendula officinalis L. or Cyanus segetum Hill). Such modified species were originally selected to provide specific horticultural/aesthetic traits (e.g., higher number of corollas or new colours; Fig. 1) but are of negligible ecological relevance to ecosystem functioning.

In addition, cryptic invasions may be caused by non-native strains of a particular species which may displace native types and expand its distribution range. For example, as a result of *Phragmites australis* subsp. *australis* introduction in North America, native types of *Phragmites australis* subsp. *americanus* may have disappeared from parts of their original range, while their extant populations may be threatened [20]. The use of non-local provenance species such as cultivars may further lead to a risk of hybridization with local congener species, which may threaten

their genetic variability [21,22] and lead to an outbreeding depression [12].

Given these elements, the collection and production of wild and local plant material needs to follow specific guidance [23–28] to maintain a high genetic diversity for seed lots collected in the natural environment, especially through sampling thresholds and specific production methods with a limited number of generations [29]. Such technical specifications hence minimise the risk of selection bias for certain traits, while genetic variability is maximised.

### 2.2. Ecological functioning

Ecological restoration targets issues such as soil erosion (e.g., river banks or mountainous slopes), habitat creation (e.g., compensation projects), maintenance of the continuity of ecological corridors, or the plantation of hedge rows [14].

Abiotic factors (climate, soil, topography), together with the origin and physiological characteristics of the plant material should be considered when selecting plant species for ecological restoration projects. For instance, Schmidt et al. [30] demonstrated a significant difference in maintaining a high species richness and quality when using a high-diversity native plant mixture versus a low-diversity cultivar standard seed mixture. While the use of non-native species may cause ecological incoherence and disruption of ecosystem functionality through "genetic pollution" [8], species of wild and local provenance have the ability to synchronize the food resources they provide (e.g., pollen and nectar, see Section 2.3) with the needs of their associated fauna (e.g., pollinators), which depend on them at specific times in the year [31].

The use of non-native plant material presents a further risk of introducing plant pathology, fungi, or insect predators which may spread to native species. This was the case with the Asian-native boxwood moth (Cydalima perspectalis Walker, 1859) which has spread into Europe from the trade of ornamental boxwood trees between China and Europe and which is now affecting European-native boxwood trees [32].

In addition, the impact of exotics and non-local plants on different groups of microbiota that operate in roots or at the root-soil interface in the rhizosphere needs to be further investigated (see for example [33]).

### 2.3. Pollinators support

The debate around the impact of native vs. non-native species on pollinators is ongoing [34]. The impact of plant material on pollinators—honey bees, wild bees, or other wild pollinators—needs to be assessed, especially when considering that longstanding native flowering vegetation may be more beneficial for wild pollinators [35]. In this regard, the essential pollination service these fauna provide to agriculture requires better consideration with respect to the preservation of the hundreds of wild bee species (nearly 1,000 species in France).

Overall, some research argue that native plants enhance wild and domestic pollinators' populations in hedgerows when compared with exotic plants [36]. In this debate, the precautionary principle implies that plants of wild and local provenance are adapted to their local pollinators through coevolution [31] which makes a case for using native and available wild resources whenever possible [37]. Through coevolution, plant species of wild and local provenance bloom at the time of year that best suits the needs of local pollinators which depend on them. The phenology of exotic species and native plant material of non-local genetic provenance, on the other hand, may not be adapted to pollinators' needs, and insects may be misled by ornamental species that provide poor nutritional value (e.g., the cornflowers of Fig. 1). Some ornamental species may even be counterproductive as their petals attract pollinators but their food reward (pollen and nectar) has declined both quantitatively and qualitatively through the artificial selection process [38,39], which can even lead to starvation of pollinators, e.g.,

<footnote n="1">¹ The legislation referred to tree species aimed at forestry purposes, i.e., see EU directive 1999/105/CE which has been transposed into French law in 2003 and relates to 66 timber species [11] or agriculture purposes (e.g., hazelnut or cornflower).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Horticultural (left) and wild (right) cornflowers *Centaurea cyanus* (credits: Pascal Colomb - ECOSEM©).</figcaption></figure>

the silver Linden (*Tilia tomentosa* Moench) [40].

Regarding insect-plant interactions during pollination, introducing non-local plant material may be harmful for native insects. For instance, the European-native hummingbird hawk-moth (*Macroglossum stellatarum* Linnaeus, 1758) forages on a range of species, including the exotic evening primrose (*Oenothera speciosa* Nutt., 1821), in which it introduces its proboscis which may get stuck due to being too large [41]. If so, *M. stellatarum* individuals may remain suspended, and if they are unable to free themselves they are likely to die hung by their proboscis (Fig. 2). Zlatkov et al. [41] consider that the growing of *O. speciosa* in gardens in Bulgaria is undesirable, particularly as to date there have been only limited assessments of its long-term impacts on wild populations of *M. stellatarum* and other insects.

# 3. Guidelines for native plants of wild and local provenance in France

## 3.1. Concept and governance

In France, plant material of wild and local provenance is certified by the "Végétal local" trademark which was created in 2015 and which identifies 11 bioregions across mainland France (Fig. 3). Those bioregions were defined by experts by overlaying a range of biotic and abiotic datasets including hydrology, geology, climate, and topography maps [23,42]. Similar initiatives have been in place in other countries, e. g., in Germany with the launch of a wild seed and plant producers initiative [43] which provided expert guidance for the setup of the "Végétal local" trademark in France<fnref n="2" />.

## 3.2. Specifications

Based on literature reviews [24–28], a scientific committee determined rules for seeds and plant material collection for the “Végétal local” programme [23]. Those rules minimise the risk of introducing selection bias during collection events, depleting seed resources or sampling too many cuttings through overharvesting. In this way, the “Végétal local” trademark preserves an intraspecific genetic diversity across the range of sampled populations of a species and for a specific bioregion.

Furthermore, specific technical and regulatory specifications [23] ensure that (i) a “Végétal local” plant material belongs to a native species and comes from one of the 11 bioregions, (ii) its genetic material originates from seeds or cuttings sustainably collected in the wild and (iii) the collection is made through sustainable seed and seedling production systems. Further specifications are listed in Supplementary material 1.

## 3.3. Plant types covered by the "Végétal local" trademark

Non-indigenous neophytes and species protected by French regulations at the national and/or regional level are excluded from the "Végétal local" trademark. The trademark does however include plant species protected by the European directives on native seed trade (see in particular [26]) or listed under other protection measures (Fig. 4).

The "Végétal local" trade needs to comply with the Council Directive 66/401/EEC [27] which provides a list of all species considered fit for a variety of uses (e.g., fodder), and which requires compulsory certification. If at least one species registered on this list occurs on a collection site, collectors must apply the technical regulations of seed mixtures which aim for the preservation of the natural environment (resulting from Directive 2010/60/EU [28]).

Native segetal species of local provenance (e.g., wild and native cornflowers as shown in Fig. 1) are also included in the "Végétal local"

<footnote n="2">² The initiative was collective as it was initiated by associations and federations such as the National Botanic Conservatories Federation, Plante et Cité, Afac-Agroforesteries association, and with the support of the French Ministry for the Environment.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. *Macroglossum stellatarum* hung by its proboscis in *Oenothera speciosa* (credits: S. Beshkov & B. Zlatkov).</figcaption></figure>

trademark.

**4. Aligning use of native plant material of wild and local provenance with IUCN NbS criteria [17]**

Native plant material of wild and local provenance fully align with the first four interconnected criteria of the IUCN NbS standard (Criteria 1–4) as well as the last one (Criterion 8) (Fig. 2 of [17]) (Table 1), while the other three criteria - i.e., “inclusive, transparent and empowering governance processes”, “equitable trade-offs between achievement of primary goal(s) and the continued provision of multiple benefits”, and “adaptive management based on evidence” - are more intrinsic to the

management of the NbS programmes themselves.

**4.1. Criterion 1: societal challenge and biodiversity**

**4.1.1. Climate change mitigation and adaptation**

Regarding climate change mitigation, plant material of wild and local provenance is defined by short supply chains which represent an efficient way to lessen the carbon footprint of plant material to be used in NbS projects because of the short-distance supply chain.

At the ecosystem level, adaptation to climate change relates to the reliance on available species' populations which adapt to changing conditions through their genetic diversity [44–46]. Indeed, genetic
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. the 11 "Végétal local" bioregions in France.</figcaption></figure>

variability is considered to be an essential factor for long-term adaptability [47]. For instance, genotypic diversity is key to increasing the response to water stress and to stabilising biomass production of multispecies grassland stands [48]. Genetic diversity is in this sense a way to ensure that certain populations may be resilient to the impact of climate change. Furthermore, as phenotypic plasticity helps persistence in future climates—although not everywhere, and not for all species, as these adaptation mechanisms have limits [49] —relying on local populations which will undergo rapid environmental changes will result in a natural selection of winner and loser plant species' populations, depending on their phenotypic plasticity and their capacity to adapt. The plasticity for drought responses proved to be high in recent

experiments [50]. In the absence of definitive reliable information as to what the climate patterns will become in particular regions, the preservation of progressive evolution traits of plant material of wild and local provenance is essential. Conserving wild and local plants' diversity indeed represents a way to exercise due diligence to face changes in changing local environmental conditions. This conservation strategy based on high native plant diversity serves as a precautionary principle, and is underpinned by plants communities' natural evolutionary traits, their responses to the abiotic environment and their restructuration characteristics in the face of a global change [51]. Although significant changes in plant species distribution and shifts due to climate change have been projected [52,53], the exact details of future local climate
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Seed regulations: cases for inclusion in and exclusion from the “Végétal local” trademark.</figcaption></figure>

conditions, especially at local level, are still uncertain and may turn out to be of unanticipated types for a range of plant communities. Faced with these uncertainties, the “Végétal local” programme precisely relies on the conservation of the local and wild plant diversity in the face of a rapidly changing climate. For this, the trademark does not rely on transferring plant individuals across bioregions - promoted by the complementary “assisted migration” approach which has been proposed as part of reforestation or restauration programmes [54,55] - as (i) the assisted migration’s rationale deviates from the core principles of the “Végétal local” trademark (i.e., from local provenance, to usage and through supply chains criteria), (ii) there is no certainty that the transferred plant material would be adapted to the future local abiotic (temperatures and hydrologic) and biotic conditions (e.g., plant-fungal interactions, see [56]) of the recipient bioregion (e.g., dryer or wetter patterns, and on which time scale?), and (iii) the use of wild and local plants and their high genetic diversity precisely constitutes a way of an adaptation capacity for pools of plant species [51].

### 4.1.2. Invasive alien species (IAS)

IAS are currently recognized as one of the main causes of biodiversity loss at a global level and represent an environmental and societal challenge as described in NbS criteria [57].

Regarding mitigating climate change, there are risks associated with the use of woody IAS, because such species may alter the structure and function of forest ecosystems [58,59], which pose specific environmental and societal challenges according to IUCN’s NbS criterion 1. Although “net zero emissions” programmes require the offset of emitted carbon dioxide through natural sinks such as forests [60], planting IAS woody species can lead to invasions and a subsequent reduction in taxonomic richness [61,62].

A change in practices and a shift in consumption, particularly through public awareness, therefore need to be further investigated [63] through promoting the use of alternative plants to IAS. Such alternative plants could be native species, preferably of wild and local provenance and/or non-native, but non-invasive species. Overall, these species

should present the same range of uses, characteristics, and requirements as conventional species, which is challenging. However, it is encouraging to see that current codes of conduct, both at the European level [64] and in France [65], recommend the use of such alternative plants. Assemblages of plant material of wild and local provenance therefore represents one of the solutions for providing plant species that replace invasive alien plants.

### 4.2. Criterion 2: geographic and cultural perspectives

Biophysical or geographic perspectives" [17] are intrinsic to the model of native plant material of wild and local provenance, and the inclusion of plant diversity in NbS projects through the use of such plant material leads to a cultural transition and moves away from a pure horticultural/ornamental perspective. For the latter, this represents an alternative to the type of plant material offered by garden centres or nurseries, and more generally brings a different perspective to the notion of aesthetics. In other words, we argue that phenotypic traits such as beauty, colours, shapes, and smells, find complements or alternatives in plant material of wild and local provenance, which focuses on maintaining landscapes and botanical cultural heritage, i.e., the conservation of local natural heritage.

In essence, depending on the nature of NbS projects and their objectives, project managers may therefore seek to combine different approaches. Plant material of wild and local provenance therefore offers the possibility to remain consistent and deliver project outcomes while achieving specific environmental and societal goals highlighted in the NbS concept.

### 4.3. Criterion 3: ecosystems resilience

Plant material of wild and local provenance contributes to maintaining and strengthening the functionality of ecological frameworks and supporting the delivery of provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services [66]. As a result, the functionality of entire
<table><caption>**Table 1**
The most relevant IUCN interconnected NbS criteria [17] for wild and local plant material, and their provided guidance (A–H).</caption><thead><tr><th>Subset of interconnected NbS criteria [17] the most relevant for wild and local plant material</th><th>Guidance to design NbS for each relevant criterion according to [17]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IUCN NbS Criterion 1:</td><td>“NbS is designed as a response to a societal challenge(s) that has been identified as a priority by those who are or will be directly affected by the challenge (s)”</td></tr><tr><td>IUCN NbS Criterion 2:</td><td>“Encourage NbS designs that recognise the complexity and uncertainty that occur in living dynamic land/seascapes. Scale applies not only to the biophysical or geographic perspective but also to the influence of economic systems, policy frameworks and the importance of cultural perspectives”</td></tr><tr><td>IUCN NbS Criterion 3:</td><td>“NbS are derived as goods and services from ecosystems, therefore strongly depend on the health of an ecosystem. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem change can have significant impacts on the functioning and integrity of the system. Therefore, NbS design and implementation must avoid undermining the integrity of the system and instead, proactively seek to enhance the functionality and connectivity of the ecosystem. Doing so can also ensure the long-term resilience and durability of the NbS.”</td></tr><tr><td>IUCN NbS Criterion 4:</td><td>“The return on investment, the efficiency and effectiveness of the intervention, and equity in the distribution of benefits and costs are key determinants of success for an NbS. This Criterion requires that sufficient consideration is given to the economic viability of the intervention, both at the design stage and through monitoring the implementation. For NbS to be sustainable, there must be strong consideration of the economic aspects as, most likely, long-term gains must be balanced against short-term costs, with short-term actions developed within the context of long-term (over generations) goals and plans.”</td></tr><tr><td>IUCN NbS Criterion 8:</td><td>“NbS interventions are designed and managed with a view to long-term sustainability and they take account of, work with and align with sectoral, national and other policy frameworks.”</td></tr></tbody></table>

ecosystems is restored through the delivery of services such as soil stabilization, water quality, support for associated fauna/pollinators, carbon sequestration, and production of materials. In this regard, it is important to note that Costanza et al. [67,68] quantified, in US $/ha/year, the services imparted through climate regulation ($277), water regulation ($101), water supply ($136), erosion control ($95), pollination ($15), recreation ($463) and cultural services ($39). Plant material of wild and local provenance has therefore a specific role to play in maintaining and enhancing “the functionality and connectivity of the ecosystem” [17], especially around agroecology and the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem services it delivers.

### 4.4. Criterion 4: sustainability of short local supply chains

The precautionary principle to restore or maintain healthy and resilient ecosystems, as well as long-term gains derived from locally adapted and sustainable plant material resources, can easily be “balanced against [its] short-term costs” [17]. Supply chains of this

plant material are by essence short and sustainable, which in the long run maximise local socio-economic actors' benefits from the collection of the plant material to its trade. Long-term socio-economic gains and benefits are expected to be generated within short, local and sustainable supply chains.

### 4.5. Criterion 8: policy

The wild and native plant material help deliver some of the objectives of current political agendas around long-term sustainability and sectoral, national and international policy frameworks [3]. In chapter 5, we will highlight cases where this plant material contributes to deliver particular policy agendas, together with meeting some of the IUCN NbS criteria.

## 5. Case studies of “Végétal local” regarding the relevant NbS criteria

The below case studies describe how the “Végétal local” plant material has been used in multiple landscapes and sectors to meet both biodiversity and ecosystem restoration targets, and how they align with NbS goals to “protect, sustainably manage and restore natural and modified ecosystems in ways that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, to provide both human well-being and biodiversity benefits” [17] in the area of agroforestry and herbaceous species; ecological engineering; and urban environments.

### 5.1. Nature-based solutions for climate adaptation (NbSA) (NbS criteria 1 and 8)

“Végétal local” plant material specifically responds to the challenge of adaptation to climate change through Nature-based Solutions for Climate Adaptation (NbSA) [69], a sub-category of NbS. In this regard, “Végétal local” plant material underpins recent NbSA initiatives such as the European LIFE-ARTISAN programme [70] that aims to implement projects on 10 pilot sites in France over a period of 8 years (2020-2027), to address issues of adaptation to climate change. As a result, the rolling out of the trademarked plant material will support the implementation of France’s second National Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change [71], and target the societal challenges described in Criterion 8 (Table 1, [17]).

### 5.2. Meadows (NbS criteria 2 and 8)

Site managers, seeds producers and plants experts have collaborated to promote the collection (Fig. 5A,B) and the use of plants of wild and local provenance for the restoration of meadows.

#### 5.2.1. Mountain meadows

The restoration of skiing slopes in the Alps [72] was achieved by transplantation of turf, wet or dry hay, or hydroseeding. Similarly, the Alp'Grain project in north-western Alps has established mechanisms for the production and use of “preservation seed mixes” of local and wild provenance for the ecological restoration of mountain areas [73].

In the Pyrénées, an experimental site was tested in 2008 with hydraulic seeding on a skiing slope at an altitude of 2000 m [74]. Three years later, the ground cover was 72% using a mixture of species of wild and local provenance, compared to 54% with non-local species, which was consistent with previous results obtained in the Alps [75].

#### 5.2.2. Meadows restoration in agricultural fields

Seed provenance is very important for successful restoration of species-rich grasslands and is considered as one of the key factors by practitioners [76]. In the former Poitou-Charentes administrative region, in order to reintroduce locally sourced seed, make habitats more resilient, and support short supply chains, a harvesting tool was
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** A and B: collection of “Végétal local” herbaceous seeds in mountain meadows with a brush seed harvester.</figcaption></figure>

designed to encourage the preservation and creation of natural grass-
lands (with NbS-associated outputs on the delivery of ecosystem services
of Criterion 3 of Table 1, [17]) through the integral re-planting of
“Végétal local” material of wild and local origin [77]. Through a

harvesting device pushed by a tractor, this "plant brushing" technique
eases seed harvesting in permanent grasslands and provides a ready-mix
of seeds (Fig. 6). An increasing number of "Végétal local" actors are
becoming equipped with such a device for rolling out this technique.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Pictagrine herbaceous seed harvesting device (credits: Estèle Guénin – CEN Nouvelle Aquitaine).</figcaption></figure>

Similarly, green hay transfer from donor to recipient sites is a traditional practice which nowadays is considered innovative in restoration ecology [78]. As the establishment of target species varies depending on (i) their abundance at donor sites, (ii) their capacity to be captured as seed in hay, and (iii) their specific germination requirements at recipient sites, additional measures aimed at ensuring the establishment of those species has to be considered and managed, e.g., additional targeted sowing [78].

Green hay transfer represents significant opportunities for promoting "Végétal local" herbaceous species for grassland restoration. As the material is spread on the ground, either freshly mowed (wet hay) or stored (dry hay), the site is seeded and covered with a mulch favourable to the development of seedlings [79,80].

### 5.3. River bank (NbS criteria 2 and 8)

In 2010, the national electric utility company EDF began the replacement of six power plants and five dams at Romanche-Gavet in the Alps bioregion. In order to maintain the overall level of biodiversity, EDF undertook the implementation of compensatory measures including the renaturation of a section of the Romanche river banks aimed at maintaining and improving the diversity and functioning of existing habitats. These measures therefore targeted river bank restoration using mixed techniques including the seeding and plantation of "Végétal local" seedlings. The rapid ground cover, evaluated by ecological survey and vegetation monitoring, demonstrated the value of using local species in ecological engineering for the restoration of these river banks, with - for the parts successful recovered - restored functions of soil stabilisation and erosion risk reduction [81].

### 5.4. Urban environment (NbS criteria 2 and 8)

Urban environment represents a great potential for reconnecting people to nature. In this regard, France's Action Plan for Pollinators for 2030 aims to support pollinator populations specifically through the development and management of dedicated urban areas, in compliance

with public action policies for sustainable development. For instance, providing food for pollinators through seeded grasslands is increasingly being used to improve biodiversity as well as aesthetic value in urban development projects or construction of linear infrastructures [82]. Such criteria justify the use of "Végétal local" plant material for the creation and the increasing deployment of urban flower meadows with the examples of Bordeaux, Limoges, and Paris metropolitan areas, which in parallel works towards the European Green Deal's target of increasing biodiversity in urban spaces [4] (Criterion 8).

### 5.5. Agroforestry (NbS criteria 3 and 8)

When considering agroforestry benefits—including controlling runoff and soil erosion, maintaining soil organic matter and biological activity, maintaining favourable soil physical properties through organic matter maintenance and the effects of tree roots, nutrient cycling and efficient use of nutrients, recharging groundwater, reducing insect pests and associated diseases and providing habitat and ecological corridors—it becomes fundamental to maximise the survival rate of planted seedlings.

In France, hundreds of thousands of seedlings are used each year to create new hedgerows to address soil erosion, biodiversity, and climate change-related issues, which present a large potential for NbS projects to enhance ecosystem services delivery (Criterion 3 of Table 1, [17]). Planting hedgerows with "Végétal local" woody plant material is justified to increase biodiversity support for agroforestry landscapes and maximise the seedlings and saplings survival rate as such plant material is adapted to the local environmental conditions. For this reason, over time the "Plantons en France" programme<fnref n="3" /> [83] has decided to promote "Végétal local" woody species to a minimum of 50% nationwide. For instance, in the Massif Central bioregion alone, the number of planted "Végétal local" seedlings has increased from 30,000 in 2015 to 200,000 in 2020.

<footnote n="3">³ Coordinated by the Afac-Agroforesteries association</footnote>
Similarly, through the "Plantons des Haies !" programme within the 2021 "France Relance" economic recovery plan [84], some regions have included a proportion of "Végétal local" plant material in their tree planting plan, and have allocated subsidies to regional supply chains accordingly. Other public-private initiatives such as the "Biodiversity marathon"<fnref n="4" /> have been instrumental in designing and proposing biodiversity targets where "Végétal local" plant material could be fully justified. Afac-Agroforesteries [85] estimated a 30% annual increase of hedgerows plantation between 2017 and 2021 with a parallel increase for the integration of "Végétal local" plant material (Fig. 7).

With such targets and increases, the challenge becomes ensuring that a sufficient supply of homogeneous material is available in all 11 bioregions (see Criterion 4).

## 5.6. Agricultural fields (NbS criteria 3 and 8)

Grassland strips of native plants can be included in and around agricultural fields (crop fields, vineyards, fruit orchards, horticultural) to mitigate soil and nutrient loss, while providing favourable conditions for enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem services delivery [86]. For instance, agroecology involves considering the vineyard as a whole, including interstitial areas often covered in herbaceous vegetation, such as borders, which offer a great potential to contribute to the preservation of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services (Criterion 3 of Table 1, [17]). In this regard, Danne et al. [87] demonstrated that native plants contribute to managing vineyard pests naturally, which supports the NbS concept as it addresses societal challenges while providing biodiversity benefits. In France, an experiment tested strips of "Végétal local" wild flowers within the vineyard and in the surrounding green spaces of the Margaux "controlled designation of origin" [88]: 32 demonstration sites were selected and seeded in 2018 with a herbaceous species mix, which helped raise awareness and build capacity for local government's employees and wine producers.

Similarly, in-field flower strips have been trialled as a method to promote better pest control [88]. Since 2018, three regional mixes developed with seed producers and including "Végétal local" trademarked species have been produced to help biological regulation in agricultural fields. Specific guidance on their use and the management of in-field flower strips has been developped and is available to end-users [89].

"Végétal local" plant material has become instrumental in achieving France's National Action Plan for segetal plant species [90] and addressing their growing extinction risk [91]. Indeed, "Végétal local" plant material makes it possible to produce and trade seeds of threatened segetal plants from specific bioregions and therefore works towards a net biodiversity gain, per IUCN NbS Criterion 3 (Table 1, [17]). This approach contributes to the implementation of conservation or reintroduction strategies in bioregions where formerly widespread plants have declined or disappeared due to changes in agricultural practices [85] while targeting National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to 2030 [92], i.e., the policy frameworks of Criterion 8 (Table 1, [17]).

## 5.7. Economic efficiency (criterion 4) and challenges

The cost per "Végétal local" unit varies according to species, bioregions, producers, quantities, and chosen target implementation (landscapes, urban, or agroforestry).

Regarding woody species, survey analyses showed that "Végétal local" plant material can be 10 to 20% more expensive due to the increase in administrative costs to comply with "Végétal local" specifications. On the other hand, for landscape use, some horticultural varieties of meadow flowers produced by human selection can be more expensive than the same plant material of wild and local provenance.

The "Végétal local" plant material may therefore be perceived to command a premium price due to the technical specifications which have to be factored in and the remoteness of collection sites, but this is not systematically true. Overall, it is key to bear in mind that labour employed for planting material at a site generally represents the larger part of the costs.

Price alone, however, should not be the sole criteria for decision-making. Information such as survival rate, impact on the environment, and the ecosystem services provided also need to be factored into the true costs. Furthermore, enrichment planting during the years following the initial planting may be less costly if the survival rate of the locally adapted plant material is high.

The design of the "Végétal local" bioregions was a participatory and collective process involving the stakeholders of a range of scientific and socio-economic sectors. Indeed, too high a number of "microregions" would not have been profitable, i.e., the number of customers, their overall demand, and the return on investment would have been too low. As a result, this would have jeopardised the sustainability of the economic model of the "Végétal local" trademark. As a result of the specific layout of the 11 bioregions, and in addition to environmental benefits, the "Végétal local" trademark therefore aims to support the development of short supply chains within a geographical unit in order to produce significant societal and economic benefits, such as the creation of local jobs (seed collectors, multipliers and traders) and therefore works towards Criterion 4 (Table 1, [17]). Such a result also resonates with a growing societal desire to prioritise local products [93] and to reduce the carbon footprint of goods. Collection, propagation, multiplication, and trade of "Végétal local" plant material are limited to a local geographic scale (see note on woody species in the specifications section). The trademark hence delivers not only environmental benefits but also contributes to the development of local socio-economic sectors within each bioregion, from the collection to the trade of the plant material.

Finally, there is an urgent need to recognize seed collection as a true professional activity that has been neglected and undervalued over time. This will certainly require promoting further the trademark within each bioregion, as well as raising the socio-economic status of the labour force while building its capacity for developing and adopting tailored production methods.

Consistent with IUCN NbS Criterion 4 "the return on investment, the efficiency and effectiveness of the intervention, and equity in the distribution of benefits and costs are key determinants of success for an NbS" the "Végétal local" programme and its supply chains exhibited marked growth at the third quarter of 2022.

At that time, the trademark involved 90 collectors and producers who offered a range of wild and local plant material overall (Fig. 8). The supply level varied according to species and bioregion, both in terms of number of producers involved and types of plant material. Similarly, the number of producers per type of plant material has generally increased since 2015, with the biggest share represented by tree and shrub producers (Fig. 8).

Note: a producer/collector may operate in more than one bioregion and may produce more than one type of plant material.

A bottleneck, however, lies in the fact that the demand in "Végétal local" plant material tends to grow faster than its production, which depends on the seed collection level. To address this issue, the governance of the trademark and its stakeholders have advocated (i) for the long-term environmental and societal gains that this plant material represents (NbS-related outputs), and (ii) to build or increase practitioners' capacity to reconnect with nature through what constitutes the main pillar of the trademark: the collection of wild and locally sourced seeds and plant material. For this, it is necessary to be able to anticipate the demand, i.e., the structuring of supply chains must be in harmony with the demand for specific species across the 11 bioregions.

<footnote n="4">⁴ Organised by the Rhône-Corsican-Mediterranean Water Agency</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Annual integration of “Végétal local” trademarked plants into hedgerows plantation programmes run by Afac-Agrogoresteries.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8.** The evolution of the number of producers of the “Végétal local” plant material between 2015 and mid-2022 per type of plant material (the dataset in available in Supplementary Material 2).</figcaption></figure>

# 6. Conclusion

The “native” criterium, let alone exotic species, should be questioned when designing and implementing agroecology and ecological engineering projects.

In France, the “Végétal local” trademark relies on a robust traceability and scientific methodology, and provides a toolkit and a framework to specifically address a range of environmental and societal challenges. It contributes in particular to local socio-economic development along the value chains within the bioregions, from the collection stage to the plant material trade.

Through standards and specifications, plant material of wild and local provenance supports the restoration of the ecological functionality and services of habitats, as such plant material has evolved to be adapted

to the local environmental conditions. In particular it preserves the wild and local high plant diversity which represents a way for climate change mitigation and adaptation for specific programmes.

The “Végétal local” programme therefore aligns with the global standard for Nature-based Solutions as described by IUCN [17], and supports national and international policy agendas, e.g., the European Green Deal by contributing to the development of NbS initiatives which are underpinned by biodiverse, healthy, and functioning ecosystems.

Further research will certainly be needed to generate datasets and results on the resilience of such plant material as species distributions change - especially due to a changing climate. Such outputs would help the “Végétal local” programme provide guidance on the selection of well-adapted plant species of wild and local provenance across bioregions.
The challenging restoration decade ahead [3] could benefit from leveraging native plant material of wild and local provenance when implementing restoration programmes in local environments.

## NBS impacts and implications

### - Environmental concern

Through standards and specifications, the plant material of wild and local provenance supports the restoration of the ecological functionality and services of habitats, as such plant material is adapted to the local environmental conditions inherited through evolution.

### - Economic concern

In France, the “Végétal local” trademark relies on a robust traceability and methodology and provides a framework to specifically address a range of societal challenges. It contributes in particular to local socio-economic development along the value chains within the bioregions, from the collection stage to the plant material trade.

### - Social concern

It also contributes to meet national and international policy agendas, e.g. the European Green Deal, and supports the development of NbS initiatives which are underpinned by biodiverse, healthy, and functioning ecosystems for the benefits of ecosystems and the society.

## Funding

This research received no external funding.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

Stéphane Rivière: Visualization. Damien Provendier: Visualization. Sandra Malaval: Visualization. Baptiste Sanson: Visualization. Johan Gourvil: Visualization. Arnaud Albert: Visualization. Jérôme Millet: Visualization.

## Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all the “Végétal local Correspondants Locaux” group as well as all “Végétal local” stakeholders who have been involved in the development, the promotion and the roll-out of the trademark since its creation; the authors are especially grateful to M. Hédont of Plante & Cité and G. Largier of CBNPMP for their continuous involvement in the management of the trademark as well as all members of the “Végétal local” Management Committee; the authors would also like to thank P. Colomb, S. Beshkov and B. Zlatkov, E. Guénin for providing the original photographs used for Figs. 1, 2, and 6, respectively, as well as I. Dicke and S. Dennen for the revision of the manuscript.

## Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100035.

## References

[1] EEA. State of Nature in the EU report. Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013-2018. European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu-2020 (accessed 1 September 2022).

[2] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. (2020) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:a3c806a6-9ab3-11ea-9d2d-01aa75ed71a.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. (accessed 1 September 2022).

[3] FAO. Principles for ecosystem restoration to guide the United Nations decade 2021-2030. (2021) http://www.fao.org/3/cb6591en/cb6591en.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[4] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the regions. The European Green Deal. (2019) https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[5] E. Cohen-Shacham, G. Walters, C. Janzen, S. Maginnis, Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2016, p. 97, https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en. Publisher2016.

[6] G.D. Gann, T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J. G. Hallett, C. Eisenberg, M.R. Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C. Echeverría, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer, K.W. Dixon, Special issue: international principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition, Restor. Ecol. 27 (2019) S1-S46, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035.

[7] A. Di Sacco, K.A. Hardwick, D. Blakesley, P.H.S. Brancalion, E. Breman, L. C. Rebola, S. Chomba, K. Dixon, S. Elliott, G. Ruyonga, Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits, Glob. Chang. Biol. 27 (2021) 1328-1348, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.1549.

[8] J.K. McKay, CE Christian, S. Harrison, K.J. Rice, How Local Is Local?"—A Review of Practical and Conceptual Issues in the Genetics of Restoration, Rest. Ecol. 13 (2005) 432-440, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00058.x.

[9] M.H. Jørgensen, A. Elameen, N. Hofman, S. Klemsdal, S. Malaval, S. Fjellheim, What's the meaning of local? Using molecular markers to define seed transfer zones for ecological restoration in Norway, Evol. Appl. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12378. ISSN 1752-4571.

[10] J. Höfner, T. Klein-Raufhake, C. Lampei, O. Mudrak, A. Bucharova, W. Durka, Populations restored using regional seed are genetically diverse and similar to natural populations in the region, J. Appl. Ecol. 00 (2021) 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14067.

[11] Matériels Forestiers de Reproduction. Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire (2020) https://agriculture.gouv.fr/telecharger/86354?token=200118ae4b6ced868ed4a9669cad55b1f2e9d0e6c947b944c6ca1ed31d0c825 (accessed 1 September 2022).

[12] M. Keller, J. Kollmann, P.J. Edwards, Genetic introgression from distant provenances reduces fitness in local weed populations, J. Appl. Ecol. 37 (2000) 647-659, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00517.x.

[13] L.M. Broadhurst, A. Lowe, D.J. Coates, S.A. Cunningham, M. McDonald, P.A. Vesk, C. Yates, Seed supply for broadscale restoration: maximizing evolutionary potential, Evol. Appl. 1 (2008), 587-559, d o i:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00045.x.

[14] A. Bischoff, T. Steinger, H. Müller-Schärer, The Importance of plant provenance and genotypic diversity of seed material used for ecological restoration, Rest. Ecol. 18 (2009) 338-348, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00454.x.

[15] M. De Vitis, H. Abbandonato, K.W. Dixon, G. Laverack, C. Bonomi, S. Pedrini, The European native seed industry: characterization and perspectives in grassland restoration, Sustainability 9 (2017) 1682, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101682.

[16] European Native Seed Producers Association. (2018) https://native-seed.eu/ (accessed 1 September 2022).

[17] IUCN, Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions. A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling Up of NbS, 1st ed., IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2020, p. 22, https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.08.en. Publisher2020.

[18] B. Krautzer, C. Uhlig, H. Wittmann, J. van Andel, J. Aronson, Restoration of arctic-alpine ecosystems. Restoration Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2012, pp. 189-202, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118223130.ch15. Publisher.

[19] K. Van der Mijnsbrugge, A. Bischoff, B. Smith, A question of origin: where and how to collect seed for ecological restoration, Basic Appl. Ecol. 11 (2010) 300-311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2009.09.002.

[20] K. Saltonstall, Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, phragmites australis, into North America, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99 (2002) 2445-2449, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.032477999.

[21] C.B. Fenster, L.F. Galloway, Population differentiation in an annual legume: genetic architecture, Evolution 54 (2000) 1157-1172, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00551.x.

[22] A.M. Montalvo, N.C. Ellstrand, Nonlocal transplantation and outbreeding depression in the subshrub Lotus scoparius (Fabaceae), Am. J. Bot. 88 (2001) 258-269, https://doi.org/10.2307/2657017.

[23] Agence française pour la biodiversité. Référentiel technique associé au Règlement d'usage de la marque collective simple. (2019) https://www.vegetal-local.fr/sites/default/files/2020-02/R%C3%A9%C3%A9rentiel_technique_VLocal_modif_6dec2019.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).
[24] ENSCONET Seed Collecting Manual for wild species. (2009) https://www.luomus.fi/sites/default/files/files/collecting_protocol_english.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[25] A.C. Basey, J.B. Fant, A.T. Kramer, Producing native plant materials for restoration: 10 rules to collect and maintain genetic diversity, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Sect. B 16 (2015) 37–53, https://doi.org/10.3368/npj.np1.16.37.

[26] H. Abbandonato, S. Pedrinli, H.W. Pritchard, M. De Vitis, C. Bonomi, Native seed trade of herbaceous species for restoration: a European policy perspective with global implications, Rest. Ecol. 26 (2017) 820–826, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12641.

[27] European Council (1966). Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed. (1966) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31966L0401 (accessed 1 September 2022).

[28] European Commission. Commission directive 2010/60/EU of 30 August 2010 providing for certain derogations for marketing of fodder plant seed mixtures intended for use in the preservation of the natural environment. Official Journal of the European Union. L 228/10-13 (2010) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0060 (accessed 1 September 2022).

[29] M. Conrady, C. Lampei, O. Bossdorf, W. Durka, A. Bucharova, Evolution during seed production for ecological restoration? A molecular analysis of 19 species finds only minor genomic changes, J. Appl. Ecol. 59 (2022) 1383–1393, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14155.

[30] A. Schmidt, A. Kirmer, K. Kiehl, S Tischew, Seed mixture strongly affects species-richness and quality of perennial flower strips on fertile soil, Basic Appl. Ecol. 42 (2020) 62–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2019.11.005.

[31] A.T. Jones, M.J. Hayes, N.R. Sackville Hamilton, The effect of provenance on the performance of Crataegus monogyna in hedges: performance of Crataegus monogyna provenances, J. Appl. Ecol. 38 (2002) 952–962, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00650.x.

[32] A. Bras, D.N. Avtzis, M. Kenis, H. Li, G. Větek, A. Bernard, C. Courtin, J. Rousselet, A. Roques, M.A. Auger-Rozenberg, A complex invasion story underlies the fast spread of the invasive box tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis) across Europe, J. Pest Sci. 92 (2019) 1187–1202, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-019-01111-x.

[33] M.E. Rout, R.M. Callaway, Interactions between exotic invasive plants and soil microbes in the rhizosphere suggest that 'everything is not everywhere', Ann. Bot. 110 (2012) 213–222, https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs061.

[34] R.C. Gbedomon, V.K. Salako, M.A. Schlaepfer, Diverse views among scientists on non-native species, NeoBio 54 (2020) 49–69, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.54.38741.

[35] M. Egerer, J.M. Cecala, H. Cohen, Wild bee conservation within urban gardens and nurseries: effects of local and landscape management, Sustainability 12 (2020) 293, https://doi.org/10.3390/sul12010293.

[36] L.A. Morandin, C Kremen, Bee preference for native versus exotic plants in restored agricultural hedgerows, Rest. Ecol. 21 (2012) 26–32, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00876.x.

[37] C. Paterson, K. Cottenie, A.S. MacDougall, Restored native prairie supports abundant and species-rich native bee communities on conventional farms, Rest. Ecol. 27 (2019) 1291–1299, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12987.

[38] M. Garbuzov, K. Alton, F.L.W. Ratnieks, Most ornamental plants on sale in garden centres are unattractive to flower-visiting insects, PeerJ 5 (2017) e3066, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3066.

[39] S.A. Corbet, J. Beef, K. Dasmaphapatraf, S. Gale, E. Gorringe, B. La Ferla, T. Moorhouse, A. Trevail, Y. Van Bergen, M. Vorontsovaf, Native or exotic? Double or single? Evaluating plants for pollinator-friendly gardens, Ann. Bot. 87 (2001) 219–232, https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1322.

[40] H. Koch, H. Stevenson, Do linden trees kill bees? Reviewing the causes of bee deaths on silver linden (Tilia tomentosa, Biol. Lett. 13 (2017) 20170484, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0484.

[41] B. Zlatkov, S. Beshkov, T. Ganeva, Oenothera speciosa versus macroglossum stellaratum: killing beauty, Arthropod Plant Interact. 12 (2018) 395–400, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-017-9588-3.

[42] A. Dupré la Tour, J. Labatut, T. Spiegelberger, Unraveling the concept of local seeds in restoration ecology, Rest. Ecol. 28 (2020) 1327–1334, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13262.

[43] Association of German native seed and plant producers. Rules and regulations on the certification of VWW-Regiosaaten®. (2005) https://www.natur-im-vww.de/en/ (accessed 1 September 2022).

[44] J.A. Bunce, Elevated carbon dioxide alters the relative fitness of Taraxacum officinale genotypes, Am. J. Plant Sci. 3 (2012) 202–208, https://doi.org/10.4236/aips.2012.32024.

[45] J.A. Bunce, Evidence of adaptation to recent changes in atmospheric CO₂ in four weedy species, Plants 7 (2018) 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7010012.

[46] F.C. Sussmilch, S.A.M. McAdam, Surviving a dry future: abscisic acid (ABA)-mediated plant mechanisms for conserving water under low humidity, Plants 6 (2017) 54, https://doi.org/10.3390/plants6040054.

[47] S. Lavorel, J.-D. Lebreton, Y. Le Maho, Les Mécanismes D'adaptation de la Biodiversité aux Changements Climatiques et Leurs Limites, Institut de France. Académie des Sciences, 2017. https://www.academy-sciences.fr/pdf/rapp ort/rads_270617.pdf, accessed 1 September 2022.

[48] I. Litricco, I. Goldringer, J. Enjalbert, Plus-value de la diversité génétique intra-parcelle pour la stabilité de la production et autres services écosystémiques, Innov. Agron. 43 (2015) 7–18. INRAE, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01277635/document, accessed 1 September 2022.

[49] A. Duputié, A. Rutschmann, O. Ronce, I. Chuine, Phenological plasticity will not help all species adapt to climate change, Glob. Chang. Biol. 21 (2015) 3062–3073, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12914.

[50] R. Rauschkolb, L. Henres, C. Lou, S. Godefroid, L. Dixon, W. Durka, O. Bossdorf, A. Ensslin, J.F. Scheepens, Historical comparisons show evolutionary changes in drought responses in European plant species after two decades of climate change, Basic Appl. Ecol. 58 (2021) 26–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.11.003.

[51] C.G. Collins, S.C. Elmendorf, J.G. Smith, L. Shoemaker, M. Szojka, M. Swift, K. N. Suding, Global change re-structures alpine plant communities through interacting abiotic and biotic effects, Ecol. Lett. 25 (2022) 1813–1826, https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14060.

[52] R. Warren, J. Price, E. Graham, N. Forstenhaeusler, J. VanDerWal, The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C, Science 360 (2018) 791–795, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3646.

[53] C.H. Trisos, C. Merow, A.L. Pigot, The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change, Nature 580 (2020) 496–501, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9.

[54] J.H. Pedlar, D.W. McKenney, I. Aubin, T. BeardMore, J. Beaulieu, L. Iverson, G. A. O'Neill, R.S. Winder, C. Ste-Marie, Placing forestry in the assisted migration debate, BioScience 62 (2012) 835–842, https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.10.

[55] P. Vitt, K. Havens, O. Hoeg-Guldberg, Assisted migration: part of an integrated conservation strategy, Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 (2009) 473–474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.007.

[56] M.J. Jegger, The impact of climate change on disease in wild plant populations and communities, Plant Pathol. 71 (2022) 111–130.

[57] J. Bongaarts, IPBES summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, Popul. Dev. Rev. 45 (2019) 680–681, https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12283.

[58] M. Stanek, L. Piechnik, A.M. Stefanowicz, Invasive red oak (Quercus rubra L.) modifies soil physicochemical properties and forest understorey vegetation, For. Ecol. Manag. 472 (2020), 118253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118253.

[59] M. Stanek, A.M. Stefanowicz, Invasive Quercus rubra negatively affected soil microbial communities relative to native Quercus rubrin a semi-natural forest, Sci. Total Environ. 696 (2019), 133977, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133977.

[60] C.A.J. Girardin, S. Jenkins, N. Seddon, M. Allen, S.L. Lewis, C.E. Wheeler, B. W. Griscom, Y. Malhi, Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet — if we act now, Nature 593 (2021) 191–194, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2.

[61] D.V. Veselkin, D.I. Dubrovin, L.A. Pustovalova, High canopy cover of invasive Acer negundo L. affects ground vegetation taxonomic richness, Sci. Rep. 11 (2021) 20758, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00258-x.

[62] R.K. Brooks, J.N. Barney, S.M. Salom, The invasive tree, Ailanthus altissima, impacts understory nativity, not seedbank nativity, For. Ecol. Manag. 489 (2021), 119025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119025.

[63] P.E. Hulme, G. Brundu, M. Carboni, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, S. Dullinger, F. Early, F. Essl, P. González-Moreno, Q.J. Groom, C. Kueffer, I. Kühn, N. Maurel, A. Novoa, A. J. Pergl, P. Pyšek, H. Seebens, R. Tanner, J.M. Touza, M. Van Kleunen, L.N.H. Verbrugge, Integrating invasive species policies across ornamental horticulture supply chains to prevent plant invasions, J. Appl. Ecol. 55 (2017) 92–98, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12953.

[64] V. Heywood, S. Brunel. Code of conduct on horticulture and invasive alien plants. (2011) https://www.eppo.int/media/uploaded_images/ACTIVITIES/invasive_plants/Code_of_conduct_Horticulture_Invasive_Alien_Plants_May2011_EN.pdf.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[65] Val'hor. Code de conduite professionnel relatif aux plantes exotiques envhaisssantes en France métropolitaine. (2015) https://www.codeplantsenvahissantes.fr/fileadmin/PEE_Ressources/TELECHARGEMENT/2015_07 Code-de-conduite-PEE.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[66] P. Balvanera, S. Quijas, D.S. Karp, N. Ash, E.M. Bennett, R. Boumans, C. Brown, K. M.A. Chan, R. Chaplin-Kramer, B.S. Halpern, J. Honey-Rosés, C-K Kim, W. Kramer, M.J. Martínez-Harms, H. Mooney, T. Mwampamba, J. Nel, S. Polasky, B. Reyers, J. Roman, W. Turner, R.J. Scholes, H. Tallis, K. Thonicke, F. Villa, M. Walpole, A. Walz, M. Walters, R. Scholes, Ecosystem services. The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks, Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 39–78, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27288-7_3.

[67] R. Costanza, R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, M. Van den Belt, The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature 387 (1997) 253–260, https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.

[68] R. Costanza, R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. Van der Pleg, S.J. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, R.K. Turner, Changes in the global value of ecosystem services, Glob. Environ. Chang. 26 (2014) 152–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.

[69] V. Kapos, E. Bernhardt, T.W. Dale, A. Freed, J. Greenwalt, S. Martin, K. Podvin, A. R. Rizvi, A. Terton, T. Thaung, S. Yang, A. Yanosky, Nature-based solutions for adaptation. Adaptation Gap Report 2020, UNEP, Nairobi, 2020, pp. 43–78. Publisher2020, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34721/AGR2020.pdf.

[70] Office français de la biodiversité. Le projet Life intégré ARTISAN. Le climat change, adaptations-nous avec la nature. (2020) https://ofb.gouv.fr/le-projet-life-integre-artisan (accessed 1 September 2022).

[71] Ministère de la Transition Écologique. Le deuxième plan national d'adaptation au changement climatique. (2018) https://www.adaptation-changement-climatique.fr/deuxieme-plan-national-d-adaptation-au-changement-climatique (accessed 1 September 2022).

[72] S. Huc, J. Arlandis, A. Dupré La Tour, A. Rouillon, T. Spiegelberger. Sem'Les Alpes - Des semences d'origine locale pour la restauration de milieux ouverts en
montagne alpine. (2018) http://www.genieecologique.fr/sites/default/files/documents/biblio/cbna_guide_sem_les_alpes_web.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[73] A. Barrel, M. Bassignana, A. Curtaz, S. Huc, E.-M. Koch, T. Spiegelberger, M. Bassignana, T. Spiegelberger, F. Madorno, Native seeds for the Ecological Restoration in Mountain Zone. Production and Use of Preservation Mixtures, Institut Agricole Régional Rég. La Rochère, 2015, pp. 96–97. Publisher1/A, I-11100 Aosta.

[74] S. Malaval, B. Dupin, G. Dantin, Conservation et restauration de la flore dans un contexte anthropisé, quelles solutions? Sci. Eaux. Territ 16 (2015) 70–75. http://www.set-revue.fr/conservation-et-restauration-de-la-flore-dans-un-contexte-anthropise-quelles-solutions.

[75] B Krautzer, H. Wittmann, G. Peratoner, W. Graiss, C. Partl, G. Parente, S. Venerus, C. Rixen, M Striet, Site-Specific High Zone Restoration in the Alpine Region: The Current Technological Development, Federal Research and Education Centre (HBLFA) Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Erdning, Austria, 2006, p. 135. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272815386_KRAUTZER_B_WITTMANN_H_PER_ATONER_G_GRAISS_W_PARTL_Ch_PARENTE_G_VENERUS_S_RIXEN_Ch_STREIT_M_2006_Site-specific_high_zone_restore_in_the_alpine_region_-_the_current_technological_development_-_Federa.

[76] T. Goret, X. Janssens, S. Godefroid, A decision-making tool for restoring lowland grasslands in Europe, J. Nat. Conserv. 63 (2021), 126046, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126046.

[77] PictaGraine. L'innovation en faveur de la biodiversité. (2019) http://www.cren-poitou-charentes.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/plaquette_pictagraine_2019-07.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[78] M. Wagner, S. Humes, L. Hulmes, J.W. Redhead, M. Nowakowski, R.F. Pywell, Green hay transfer for grassland restoration: species capture and establishment, Rest. Ecol. 29 (2021) e13259, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13259.

[79] M. Scotton, E. Rieger, B. Feucht, C. Tamegger, F. Jahn, M. Ševčíková, L. Semanová, B. Krautzer, W. Graiss, P. Halsgrübler, A. Kirmer, M. Stolle, M. Scotton, A. Kirmer, B. Krautzer, Techniques for harvesting seeds and plant material in species-rich grassland. Practical handbook for seed harvest and ecological restoration of species-rich grasslands, University of Padova, Italy, 2012, pp. 21–32. Publisher.

[80] A. Durbecq, L. Rocher, R. Jaunatre, A. Dupré La Tour, E. Buisson, A. Bischoff, Mountain grassland restoration using hay and brush material transfer combined with temporary wheat cover, Ecol. Eng. 174 (2022), 106447, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2021.106447.

[81] C. Delage, E. Evette, N. Daumergue, G. Huygue, F. Jacob. Évaluation de la réussite de l'ouvrage de protection de berges de la Romanche au barrage de Livet, réalisé à l'aide de techniques de génie végétal. IRSTEA Article hors-série numéro 36 (2017) http://www.set-revue.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/set-revue-genie-vegetal-protection-berge.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[82] D.M. Hicks, P. Ouvrard, K.C.R. Baldock, M. Baude, M.A. Goddard, W.E. Kunin, N. Mitschunas, J. Memmott, H. Morse, M. Nikolitsi, L.M. Osgathorpe, S.G. Potts, K. M. Robertson, A.V. Scott, F. Sinclair, D.B. Westbury, G.N. Stone, Food for pollinators: quantifying the nectar and pollen resources of urban flower meadows, PLoS One 11 (2016), e0158117, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158117.

[83] Afac-Agroforesteries. Plantons en France Annual report 2019-2020. (2021) https://afac-agroforesteries.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RapportPlantons_1920-light.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[84] France Relance. Programme « Plantons des haies ! » (2021) https://www.economie.gouv.fr/plan-de-relance/profils/entreprises/programme-plantons-haies (accessed 1 September 2022).

[85] Afac-Agroforesteries. Annual report 2020-2021 - fonds pour l'arbre. (2021) https://fondspourlarbre.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/rapportfpa-20-21-211005-vf.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[86] C. Kremen, Ecological intensification and diversification approaches to maintain biodiversity, ecosystem services and food production in a changing world, Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 4 (2020) 229–240, https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20190205.

[87] A. Danne, L.J. Thomson, D.J. Sharley, C.M. Penfold, A.A. Hoffmann, Effects of native grass cover crops on beneficial and pest invertebrates in Australian Vineyards, Environ. Entomol. 39 (2010) 970–978, https://doi.org/10.1603/EN09144.

[88] Union Girondine des vins de Bordeaux. Projet VITICulture et POLLinisateurs (VITIPOLL) «Aménagement de bandes fleuries favorables aux pollinisateurs à partir de semences locales pour le développement multi-acteurs de la TVB à l'échelle d'une AOC viticole». (2018) https://www.cerema.fr/system/files/documents/2018/12/12-Biodiversité%20pollinisateurs%20J-Guenser.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[89] F. Warlop, M. Nauleau, A. Gardarin, R. Wartelle, J. Lambion, C. Gibert, S. Mary, B. Giffard, M. Cornillon, A. Magro. Synthèse du projet casdar Muscari, 24 pages. (2018) http://itab.asso.fr/downloads/muscari_synthese_du_projet_w.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[90] J. Cambecèdes, G. Largier, A. Lombard. Plan national d'actions en faveur des plantes messicoles. (2012) http://plantesmessicoles.fr/sites/default/files/PNA%20messicoles_texte.pdf (accessed 1 September 2022).

[91] H. Albrecht, J. Cambecèdes, M. Lang, M. Wagner, Management options for the conservation of rare arable plants in Europe, Bot. Lett. 163 (2016) 389–415, https://doi.org/10.1080/23818107.2016.1237886.

[92] Ministère de la Transition Ecologique. Ensemble construisons la stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité 2021-2030. (2021). https://strategie-nationale.biodiversite.gouv.fr/ (accessed 1 September 2022).

[93] A. Adalja, J. Hanson, C. Towe, E. Tselepidakis, An examination of consumer willingness to pay for local products, Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 44 (2015) 253–274, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500005050.