08/28/2026
New publication: Bringing Population Genomics into Kelp Conservation & Aquaculture
A new publication from KRI scientists outlines how genetic knowledge can inform kelp management in the Pacific Northwest.
Authors: Jordan B. Bemmels & Gregory L. Owens.
As genomics knowledge of bull and giant kelp in the Pacific Northwest grows, this paper examines how it can inform four areas of kelp management:
Restoration
Wild Harvest
Aquaculture
Biobanking
Restoration & Aquaculture
This paper compares four approaches to choosing where kelp used for restoration or aquaculture should come from:
-Genetic similarity
-Genomic match to present or future climates
-Environmental similarity
-Geographic distance
Key takeaway:
Each approach has pros and cons that must be weighed by decision makers. there are benefits and risks of each, with more testing in the field needed.
The number of parent kelp used to outplant stock affects its genetic diversity and risk of inbreeding.
The authors reanalyzed bull kelp genomic data and found that 10 individuals captured nearly half of the genetic variation in a sample of 50.
Key takeaway:
Collect from as many widely space, unrelated parent kelp as practical.
Dozens can represent most common genetic variation and substantially limit inbreeding, but larger collections preserve more rare variation.
Allelic representation curves for Nereocystis based on resampling empirical genomic datasets. Resampling was performed for (a) the Strait of Juan de Fuca, (b) the Outer Coast of Vancouver Island and Washington, and (c) Barkley Sound. The proportion of SNP loci that are polymorphic (i.e., each of the two SNP alleles were sampled) is plotted as a function of the number of individuals sampled (n) and rescaled relative to a sample size of n = 50. Solid line: Mean of 100 resampling replicates; shaded polygon: Range containing 95% of resampled replicates. (d) Sampling sites included in each of the geographic regions, with colors and symbols as in (a–c). Small black dots represent additional sampling sites included in Southern BC and Washington in Figure 5. Note that Barkley Sound was analyzed separately (c) but is also included as part of the Outer Co