From genetic maps to conservation decisions

These findings raised practical questions. Which populations should receive particular protection? Which could provide suitable material for restoration? How should connectivity and genetic diversity inform the management of marine protected areas?

MARFOR researchers brought these questions into discussions with conservation authorities, marine managers and international policy processes. A key opportunity emerged through the OSPAR Convention, which supports cooperation to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. MARFOR contributed evidence to a proposal to include kelp forests within OSPAR’s work, while project partners engaged with national representatives and adapted several planned stakeholder outputs to support the process.

Findings also informed restoration decisions. Rebuilding a degraded kelp forest is not simply a matter of growing kelp and placing it back in the sea. The origin of the material can influence whether a restored population survives, reproduces and remains suited to local conditions, while poorly chosen material may also affect nearby wild populations.

MARFOR compared populations across Europe, examined their responses to heat and other pressures, and established cultures that helped preserve genetic diversity for future research. In Portugal, for instance, this knowledge helped guide the selection of donor populations for restoration in marine protected areas.

A question that began with genetics had become a practical choice: which kelp should be used to help a forest return, and how could restoration retain the diversity needed for future change?

When aquaculture became part of the restoration story

The potential applications of MARFOR’s research extended beyond public authorities. The consortium also engaged with seaweed producers and other aquaculture actors on cultivation, climate resilience and the relationship between farmed and wild kelp.

MARFOR’s genetic analyses had direct applications for seaweed breeding. Researchers distinguished natural populations of commercially relevant species and analysed breeder samples supplied by aquaculture companies, helping verify the geographical origin of cultivated material and identify populations suited to particular conditions.

In Portugal, a collaboration with a fish-farming company opened another possibility: could kelp grown in nutrient-rich aquaculture conditions also provide material for marine-forest restoration? Early trials produced larger, faster-growing specimens capable of reproduction, linking aquaculture and restoration in an unexpected way. Further work explored growing kelp alongside mussels, with potential benefits for nutrient cycling and the production of a marketable crop.

Questions remained about longer-term effects on fish health, water quality and surrounding ecosystems. Even so, the collaboration broadened the possible applications and brought scientific and practical expertise together.

More eyes beneath the surface

Europe’s marine forests extend across long stretches of coastline. No research consortium can monitor them all regularly. To broaden the reach of observation, MARFOR developed MarineForests.com, a citizen science platform where divers and other sea users could submit photographs and locations of underwater habitats. The team initially worked with diving communities in Portugal, while links with iNaturalist and scientific networks later helped broaden participation and sustain observations beyond individual field campaigns.

As contributions grew, users recorded not only kelp but also seagrasses, corals and other habitat-forming organisms, extending the platform’s relevance to a wider range of coastal ecosystems. This broader attention to corals later intersected with an unexpected conservation issue, when Portuguese maritime police uncovered illegal harvesting of red coral. Researchers from CCMAR, which coordinated MARFOR, provided scientific expertise as the authorities developed their response, and Portugal subsequently restricted coral collection without special authorisation.

The issue went beyond MARFOR’s original focus, but the expertise and relationships strengthened through the project left researchers well placed to contribute. The platform remains active today, continuing the project’s approach to long-term public observation.

What made a difference?

MARFOR’s wider influence did not result from a single dissemination effort at the end of the project. It developed through sustained engagement with potential users while the research was still taking shape.

• Engagement during the research: Researchers worked with conservation authorities, marine managers, aquaculture businesses and diving communities. These exchanges helped turn scientific questions into practical ones, from selecting kelp for restoration to identifying the evidence needed by businesses and policymakers.
• Responding to opportunities: The consortium adapted when opportunities emerged. Planned stakeholder outputs were redirected towards the OSPAR process, while discussions with an aquaculture company developed into work connecting kelp cultivation and restoration.
• A legacy beyond the project: MARFOR left resources and relationships that continued beyond the funding period, including genetic collections, datasets, restoration knowledge, partnerships and the Marine Forests platform.

Some applications were planned from the outset, others emerged through engagement with businesses, policymakers and citizens. MARFOR shows that research is more likely to make a difference when potential users are involved early, projects can respond to emerging opportunities, and useful knowledge and relationships remain after the funding ends.