(Massatti) Introduction: The majority of native plant materials (NPMs) utilized for restoration purposes are developed for widely distributed species that provide a variety of ecosystem services (Wood et al. 2015; Butterfield et al. 2017). Disturbed ecosystems benefit from the use of appropriate NPMs, which are those that display ecological fitness at the restoration site, are compatible with conspecifics and other members of the plant community, and that do not demonstrate invasive tendencies (Jones 2013). Furthermore, the use of appropriate NPMs can help address specific environmental challenges, rejuvenate ecosystem function, and improve the delivery of ecosystem services (Hughes 2008). While many NPMs have been developed for restoration (e.g., Aubry et al. 2005), there is interest in broadening the diversity of species available and the geographic representation of sources to provide appropriate choices in relation to the characteristics of any restoration site. In addition, researchers are providing guidance to managers and practitioners regarding how best to transfer NPMs across the landscape. For example, guidance on seed transfer has been derived from genecological studies, which utilize common gardens to correlate phenotypic variation to environmental gradients (summarized in Kilkenny 2015), molecular studies, which identify putative adaptive genetic loci and infer environmental drivers of variation (Shryock et al. 2017), and climate modeling studies, which can provide guidance when species-specific data are unavailable (Bower et al. 2014; Doherty et al. 2017). All of these approaches intend to improve the long-term viability of NPMs at restoration sites, thereby improving outcomes and stretching limiting restoration resources (e.g., time and money).