The management of natural forests constitutes a particularly complex area for maintaining genetic diversity (Thomson, 2001) because the management objective, whether for conservation or for production, ultimately depends on the genetic diversity Palbociclib mw present. The notion ‘conservation through use’ (Graudal et al., 1997) is applied when forest management deliberately takes care

also of genetic diversity. In this context, we have not tried to identify a particular indicator but would consider this covered by the overall monitoring of trends in species and population distribution and diversity patterns. In general, five of the seven operational indicators suggested above can readily be assessed, provided that some level of background information is available. The appropriate level of information is likely available at least for selected key species of ecological and/or economic importance and for a number of endangered flagship species, where forestry operations and/or conservation actions have generated considerable knowledge. These five indicators can be www.selleckchem.com/products/Romidepsin-FK228.html prioritized for the assessment of the headline indicator “trends in genetic diversity of tree

species” at the global, regional and national levels; however all indicators should be employed for a comprehensive evaluation at the local level. The vast array of indicators that have been proposed for monitoring genetic diversity can be distilled into the set of four aggregated indicator areas that cover the S–P–B–R spectrum of UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011a and UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011b and Sparks Fossariinae et al. (2011). Table 6 gives a brief characterization of the proposed set of indicators. Our “diversity–productivity–knowledge–management” (DPKM) typology is thus a set of four indicators that derives mostly from the genecological approach to genetic diversity and can be applied at multiple scales, from global to local. The typology is intended to emphasize the available potential for development or change in managing the evolutionary

potential of trees within and outside forests. Because trends in genetic diversity (and therefore long term adaptive potential) need to be known before the impact of any type of pressure can be assessed, providing a relevant state indicator represents the most crucial step of the assessment procedure. Response, pressure and benefit indicators cannot and should not be used independently of state indicators. Drawing from quantitative and population genetics, substantial theoretical progress has been made over the past 20 years for identifying relevant state indicators of tree genetic diversity. However, these scientifically sound indicators have so far proven difficult to apply in practice. Pressure indicators of genetic diversity are intrinsically linked with state indicators and have therefore in practice not been identified on their own. Benefit indicators for genetic diversity can only be implemented if a valuation of genetic diversity is available.