, 2007). Safe sites, or microrefugia, will persist because of spatial heterogeneity, particularly in complex terrains (Ashcroft and Gollan, 2013 and De Frenne et al., 2013). Restoring compositionally and functionally diverse ecosystems, based on an understanding of contemporary reference conditions, also

is a starting point for maintaining response options that facilitate the transition of forests to future climate conditions (Millar et al., 2007 and Millar, 2014). This approach better ensures that species will maintain their presence and respond favorably (adapt) to future climate and thus be in a position to increase in abundance (Bolte et al., 2009). As an example, in the northern forests of Minnesota Angiogenesis inhibitor and Maine USA, Acer rubrum L. has the potential to fit this model. This species occurs in many current forest ecosystems of these regions, but generally at low abundance (e.g., Seymour, 1992). Climate niche-models

for the eastern USA predict increasing habitat suitability and importance under even the most extreme emissions scenarios ( Iverson et al., 2008). Ensuring that A. rubrum and other species with adaptive potential are present in ecosystems where they occur naturally is an important adaptation strategy that can transition forests to future conditions. If these species are lacking, but should occur based on habitat suitability, then active management to reintroduce component species through seeding or outplanting may be needed, along with the cultural Epigenetics Compound Library actions that ensure successful establishment and longevity. Monitoring is almost always specified as an important aspect of restoration projects (e.g., Pastorok et al., 1997, Abella and Covington,

2004 and Herrick et al., 2006) but monitoring deficiencies is a common problem (Wortley et al., 2013). One assessment revealed that only 18% of project managers indicated that monitoring was required; even so, monitoring was conducted on about 50% of the Pomalidomide nmr projects (Bash and Ryan, 2002). The considerable constraints on monitoring include unclear objectives, collecting data that serve financial accounting but not decision-making purposes, and effects of the project occurring outside project time frames (Kapos et al., 2008). Monitoring is often perceived as being too expensive to justify, although recent monitoring expenditures in the USA were a tiny fraction (0.1–5%) of the money spent nationally for ecological restoration projects and pale in comparison to the value of the resources being monitored (Lovett et al., 2007). Monitoring can have several objectives and involve multiple steps. In restoration, implementation monitoring is short-term and evaluates how well management activities were conducted compared to the original design, whereas effectiveness monitoring seeks to determine if the treatments are yielding desired results (Hutto and Belote, 2013).