, 2001 and Bestelmeyer et al., 2006), and re-evaluating the process for future efforts. Verification of methodology and subsequent observed results is necessary to improve techniques and ensure that project goals are

met. Lack of a holistic approach, emphasis on short-term and site-specific projects, disparate types of data collected, and neglect of proper, long-term monitoring limit the effectiveness of restoration efforts (Bash and Ryan, 2002 and Reeve et al., 2006). Long-term monitoring is critical because projects deemed successful in the short-term may not sustain desired outcomes into the future and vice versa (Herrick et al., 2006 and Matthews and Spyreas, 2010). This is particularly evident Galunisertib if species composition is the primary attribute monitored. The most effective monitoring is embedded within an adaptive management framework that monitors for changes in the system, evaluates those changes against expectations, and determines if the change was caused by intervention (Anderson and Dugger, 1998, Stem et al., 2005 and Doren et al., 2009), which requires a counter-factual, or no action control site that is similarly degraded as the restoration site (Ferraro, 2009). Monitoring is conducted by periodically measuring indicators of ecosystem www.selleckchem.com/products/cobimetinib-gdc-0973-rg7420.html conditions. Indicators in forest restoration monitoring commonly

focus on vegetation (Ruiz-Jaén

and Aide, 2005a, Burton and Macdonald, 2011 and Hallett et al., 2013). This is understandable as vegetation is fundamental and commonly is correlated with other functional attributes (Doren et al., 2009) and with suitable habitat for animals (e.g., Twedt and Portwood, 1997 and McCoy and Mushinsky, 2002), but interactions among vegetation and fauna (e.g., pollinators, herbivores) are important and population dynamics should be properly monitored as well (Block et al., 2001). Selecting indicators to measure requires consideration of spatial and temporal characteristics. Spatial aspects can be arranged within a hierarchy of indicators, including the landscape, community (stand), and population (species) levels (Palik et al., Oxalosuccinic acid 2000 and Dey and Schweitzer, 2014). Generally, indicators related to community structure and composition are used in restoration projects and rarely are factors measured outside the project area such as attributes of the surrounding landscape (Ruiz-Jaén and Aide, 2005a). For example, Keddy and Drummond (1996) used criteria related to “original” forest structure and function and selected properties from existing relatively undisturbed forests. These included tree size, canopy composition, coarse woody debris, herbaceous layer, corticulous bryophytes, fungi, wildlife trees, forest area, birds, and large carnivores.