, 1996, Namkoong, 2002, McKinnel, 2002, Bariteau, 2003 and Aravanopoulos, 2011) and much scientific attention has been paid to evolutionary and adaptive processes (e.g. Eriksson et al., 1993; Namkoong et al., 2002; Le Corre and Kremer, 2003 and Le Corre and Kremer, 2012) as a basis. However, a general application and scaling-up of the verifiers

proposed by Namkoong selleck products et al. (2002) have not yet been feasible due to the difficulties summarized above. Any relevant set of indicators for trends in genetic diversity must include components at different scales (local/landscape/national/regional/global), involving the amount of diversity and how it is distributed in space. There is a need to identify genetically appropriate indicators and, at the same time, not to inflate the already large number of indicators that exist at global and regional scales. The State–Pressure–Benefit–Response (S–P–B–R) loop developed by UNEP/CBD/AHTEG, 2011a and UNEP/CBD/AHTEG,

2011b and Sparks et al. (2011) provides a well-considered and appropriate framework to ensure that the suggested set of indicators meet the requirements of being scientifically sound, Atezolizumab supplier realistic, and policy relevant; and the framework has been adopted for implementation by BIP, 2013. The identification of indicators of tree genetic diversity should therefore preferably take place within such a framework and result in a set of S–P–B–R indicators. In Table 5 we list what we consider to be relevant operational indicators

and their type (state, pressure, benefit, response) at different geographic levels (global, regional/national and local) under the headline indicator trends in genetic diversity of tree species. Our table is not necessarily exhaustive, but proposes a fairly complete set of indicators RG7420 order and has been made in congruence with Table 2. However, no separate pressure indicators are identified. Pressure indicators of genetic diversity are intrinsically linked with state indicators and the identification of the impact of any kind of pressure will have to rely on the knowledge of the state. Response indicators are referred to as response–benefit, because the rationale for a response is typically based on benefit. In Table 5 we subdivide the headline indicator trends in genetic diversity of tree species into seven operational indicators. These are appraised based on 21 verifiable indicators using a total of 34 verifiers. Genetic diversity indicators that are proposed in order to assess the adaptive potential of forest tree species from the global to the local level present different characteristics, such as indicator classification (state, pressure, benefit, response), reference level (global, regional, national, local), type of work needed (field, lab, web-based search, etc.), feasibility and type of expertise (direct measurement, or based on experimental analysis), level of informativeness, and cost.