The recent rapid development of molecular marker techniques (Allendorf et al., 2010) has greatly facilitated the identification of state indicators at the level of the management unit of identified priority species (Aravanopoulos, 2011, Funk et al., 2012, Geburek et al., 2010, Hansen et al., 2012, Konnert et al., 2011, Laikre et al., 2008, Luikart et al., 2010, Schwartz et al., 2007 and Stetz et al., 2011). Such techniques selleck inhibitor are
available at the scientific level and within reach at a practical level, at least where facilities are available. However, in practice availability depends on access to resources and facilities which varies enormously among countries and world regions. In Europe, work by the European Forest Genetic Resources Network (EUFORGEN) has reached a point where implementation of molecular based techniques is likely to begin within a few years (Aravanopoulos et al., 2014). While the increasing utility and the decreasing costs of molecular techniques
hold great promise for providing efficient means for monitoring genetic diversity, it is imperative that the basic importance of taxonomy, ecology and field testing are not neglected. The diminishing priority of sustainable forest management in the national policies of some countries (Wijewardana, 2006), loss of competence in taxonomy (Drew, 2011, Hoagland, 1996 and Kim and Byrne, 2006) and erosion of applied programs of genetic Ceritinib resource management (Graudal and Kjær, 1999 and Graudal and Lillesø, 2007) are therefore of great concern. There seems to be an on-going world-wide trend of loss of practical knowledge and ability
in tree species identification, tree seed handling, tree breeding and tree genetic resource conservation management (Graudal and Lillesø, 2007), which will be an impediment for the implementation of any program to use and conserve tree genetic diversity. Indicators to monitor this area of response policy would therefore be highly relevant and can be measured through national surveys. Management responses can be measured by the extent of physical management and conservation Sclareol activities in the field, and by the integration of response measures in policy, planning and the implementation of programs, including in legislation. Some of these elements are, in principle, easily evaluated by quantification of breeding and gene conservation activities at the national level and are already available and being used in some geographical areas. Measuring legislation or regulation responses is probably more difficult but one approach would be for example to quantify the adoption of certification schemes for distribution and exchange of reproductive material. Schemes exist for some areas, but it is important to validate whether such schemes are relevant for the purpose they are intended before they are used as a positive measure of action (Lillesø et al., 2011b).