Current projections of anthropogenic climate change assume rates of change never seen historically (IPCC, 2007 and Svenning and Skov, 2007). As such, the relevance of current ecosystem composition and structure and the reference conditions they represent will continually diminish in the future (Alig et al., 2004, Bolte et al.,

2009 and Davis et al., 2011). The challenges of continuing global change and impending Selleck Palbociclib climate variability render the goal of restoring to some past conditions even more unachievable (Harris et al., 2006). Recognition that restoration must take place within the context of rapid environmental change has begun to redefine restoration goals towards future adaptation rather than a return to historic conditions (Choi, 2007). This redefinition of restoration removes LY294002 mouse the underpinning of a presumed ecological imperative (Angermeier, 2000 and Burton and Macdonald, 2011) and underscores the importance of clearly defined goals focused on functional ecosystems. An overarching challenge, therefore, is determining how to pursue a contemporary restoration agenda while coping with great uncertainty regarding the specifics of future climatic

conditions and their impacts on ecosystems. Management decisions at scales relevant to restoration need to consider how actions either enhance or detract from a forest’s potential to adapt to changing climate (Stephens et al., 2010). An initial course of action is to still pursue endpoints that represent the best available understanding of the contemporary reference condition for the system in question (Fulé, 2008) but to do so in a way that facilitates adaptation to new climate conditions, by promoting resistance to extreme climate events or resilience in the face of these events. For example, density management to maintain forest stands at the low end of acceptable stocking is a potentially promising approach for alleviating moistures stress during drought events (Linder, 2000 and D’Amato et al., 2013). The premise is that forests restored to low (but within the range

of natural variability) density will be better able to maintain tree growth selleck kinase inhibitor and vigor during a drought (resistance) or will have greater potential to recover growth and vigor rapidly after the event (resilience) (Kohler et al., 2010). Another management approach for restoration in the face of climate change is to include actions that restore compositional, structural, and functional diversity to simplified stands, so as to provide flexibility and the potential to shift development in different directions as conditions warrant (Grubb, 1977 and Dı́az and Cabido, 2001). This is the diversified investment portfolio concept applied to forests; a greater range of investment options better ensures ability to adapt to changing conditions (Yemshanov et al., 2013).