Even residual high soil fertility and pH from agricultural use, conditions that favor non-native invasive plants, can be an undesirable legacy (Allison and Ausden, 2004 and Weiler et al., 2013). The restoration selleck methods discussed so far have focused on actions generally taken at the stand level with some reference to adjacent land use, but restoring ecological

processes that operate at landscape scale is a defining attribute of functional restoration. Processes that transfer energy and matter, such as hydrological flows, wildfire, hillslope processes, wind, and animal movements are the flows that shape structure and composition of landscape elements as well as their spatial patterning in a landscape mosaic Transmembrane Transproters inhibitor (Turner, 1989). Spatial patterning of patches with similar composition is important too, as these are affected by natural and socioeconomic attributes related to land ownership, tenure, and use. Clearly the landscape mosaic and its component patches are defined in the context of the way it is approached and spatial modeling is one way to understand landscape level vegetation dynamics, disturbances, and management activities such as restoration (Wimberly et al., 2012 and Shinneman et al., 2012). Landscape classification should be more detailed than simply forest/non-forest (Lindenmayer et al.,

2008), consider trade-offs among livelihoods and conservation options (Bradford and D’Amato, 2011, Boedhihartono and Sayer, 2012 and Sayer et al., 2013), and identify suitable sites for intervention, prioritizing among sites for allocating scarce resources (Lamb et al., 2012), and for guiding the monitoring design and determining success (Ruiz-Jaén and Aide, 2005b, Bestelmeyer et al., 2006 and Holl and Aide, 2011). Lindenmayer

Exoribonuclease et al., 2008 and Sayer et al., 2013 provide guidance on factors to consider in the landscape approach. The planting designs for treating an entire area can be simply spread over the entire landscape or different patches planted variously in simple and complex designs (Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10). Similarly, the approaches to transformation and conversion, including underplanting (Fig. 12) and variable retention harvests (Fig. 13 and Fig. 15), can be applied in various configurations that would result in structural and compositional diversity. Cluster afforestation (Schönenberger, 2001 and Díaz-Rodríguez et al., 2012) is a landscape design, and the planting scheme within a cluster can be varied. Buffer strips, wildlife corridors and other linear plantings (Fig. 11) can serve multiple purposes; again, the planting design within the linear strip can be varied by species and density (Bentrup et al., 2012). The design goal should be to create a diversity of vegetation types on the landscape (Lamb et al.