Abiotic and Landscape Factors Constrain Restoration Outcomes Across Spatial Scales of a Widespread Invasive Plant

The natural recolonization of native plant communities following invasive species management is notoriously challenging to predict, since outcomes can be contingent on a variety of factors including management decisions, abiotic factors, and landscape setting. The spatial scale at which the treatment is applied can also impact management outcomes, potentially influencing plant assembly processes and treatment success. Understanding the relative importance of each of these factors for plant community assembly can help managers prioritize patches where specific treatments are likely to be most successful. Here, using effects size analyses, we evaluate plant community responses following four invasive Phragmites australis management treatments (1: fall glyphosate herbicide spray, 2: summer glyphosate herbicide spray, 3: summer imazapyr herbicide spray, 4: untreated control) applied at two patch scales (12,000 m2 and 1,000 m2) and monitored for 5 years. Using variation partitioning, we then evaluated the independent and shared influence of patch scale, treatment type, abiotic factors, and landscape factors on plant community outcomes following herbicide treatments. We found that Phragmites reinvaded more quickly in large patches, particularly following summer herbicide treatments, while native plant cover and richness increased at a greater magnitude in small patches than large. Patch scale, in combination with abiotic and landscape factors, was the most important driver for most plant responses. Compared with the small plots, large patches commonly had deeper and more prolonged flooding, and were in areas with greater hydrologic disturbance in the landscape, factors associated with reduced native plant recruitment and greater Phragmites cover. Small patches were associated with less flooding and landscape disturbance, and more native plants in the surrounding landscape than large patches, factors which promoted higher native plant conservation values and greater native plant cover and richness. Herbicide type and timing accounted for very little of the variation in native plant recovery, emphasizing the greater importance of patch selection for better management outcomes. To maximize the success of treatment programs, practitioners should first manage Phragmites patches adjacent to native plant species and in areas with minimal hydrologic disturbance

Invasive Phragmites australis Management Outcomes and Native Plant Recovery Are Context Dependent

The outcomes of invasive plant removal efforts are influenced by management decisions, but are also contingent on the uncontrolled spatial and temporal context of management areas. Phragmites australis is an aggressive invader that is intensively managed in wetlands across North America. Treatment options have been understudied, and the ecological contingencies of management outcomes are poorly understood. We implemented a 5‐year, multi‐site experiment to evaluate six Phragmites management treatments that varied timing (summer or fall) and types of herbicide (glyphosate or imazapyr) along with mowing, plus a nonherbicide solarization treatment. We evaluated treatments for their influence on Phragmites and native plant cover and Phragmites inflorescence production. We assessed plant community trajectories and outcomes in the context of environmental factors. The summer mow, fall glyphosate spray treatment resulted in low Phragmites cover, high inflorescence reduction, and provided the best conditions for native plant recruitment. However, returning plant communities did not resemble reference sites, which were dominated by ecologically important perennial graminoids. Native plant recovery following initial Phragmites treatments was likely limited by the dense litter that resulted from mowing. After 5 years, Phragmites mortality and native plant recovery were highly variable across sites as driven by hydrology. Plots with higher soil moisture had greater reduction in Phragmites cover and more robust recruitment of natives compared with low moisture plots. This moisture effect may limit management options in semiarid regions vulnerable to water scarcity. We demonstrate the importance of replicating invasive species management experiments across sites so the contingencies of successes and failures can be better understood

Control of Large Stands of Phragmites australis in Great Salt Lake, Utah Wetlands

Phragmites australis (hereafter Phragmites) often forms dense monocultures, which displace native plant communities and alter ecosystem functions and services. Managers tasked with controlling this plant need science-backed guidance on how to control Phragmites and restore native plant communities. This study took a large-scale approach - to better match the scale of actual restoration efforts - to compare two herbicides (glyphosate vs. imazapyr) and application timings (summer vs. fall). Five treatments were applied to 1.2 ha plots for three consecutive years: 1) summer glyphosate; 2) summer imazapyr; 3) fall glyphosate; 4) fall imazapyr; and 5) untreated control. Dead Phragmites following herbicide treatments was mowed in the first two years. Efficacy of treatments and the response of native plant communities were monitored for three years. We report that fall herbicide applications were superior to summer applications. No difference was found between the two herbicides in their ability to reduce Phragmites cover. Plant communities switched from emergent to open water communities and were limited by Phragmites litter and water depth. Although, some plant communities showed a slow trajectory towards one of the reference sites, cover of important native emergent plants did not increase until year three and remained below 10%. These results suggest that fall is the best time to apply herbicides for effective large-scale control of Phragmites. Active restoration (e.g. seeding) may be needed to gain back important native plant communities. Methods to reduce Phragmites litter after herbicide applications should be considered