Do common assumptions about the wetland seed bank following invasive plant removal hold true? Divergent outcomes following multi‐year <i>Phragmites australis</i> management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question Limited funds and compressed timelines frequently translate into a reliance on seed banks for native plant recovery following invasive plant management. This approach assumes: (a) baseline seed bank communities are sufficient for native plant recovery regardless of site environmental conditions; (b) different management actions variably impact native and invader seed banks; (c) management actions reduce invader seed banks; while (d) native seed banks do not decline following management; and (e) returning above‐ground vegetation reflects the seed bank. Do these assumptions hold true in the context of invasive Phragmites australis management? Location Great Salt Lake wetlands, Utah, USA. Methods Across six sites, we applied six Phragmites management treatments (solarization, or glyphosate or imazapyr herbicide in the summer or fall with mowing) for three years, and monitored two more. Each year, we assessed the above‐ground vegetation and seed bank using the seedling emergence method. Results Site environmental conditions drove baseline seed bank communities: seed banks differed substantially across sites with varying anthropogenic degradation as less disturbed sites had greater seed bank richness. Different management actions had similar impacts on native and invader seed banks. Phragmites seed density was reduced after herbicide treatments while native seed bank communities were unaffected. Above‐ground vegetation generally reflected seed bank communities. However, native graminoids were present in seed banks but surprisingly rare above‐ground. Conclusion Commonly held assumptions about invasive plant management and native recovery from the seed bank did not all hold true. Native seed banks were particularly insufficient for recovery at sites with greater degradation, suggesting managers should prioritize management at less degraded sites or consider revegetation in highly degraded sites. Despite reductions in Phragmites seed bank density, Phragmites propagule pressure remained high, requiring a long‐term management commitment. Often seed banks are insufficient and revegetation of desired above‐ground species is necessary to meet restoration goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".