Invasive Plants of Great Salt Lake Wetlands: What, Where, When, How, and Why?

Kettenring, Karin M.; Cranney, Chad R.; Downard, Rebekah; Hambrecht, Keith; Tarsa, Emily E.; Menuz, Diane; Rohal, Christine B.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40352-2_13

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Typha species was identified as important in suppressing P. australis in other studies (Byun et al, 2015), we chose to exclude Typha from our seed mix. Typha species, which are native in this system, are considered problematic for management and are actively controlled in the Great Salt Lake wetlands as they make poor waterfowl habitat, replace open water, and choke out more desirable native species (Kettenring et al, 2020). All seeds, including seeds of P. australis , were collected from the Great Salt Lake wetlands in 2016–2017 and stored in paper bags at room temperature (20–23°C) after collection.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this approach must be applied when (1) native species can effectively acquire early‐season resources (i.e., fast‐growing D. spicata in this study), and (2) when the germination requirements of native species align with the early‐season conditions at the site. Maintaining the newly restored wetland is critical for long‐term success. Regular monitoring and maintenance of the site will ensure that any subsequent P. australis invasion, either via seedling establishment or clonal expansion from nearby patches, can be addressed through spot spraying or manual removal (Kettenring et al, 2020). Prioritizing areas directly around the restoration site for P. australis herbicide control can help to buffer the restoration site from reinvasion via clonal expansion (Long, Kettenring, & Toth, 2017).…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hydrologically, early‐onset drought conditions are a management reality in many Great Salt Lake wetlands as upstream water diversions increase and annual precipitation decreases (Downard et al, 2014; Wurtsbaugh et al, 2017). Furthermore, the proximity of Great Salt Lake wetlands to urban development results in areas of high eutrophication (Long, Kettenring, Hawkins, & Neal, 2017; Wurtsbaugh & Marcarelli, 2006). Eutrophication and drought are not unique to the Great Salt Lake wetlands; this problem is increasingly occurring in freshwater and coastal wetlands around the globe (Junk et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tipping the balance: The role of seed density, abiotic filters, and priority effects in seed‐based wetland restoration

Tarsa

Holdaway

Kettenring

2022

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sowing native seeds is a common approach to reintroduce native plants to degraded systems. However, this method is often overlooked in wetland restoration despite the immense global loss of diverse native wetland vegetation.Developing guiding principles for seed-based wetland restoration is critical to maximize native plant recovery, particularly in previously invaded wetlands. Doing so requires a comprehensive understanding of how restoration manipulations, and their interactions, influence wetland plant community assembly. With a focus on the invader Phragmites australis, we established a series of mesocosm experiments to assess how native sowing density, invader propagule pressure, abiotic filters (water and nutrients), and native sowing timing (i.e., priority effects) interact to influence plant community cover and biomass in wetland habitats. Increasing the density of native seeds yielded higher native cover and biomass, but P. australis suppression with increasing sowing densities was minimal. Rather, community outcomes were largely driven by invader propagule pressure: P. australis densities of ≤500 seeds/m 2 maintained high native cover and biomass. Low-water conditions increased the susceptibility of P. australis to dominance by native competitors. Early sowing of native seeds showed a large and significant benefit to native cover and biomass, regardless of native sowing density, suggesting that priority effects can be an effective restoration manipulation to enhance native plant establishment. Given the urgent wetland restoration need combined with the limited studies on seed-based wetland restoration, these findings provide guidance on restoration manipulations that are grounded in ecological theory to improve seed-based wetland restoration outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tipping the balance: The role of seed density, abiotic filters, and priority effects in seed‐based wetland restoration

Tarsa

Holdaway

Kettenring

2022

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Managers can also manipulate biotic and abiotic conditions to reduce Phragmites germination or seed production, both locally and at the watershed scale (Kettenring et al, 2011). Propagule pressure can be reduced with summer Phragmites grazing (Duncan et al, 2019), summer Phragmites mowing (Rohal et al, 2019a,b), intentionally drought‐stressing Phragmites stands (Kettenring et al, 2020), and decreasing landscape nutrient enrichment and anthropogenic degradation (Kettenring et al, 2011).…”

Section: Conclusion and Management Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Managers generally assume the seed bank provides adequate propagules for recovery of desirable species following Phragmites management (Rohal et al, 2018), but our results suggest that even when present, native graminoids may not readily recruit above‐ground. Low graminoid recruitment suggests active revegetation of target species is required to obtain a greater diversity and density of graminoids that are more resilient to variable hydrology (Rohal et al, 2019a,b; Kettenring et al, 2020). The kind of active revegetation program needed to establish native species in the face of unyielding Phragmites propagule pressure may require seeding and long‐term Phragmites control that exceed typical budgets and timelines.…”

Section: Conclusion and Management Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do common assumptions about the wetland seed bank following invasive plant removal hold true? Divergent outcomes following multi‐year Phragmites australis management

Rohal

Adams

Reynolds

et al. 2021

Applied Vegetation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Nest success of ground‐nesting ducks in the wetlands of Great Salt Lake, Utah

Bell

Conover

2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of ground‐nesting ducks in the wetlands of Great Salt Lake, Utah has drastically decreased in the past few decades. A potential cause for this decline is the increase of predator species and their abundances, which has caused most nests to fail from depredation. Ground‐nesting ducks may be able to reduce the risk of nest depredation by selecting nest sites where local physical structures or vegetation provides olfactory or visual concealment. To test this, we used logistic exposure models to look at the effect of nest‐site characteristics on daily survival rates (DSRs) of nests during 2019, 2020, and 2021 in the wetlands of Great Salt Lake, Utah. We found 825 duck nests including 458 cinnamon teal (Spatula cyanoptera), 166 mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), and 201 gadwalls (Mareca strepera). DSRs were 0.9714 ± 0.0019 in 2019, 0.9282 ± 0.0049 in 2020, and 0.8274 ± 0.0185 in 2021. Survival rates varied among years but not among duck species. Striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) were responsible for 85% of depredated nests. Nests located near other duck nests had higher DSRs than more dispersed nests. Neither visual nor olfactory characteristics correlated with increased DSRs based on AICc analysis. Nests located inside a mixed nesting colony of American avocets (Recurvirostra americana), black‐necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), and common terns (Sterna hirundo) had higher DSRs than duck nests outside the colony. Increased nesting densities of ducks and other colonial waterbirds had the greatest impact on nesting success. Increased nest density may be encouraged through early spring green‐up.

show abstract

Invasive Plants of Great Salt Lake Wetlands: What, Where, When, How, and Why?

Cited by 7 publications

References 99 publications

Tipping the balance: The role of seed density, abiotic filters, and priority effects in seed‐based wetland restoration

Tipping the balance: The role of seed density, abiotic filters, and priority effects in seed‐based wetland restoration

Do common assumptions about the wetland seed bank following invasive plant removal hold true? Divergent outcomes following multi‐year Phragmites australis management

Nest success of ground‐nesting ducks in the wetlands of Great Salt Lake, Utah

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About