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

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. We evaluated common assumptions about the role of the seed bank in native plant recovery following invasive‐species management in Phragmites australis‐invaded wetlands. We found Phragmites seed density declined following three years of management while native seed density was unaffected. The richness an