345litter in creating short-term legacy effects (Grman and Suding 2010 ) and annual
grass-fi re cycles (Balch et al. 2013 ). Finally, in addition to decreasing seed banks
and litter production, heavily invaded ecosystems have low resilience to distur-
bance, and native perennial species are incapable of competing with Bromus and
resisting recolonization where they have been displaced (Chambers et al. 2007 ,
2014a). Accordingly, restoration must create conditions to augment native species
recovery and/or establishment from seedings in order to increase competitive inter-
actions with Bromus (Corbin and D’Antonio 2010 ; James et al. 2013a ). Because
common Bromus characteristics interact with a number of complex environmental
and ecological processes, it becomes clear that ecosystem restoration, as well as
conservation projects, must adopt a framework that can be tailored to prevailing
site-specifi c conditions.
12.3 Adopting an Adaptive Management Framework
for Bromus
Tremendous uncertainty exists when developing realistic management goals and
restoration strategies for ecosystems dominated by annual grasses (Wisdom and
Chambers 2009 ). While short-term restoration efforts may initiate favorable site
recovery responses (Hirsch-Schantz et al. 2014 ), multiple interventions are typi-
cally needed before ecosystems regain resilience to prevailing disturbance regimes
(Suding et al. 2004 ). Consequently, the development of effective management and
restoration goals will require long-term, systematic, stepwise improvements that
utilize ecological principles, processes, and practices (Sheley et al. 2010 ; Herrick
et al. 2012 ). At its core, adaptive management provides the planning, implementa-
tion, and evaluation steps that are applicable to nearly any invasive species or habi-
tat (Fig. 12.1 ) (Williams et al. 2009 ; Williams 2011 ; Rist et al. 2013 ). Importantly,
it provides a mechanism for iterative learning through a feedback loop between
research and management (Reever-Morghan et al. 2006 ; Boyd and Svejcar 2009 ).
This feedback loo p is most effective when uncertainty is reduced over time as infor-
mation from research and monitoring are continually considered for management
alternatives (Williams and Brown 2012 , 2014 ).
The adaptive management framework entails two distinct phases: the setup
phase, in which essential elements are put into place, and the iterative phase, in
which the components are linked in a repeated decision-making cycle (Fig. 12.1 )
(Williams and Brown 2012 ). Technical learning about the biophysical system and
its response to management takes place in the setup phase, and learning about the
social and institutional aspects of the process takes place by periodically reviewing
and adjusting elements. While adaptive management can be divided into additional
sub-steps when applied to specifi c restoration sites (Reever-Morghan et al. 2006 ) or
used to advance new conceptualizations of the restoration process (Allen et al.
2011 ), all versions of the adaptive management model have similar core elements.
Specifi cally, successful implementation requires involving all stakeholders who will
12 Assessing Restoration and Management Needs for Ecosystems...