Phenological change in a spring ephemeral: implications for pollination and plant reproduction

• Published in: Global change biology 2016-05, Vol.22 (5), p.1779-1793
• Main Authors: Gezon, Zachariah J., Inouye, David W., Irwin, Rebecca E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Claytonia lanceolata; Climate Change; Colorado; Flowers - growth & development; Flowers - physiology; phenological mismatch; phenology; plant reproduction; pollen limitation; Pollination; Portulacaceae; Portulacaceae - growth & development; Portulacaceae - physiology; Reproduction; Seasons
• ISSN: 1354-1013; 1365-2486
• DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13209

Climate change has had numerous ecological effects, including species range shifts and altered phenology. Altering flowering phenology often affects plant reproduction, but the mechanisms behind these changes are not well‐understood. To investigate why altering flowering phenology affects plant reproduction, we manipulated flowering phenology of the spring herb Claytonia lanceolata (Portulacaceae) using two methods: in 2011–2013 by altering snow pack (snow‐removal vs. control treatments), and in 2013 by inducing flowering in a greenhouse before placing plants in experimental outdoor arrays (early, control, and late treatments). We measured flowering phenology, pollinator visitation, plant reproduction (fruit and seed set), and pollen limitation. Flowering occurred approx. 10 days earlier in snow‐removal than control plots during all years of snow manipulation. Pollinator visitation patterns and strength of pollen limitation varied with snow treatments, and among years. Plants in the snow removal treatment were more likely to experience frost damage, and frost‐damaged plants suffered low reproduction despite lack of pollen limitation. Plants in the snow removal treatment that escaped frost damage had higher pollinator visitation rates and reproduction than controls. The results of the array experiment supported the results of the snow manipulations. Plants in the early and late treatments suffered very low reproduction due either to severe frost damage (early treatment) or low pollinator visitation (late treatment) relative to control plants. Thus, plants face tradeoffs with advanced flowering time. While early‐flowering plants can reap the benefits of enhanced pollination services, they do so at the cost of increased susceptibility to frost damage that can overwhelm any benefit of flowering early. In contrast, delayed flowering results in dramatic reductions in plant reproduction through reduced pollination. Our results suggest that climate change may constrain the success of early‐flowering plants not through plant‐pollinator mismatch but through the direct impacts of extreme environmental conditions.