The role of biotic interactions in shaping plant flowering phenology has long been controversial; plastic responses to the abiotic environment, limited precision of biological clocks and inconsistency of selection pressures have generally been emphasized to explain phenological variation. However, part of this variation is heritable and selection analyses show that biotic interactions can modulate selection on flowering phenology. Our review of the literature indicates that pollinators tend to favour peak or earlier flowering, whereas pre-dispersal seed predators tend to favour off-peak or later flowering. However, effects strongly vary among study systems. To understand such variation, future studies should address the impact of mutualist and antagonist dispersal ability, ecological specialization, and habitat and plant population characteristics. Here, we outline future directions to study how such interactions shape flowering phenology. IntroductionFor plant reproduction, timing is everything. An individual plant that flowers too early, before it has had time to accumulate sufficient material resources, will have a limited capacity for seed production. One that delays flowering might gain higher capacity, but might also run out of time to use it before the end of the season. Flowering phenology is affected by many environmental factors, among which temperature and photoperiod, which are reliable signals of seasons, are probably the best studied. Accurate detection of such environmental cues and the resulting plastic response of plants enable flowering to occur when climatic conditions are most suitable for reproduction. Thus, resources and conditions impose bottom-up selective forces on phenology.By contrast, top-down forces act on reproductive timing, particularly those imposed by mutualists (pollinators and seed dispersers) and antagonists (floral pathogens and predispersal seed predators). Here, we review recent progress in understanding some of the top-down selective forces that act on reproductive timing. We highlight what is known,

Summary• DNA methylation can cause heritable phenotypic modifications in the absence of changes in DNA sequence. Environmental stresses can trigger methylation changes and this may have evolutionary consequences, even in the absence of sequence variation. However, it remains largely unknown to what extent environmentally induced methylation changes are transmitted to offspring, and whether observed methylation variation is truly independent or a downstream consequence of genetic variation between individuals.• Genetically identical apomictic dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) plants were exposed to different ecological stresses, and apomictic offspring were raised in a common unstressed environment. We used methylation-sensitive amplified fragment length polymorphism markers to screen genome-wide methylation alterations triggered by stress treatments and to assess the heritability of induced changes.• Various stresses, most notably chemical induction of herbivore and pathogen defenses, triggered considerable methylation variation throughout the genome. Many modifications were faithfully transmitted to offspring. Stresses caused some epigenetic divergence between treatment and controls, but also increased epigenetic variation among plants within treatments.• These results show the following. First, stress-induced methylation changes are common and are mostly heritable. Second, sequence-independent, autonomous methylation variation is readily generated. This highlights the potential of epigenetic inheritance to play an independent role in evolutionary processes, which is superimposed on the system of genetic inheritance.

Many species are currently moving to higher latitudes and altitudes. However, little is known about the factors that influence the future performance of range-expanding species in their new habitats. Here we show that range-expanding plant species from a riverine area were better defended against shoot and root enemies than were related native plant species growing in the same area. We grew fifteen plant species with and without non-coevolved polyphagous locusts and cosmopolitan, polyphagous aphids. Contrary to our expectations, the locusts performed more poorly on the range-expanding plant species than on the congeneric native plant species, whereas the aphids showed no difference. The shoot herbivores reduced the biomass of the native plants more than they did that of the congeneric range expanders. Also, the range-expanding plants developed fewer pathogenic effects in their root-zone soil than did the related native species. Current predictions forecast biodiversity loss due to limitations in the ability of species to adjust to climate warming conditions in their range. Our results strongly suggest that the plants that shift ranges towards higher latitudes and altitudes may include potential invaders, as the successful range expanders may experience less control by above-ground or below-ground enemies than the natives.

When previously isolated populations meet and mix, the resulting admixed population can benefit from several genetic advantages, including increased genetic variation, the creation of novel genotypes and the masking of deleterious mutations. These admixture benefits are thought to play an important role in biological invasions. In contrast, populations in their native range often remain differentiated and frequently suffer from inbreeding depression owing to isolation. While the advantages of admixture are evident for introduced populations that experienced recent bottlenecks or that face novel selection pressures, it is less obvious why native range populations do not similarly benefit from admixture. Here we argue that a temporary loss of local adaptation in recent invaders fundamentally alters the fitness consequences of admixture. In native populations, selection against dilution of the locally adapted gene pool inhibits unconstrained admixture and reinforces population isolation, with some level of inbreeding depression as an expected consequence. We show that admixture is selected against despite significant inbreeding depression because the benefits of local adaptation are greater than the cost of inbreeding. In contrast, introduced populations that have not yet established a pattern of local adaptation can freely reap the benefits of admixture. There can be strong selection for admixture because it instantly lifts the inbreeding depression that had built up in isolated parental populations. Recent work in Silene suggests that reduced inbreeding depression associated with post-introduction admixture may contribute to enhanced fitness of invasive populations. We hypothesize that in locally adapted populations, the benefits of local adaptation are balanced against an inbreeding cost that could develop in part owing to the isolating effect of local adaptation itself. The inbreeding cost can be revealed in admixing populations during recent invasions.

Introduced exotic species encounter a wide range of non-coevolved enemies and competitors in their new range. Evolutionary novelty is a key aspect of these interactions, but who benefits from novelty: the exotic species or their new antagonists? Paradoxically, the novelty argument has been used to explain both the release from and the suppression by natural enemies. We argue that this paradox can be solved by considering underlying interaction mechanisms. Using plant defenses as a model, we argue that mismatches between plant and enemy interaction traits can enhance plant invasiveness in the case of toxin-based defenses, whereas invasiveness is counteracted by mismatches in recognition-based defenses and selective foraging of generalist herbivores on plants with rare toxins. We propose that a mechanistic understanding of ecological mismatches can help to explain and predict when evolutionary novelty will enhance or suppress exotic plant invasiveness. This knowledge may also enhance our understanding of plant abundance following range expansion, or during species replacements along successional stages.