The eco‐evolutionary consequences of interspecific phenological asynchrony – a theoretical perspective

Abstract

The timing of biological events (phenology) is an important aspect of both a species' life cycle and how it interacts with other species and its environment. Patterns of phenological change have been given much scientific attention, particularly recently in relation to climate change. For pairs of interacting species, if their rates of phenological change differ, then this may lead to asynchrony between them and disruption of their ecological interactions. However it is often difficult to interpret differential rates of phenological change and to predict their ecological and evolutionary consequences. We review theoretical results regarding this topic, with special emphasis on those arising from life history theory, evolutionary game theory and population dynamic models. Much ecological research on phenological change builds upon the concept of match/mismatch, so we start by putting forward a simple but general model that captures essential elements of this concept. We then systematically compare the predictions of this baseline model with expectations from theory in which additional ecological mechanisms and features of species life cycles are taken into account. We discuss the ways in which the fitness consequences of interspecific phenological asynchrony may be weak, strong, or idiosyncratic. We discuss theory showing that synchrony is not necessarily an expected evolutionary outcome, and how population densities are not necessarily maximized by adaptation, and the implications of these findings. By bringing together theoretical developments regarding the eco-evolutionary consequences of phenological asynchrony, we provide an overview of available alternative hypotheses for interpreting empirical patterns as well as the starting point for the next generation of theory in this field.Global warming has caused phenological changes in all major ecosystems and taxa (Peñuelas and Filella 2001, Fitter and Fitter 2002, Sparks and Menzel 2002, Parmesan and Yohe 2003. Many spring and summer events have advanced but there is also a considerable variation in the rate of phenological change among species and phenophases (Schwartz et al. 2006, Thackeray et al. 2010. Such variation may reflect differential effects of warming on development rates of different organisms, and on cues that affect the seasonal scheduling of species activities (Yang and Rudolf 2010). It may also reflect variation in either genetic variance affecting the rate of adaptation through microevolution, or constraints on phenotypic plasticity (Gienapp et al. 2007).Many interspecific ecological interactions are dependent upon the temporal coordination of the seasonal activities of the interacting species. For example, Thomson (2010) has shown that pollen limitation in a subalpine lily (Erythronium grandiflorum) has increased over a period of 17 years, and the suggested mechanism is that climate change has decreased the temporal match between plants and pollinators. Spawning phenology in the marine intertidal bivalve Macoma balthica is under selection by te...

Phenological mismatch in Arctic‐breeding shorebirds: Impact of snowmelt and unpredictable weather conditions on food availability and chick growth

“…The ability of shorebirds to nest early, however, is likely to depend on other selective pressures, such as seasonal variability in predation rates (Johansson, Kristensen, Nilsson, & Jonzén, 2015). For example, Reneerkens et al (2016) (Tollit, Wong, Winship, Rosen, & Trites, 2003), errors in identification of prey (Clare, Fraser, Braid, Fenton, & Herbert, 2009), and over-simplification of prey composition due to difficult visual identification of closely related taxa.…”

Breeding timed to maximize reproductive success for a migratory songbird: the importance of phenological asynchrony

“…When the phenological response to environmental variation is presented as the relationship between the phenology of interacting species – for example days of change in the timing of breeding by birds versus days of change in the timing of a food peak – a slope of one indicates equal plasticity across trophic levels and thus synchronous phenological shifts. However, such phenological synchrony may not be an appropriate baseline assumption (Johansson et al ) if life‐history tradeoffs favor unequal plasticity across trophic levels (an apparent mismatch as described in Singer and Parmesan , Lof et al ).…”

Crowd‐sourced data reveal social–ecological mismatches in phenology driven by climate

“…; Tschakert and Dietrich ), much like phenotypic plasticity and evolutionary changes in ecological systems (Johansson et al . ), could minimize changes in social–ecological matches (eg visitors encountering flowers) in a warming climate. Like many studies that use spatial and annual climate variation as proxies for anthropogenic climate change (Elmendorf et al .…”