The potential for phenological mismatch between a perennial herb and its ground-nesting bee pollinator

Abstract

Flowering time is shifting with climate change. Pollinators may respond differently to changes in temperature and moisture than the flowers they visit, resulting in a timing mismatch between species. In this study, we evaluate the timing of a perennial plant and its main pollinator, a solitary ground-nesting bee. The timing of the bee was recorded at the nesting sites, independent of flowering. We find that the timing for both species is strongly associated with temperature, but that the bee’s nesting time may shift faster with climate change, revealing the potential for a timing mismatch in these species.

Asynchrony among insect pollinator groups and flowering plants with elevation

“…Although the mismatch observed at the middle zone was not statistically significant, a distinct early peak in abundance of bees was observed there. Long-term monitoring of plant and bee phenology on our mountain may establish the pattern observed as contrasting abundance peaks of flowering plants and bees has been associated with climate change 57 , 58 . Mostly, long-term phenological data have shown insects in general to be more sensitive to springtime temperature rise compared to flowering plants per se 55 , 57 , 59 .…”

“…Long-term monitoring of plant and bee phenology on our mountain may establish the pattern observed as contrasting abundance peaks of flowering plants and bees has been associated with climate change 57 , 58 . Mostly, long-term phenological data have shown insects in general to be more sensitive to springtime temperature rise compared to flowering plants per se 55 , 57 , 59 . While this may be the plausible explanation for the results here, the patterns may also be influenced by species seasonal flight duration, which can contrast with the flowering peak period 34 .…”

Bee phenology is predicted by climatic variation and functional traits

“…While phenological responses to climate change have been well documented for plants (Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; CaraDonna et al ., 2014; König et al ., 2018), less is known about the responses of pollinators, especially insect pollinators such as bees (Bartomeus et al ., 2011). Even if bee and flowering phenologies are both responsive to temperature (Hegland et al ., 2009; Forrest and Thomson, 2011; Renner and Zohner, 2018), they may not be equally sensitive to variation in temperature, potentially leading to a future mismatch under climate change (Ellwood et al ., 2012; Ovaskainen et al ., 2013; Petanidou et al ., 2014; Olliff‐Yang and Mesler, 2018). The few studies that have examined the phenological response of bees to environmental cues have been limited by practical constraints mostly to small subsets of the total bee community (e.g.…”

“…These phenophases may be driven by different environmental cues, but may also be linked by developmental time (Donnelly et al ., 2011; Keenan and Richardson, 2015; Ettinger et al ., 2018). Differences in temperature (Forrest and Thomson, 2011), soil moisture (Danforth, 1999; Olliff‐Yang and Mesler, 2018), and snowmelt timing along elevation gradients in montane regions (Pyke et al ., 2011) may shift bee emergence phenology. Snowmelt timing may be particularly influential in areas where the growing season is limited by many months of persistent snowpack.…”

Mismatch managed? Phenological phase extension as a strategy to manage phenological asynchrony in plant–animal mutualisms

“…Heterogeneity in microclimates can yield lengthened duration by creating patterns of complementarity in the timing in both plant and animal activity. Abiotic gradients and habitat heterogeneity can impact the timing of both animal and plant species distributed across a site (Hindle et al ; Olliff‐Yang & Mesler ). Management to conserve, maintain, and restore abiotic heterogeneity, and increasing connectivity across heterogeneous landscapes could extend phenology at both local and landscape scales.…”