Search

Shifts in the timing of life history events have become an important source of information about how organisms are responding to climate change. Phenological data have generally been treated as purely temporal, with scant attention to the inherent spatial aspects of such data. However, phenological data are tied to a specific location, and considerations of sampling design, both over space and through time, can critically affect the patterns that emerge. Focusing on flowering phenology, we describe how purely spatial shifts, such as adding new study plots, or the colonization of a study plot by a new species, can masquerade as temporal shifts. Such shifts can look like responses to climate change but are not. Furthermore, the same aggregate phenological curves can be composed of individuals with either very different or very similar phenologies. We conclude with a set of recommendations to avoid ambiguities arising from the spatiotemporal duality of phenological data.

Shifts in the timing of life history events have become an important source of information about how organisms are responding to climate change. Phenological data have generally been treated as purely temporal, with scant attention to the inherent spatial aspects of such data. However, phenological data are tied to a specific location, and considerations of sampling design, both over space and through time, can critically affect the patterns that emerge. Focusing on flowering phenology, we describe how purely spatial shifts, such as adding new study plots, or the colonization of a study plot by a new species, can masquerade as temporal shifts. Such shifts can look like responses to climate change but are not. Furthermore, the same aggregate phenological curves can be composed of individuals with either very different or very similar phenologies. We conclude with a set of recommendations to avoid ambiguities arising from the spatiotemporal duality of phenological data.

Pollinators that collect pollen - and specifically, pollen-specialist bees - are often considered to be the best pollinators of a (host) plant. Although pollen collectors and pollen specialists often benefit host plants, especially in the pollen that they deliver (their pollination "effectiveness"), they can also exact substantial costs because they are motivated to collect as much pollen as possible, reducing the proportion of pollen removed that is subsequently delivered to stigmas (their pollination "efficiency"). From the plant perspective, pollen grains that do not pollinate conspecific stigmas are "wasted", and potentially costly. We measured costs and benefits of nectar-collecting, pollen-collecting, and pollen-specialist pollinator visitation to the spring ephemeral Claytonia virginica. Visits by the pollen-specialist bee Andrena erigeniae depleted pollen quickly and thoroughly. Although all pollinators delivered roughly the same number of grains, the pollen specialist contributed most to C. virginica pollen delivery because of high visitation rates. However, the pollen specialist also removed a large number of grains; this removal may be especially costly because it resulted in the depletion of pollen grains in C. virginica populations. While C. virginica appears to rely on pollen transfer by the pollen specialist in these populations, nectar-collecting visitors could provide the same benefit at a lower cost if their visitation rates increased. Pollen depletion affects a pollinator's value to plants, but is frequently overlooked. If they lower the effectiveness of future floral visitors, visits by A. erigeniae females to C. virginica may be more detrimental than beneficial compared to other pollinators and may, in some circumstances, reduce plant fitness rather than increase it. Therefore, A. erigeniae and C. virginica may vary in their degree of mutualism depending on the ecological context.

Miller-Struttmann et al. (2015) suggest that, in a North American alpine ecosystem, reduced flower abundance due to climate change has driven the evolution of shorter tongues in two bumble bee species. We accept the evidence that tongue length has decreased, but are unconvinced by the adaptive explanation offered. It posits foraging responses and competitive relationships not seen in other studies and interprets phenotypic change as evidence of evolutionary adaptation. By oversimplifying a complex phenomenon, it may exaggerate the potential for bees to quickly adapt to environmental changes.