Back

Seasonal variation mediates the importance of species attributes in plant-pollinator interactions

B. Lanuza, J.; Allen-Perkins, A.; Glenny, W.; Traveset, A.; Morgenroth, H. F.; Umazekabiri, R.; Hoffmann, M.; Theodorou, P.; Paxton, R. J.; Hensen, I.; Rauschkolb, R.; Romermann, C.; Schweiger, O.; Knight, T.

2026-07-22 ecology
10.64898/2026.07.21.739935 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Predicting species interactions remains a major challenge, as multiple species attributes operate simultaneously and their relative importance may vary seasonally and with temporal resolution. Here, we assess how the relative contributions of abundance, trait matching, and phenology to plant-pollinator interactions vary through a flowering season and across temporal resolutions using interaction data from three European botanical gardens. We show that predictive models explain a substantial proportion of variation in visitation patterns, with floral and pollinator abundances consistently explaining most variation across the flowering season. Trait matching between pollinator body size and floral size also contributes to visitation patterns, playing a secondary but persistent role in shaping interactions, while phenology plays a relatively minor role at broader temporal resolutions but becomes more important at finer temporal scales. Additionally, null models accounting for spatio-temporal variation in floral and pollinator abundance reveal consistent patterns of pollinator preference and avoidance, indicating that abundance alone cannot explain the observed interaction patterns. Our results show that seasonal variation and temporal resolution differentially shape the importance of species attributes, highlighting the need for multi-variable approaches that account for temporal dynamics to accurately explain and predict ecological interactions.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.