Back

Experimental flowering order shapes priority effects in plant-pollinator interactions

Torres, A.; Chen, W.-L. C.; Hille Ris Lambers, J.; Waters, S.

2026-08-28 ecology
10.64898/2026.08.28.747010 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Climate change is disrupting life's seasonal rhythms, altering the timing of key phenophases and reshaping how communities assemble. Beyond shifting flowering times, climate change can modify the extent of floral overlap and the sequence in which species bloom, generating novel assemblages with uncertain consequences for plant-pollinator interactions. Here, we ask whether flowering order generates priority effects in plant-pollinator communities, much like germination order does in plant communities. We tested how flowering order influences bee foraging behaviour and plant reproductive success in two co-flowering species, Hypochaeris radicata and Campanula rotundifolia, using a greenhouse experiment in which we manipulated the sequence of floral availability while allowing bees to forage repeatedly. We quantified changes in visit frequency, interspecific switches, handling time, and seed production. Our findings reveal priority effects in bee foraging that were strong enough to affect plant fitness: both species received more visits when flowering earlier than their co-occurring counterpart, and seed production declined when species flowered later. Overall, our results show that flowering order is an underappreciated driver of plant-pollinator interactions, suggesting that climate-driven phenological shifts could alter priority-effect dynamics with broader implications for community assembly. Key questions remain: How will climate-driven phenological shifts rearrange flowering sequences, and how will these priority effects emerge in more diverse communities in the wild? Our controlled experiment reveals strong flowering-order effects, underscoring the need to evaluate how widespread and impactful such dynamics are under accelerating climate change.

Matching journals

The top 7 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.