Climate change has led to phenological shifts in flowering plants and insect pollinators, causing concern that these shifts will disrupt plant-pollinator mutualisms. We experimentally investigated how shifts in flowering onset affect pollinator visitation for 14 native perennial plant species, six of which have exhibited shifts to earlier flowering over the last 70 years and eight of which have not. We manipulated flowering onset in greenhouses and then observed pollinator visitation in the field. Five of six species with historically advanced flowering received more visits when flowering was experimentally advanced, whereas seven of eight species with historically unchanged flowering received fewer visits when flowering earlier. This pattern suggests that species unconstrained by pollinators have advanced their flowering, whereas species constrained by pollinators have not. In contrast to current concern about phenological mismatches disrupting plant-pollinator mutualisms, mismatches at the onset of flowering are not occurring for most of our study species.

Growing concern about the influence of climate change on flowering plants, pollinators, and the mutualistic interactions between them has led to a recent surge in research. Much of this research has addressed the consequences of warming for phenological and distributional shifts. In contrast, relatively little is known about the physiological responses of plants and insect pollinators to climate warming and, in particular, how these responses might affect plant-pollinator interactions. Here, we summarize the direct physiological effects of temperature on flowering plants and pollinating insects to highlight ways in which plant and pollinator responses could affect floral resources for pollinators, and pollination success for plants, respectively. We also consider the overall effects of these responses on plant-pollinator interaction networks. Plant responses to warming, which include altered flower, nectar, and pollen production, could modify floral resource availability and reproductive output of pollinating insects. Similarly, pollinator responses, such as altered foraging activity, body size, and life span, could affect patterns of pollen flow and pollination success of flowering plants. As a result, network structure could be altered as interactions are gained and lost, weakened and strengthened, even without the gain or loss of species or temporal overlap. Future research that addresses not only how plant and pollinator physiology are affected by warming but also how responses scale up to affect interactions and networks should allow us to better understand and predict the effects of climate change on this important ecosystem service

Climate change is altering the timing of life history events in a wide array of species, many of which are involved in mutualistic interactions. Because many mutualisms can form only if partner species are able to locate each other in time, differential phenological shifts are likely to influence their strength, duration and outcome. At the extreme, climate change-driven shifts in phenology may result in phenological mismatch: the partial or complete loss of temporal overlap of mutualistic species. We have a growing understanding of how, when, and why phenological change can alter one type of mutualism–pollination. However, as we show here, there has been a surprising lack of attention to other types of mutualism. We generate a set of predictions about the characteristics that may predispose mutualisms in general to phenological mismatches. We focus not on the consequences of such mismatches but rather on the likelihood that mismatches will develop. We explore the influence of three key characteristics of mutualism: 1) intimacy, 2) seasonality and duration, and 3) obligacy and specificity. We predict that the following characteristics of mutualism may increase the likelihood of phenological mismatch: 1) a non-symbiotic life history in which co-dispersal is absent; 2) brief, seasonal interactions; and 3) facultative, generalized interactions. We then review the limited available data in light of our a priori predictions and point to mutualisms that are more and less likely to be at risk of becoming phenologically mismatched, emphasizing the need for research on mutualisms other than plant–pollinator interactions. Future studies should explicitly focus on mutualism characteristics to determine whether and how changing phenologies will affect mutualistic interactions.