The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant–pollinator interactions and phenological change: what can we learn about climate impacts from experiments and observations?
Abstract
Climate change can affect plant–pollinator interactions in a variety of ways, but much of the research attention has focused on whether independent shifts in phenology will alter temporal overlap between plants and pollinators. Here I review the research on plant–pollinator mismatch, assessing the potential for observational and experimental approaches to address particular aspects of the problem. Recent, primarily observational studies suggest that phenologies of co‐occurring plants and pollinators tend to respond similarly to environmental cues, but that nevertheless, certain pairs of interacting species are showing independent shifts in phenology. Only in a few cases, however, have these independent shifts been shown to affect population vital rates (specifically, seed production by plants) but this largely reflects a lack of research. Compared to the few long‐term studies of pollination in natural plant populations, experimental manipulations of phenology have yielded relatively optimistic conclusions about effects of phenological shifts on plant reproduction, and I discuss how issues of scale and frequency‐dependence in pollinator behaviour affect the interpretation of these ‘temporal transplant’ experiments. Comparable research on the impacts of mismatch on pollinator populations is so far lacking, but both observational studies and focused experiments have the potential to improve our forecasts of pollinator responses to changing phenologies. Finally, while there is now evidence that plant–pollinator mismatch can affect seed production by plants, it is still unclear whether this phenological impact will be the primary way in which climate change affects plant–pollinator interactions. It would be useful to test the direct effects of changing climate on pollinator population persistence, and to compare the importance of phenological mismatch with other threats to pollination.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Climate change 2007: the physical science basis
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Marquis, M. C., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., & Chen, Z. (2007) · Cited by 23,383
Global warming and the disruption of plant–pollinator interactions
Memmott, J., Craze, P. G., Waser, N. M., & Price, M. V. (2007) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01061.x · Cited by 1,318
Rapid evolution of flowering time by an annual plant in response to a climate fluctuation
Franks, S. J., Sim, S., & Weis, A. E. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0608379104 · Cited by 1,201
How does climate warming affect plant‐pollinator interactions?
Hegland, S. J., Nielsen, A., Lázaro, A., Bjerknes, A., & Totland, Ø. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01269.x · Cited by 1,181
Plant-Pollinator Interactions over 120 Years: Loss of Species, Co-Occurrence, and Function
Burkle, L. A., Marlin, J. C., & Knight, T. M. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1232728 · Cited by 1,118 · cited 3×
“Th e authors did attribute the loss of certain specifi c interactions to lack of temporal co-occurrence, but some of these losses may have been due to reduced population sizes rather than independently shifting phenologies (Burkle et al. 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialEFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON PHENOLOGY, FROST DAMAGE, AND FLORAL ABUNDANCE OF MONTANE WILDFLOWERS
Inouye, D. W. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/06-2128.1 · Cited by 1,105
Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change
Wolkovich, E. M., Cook, B. I., Allen, J. M., Crimmins, T. M., Betancourt, J. L., Travers, S. E., Pau, S., Regetz, J., Davies, T. J., Kraft, N. J. B., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11014 · Cited by 994
Niches, models, and climate change: Assessing the assumptions and uncertainties
Wiens, J. A., Stralberg, D., Jongsomjit, D., Howell, C. A., & Snyder, M. A. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0901639106 · Cited by 966
Why does phenology drive species distribution?
Chuine, I. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0142 · Cited by 734
The Role of Resources and Risks in Regulating Wild Bee Populations
Roulston, T. H., & Goodell, K. (2011) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144802 · Cited by 669
Cited by
Complex responses of insect phenology to climate change
Forrest, J. R. (2016) · Current Opinion in Insect Science · doi:10.1016/j.cois.2016.07.002 · Cited by 426
Self-citationGlobal warming and plant–pollinator mismatches
Gérard, M., Vanderplanck, M., Wood, T., & Michez, D. (2020) · Emerging Topics in Life Sciences · doi:10.1042/etls20190139 · Cited by 303
Metadata
- Authors
- Forrest, J. R. K.
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-05-27
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-13
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0706
- OpenAlex
- W2010201288
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 78
- FWCI
- 16.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Plant–pollinator interactions and phenological change: what can we learn about climate impacts from experiments and observations? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/oik.01386
- The paper
- Forrest, J. R. K. (2015). Plant–pollinator interactions and phenological change: what can we learn about climate impacts from experiments and observations? Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01386
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.