Search for: All records

We combined a well‐supported mechanistic model of ontogenetic growth that incorporates differences in the size‐dependent scaling of gross resource production and maintenance costs with a dynamic optimization model to predict schedules of reproduction and prolonged dormancy (plants staying below ground for ≥1 growing season) that maximize lifetime offspring production.

Our model makes three novel predictions: First, maintenance costs strongly influence the conditions under which a monocarpic or polycarpic life history evolves and how resources should be allocated to reproduction by polycarpic plants. Second, in contrast to previous theory, our model allows plants to compensate for low survival conditions by allocating a larger proportion of resources to storage and thereby improving overwinter survival. Incorporating this ecological mechanism in the model is critically important because without it our model never predicts significant investment into storage, which is inconsistent with empirical observations. Third, our model predicts that prolonged dormancy may evolve solely in response to resource allocation trade‐offs.

Significance. Our findings reveal that maintenance costs and the effects of resource allocation on survival are primary determinants of the fitness consequences of different life history strategies, yet previous theory on plant life history evolution has largely ignored these factors. Our findings also validate recent arguments that prolonged dormancy may be an optimal response to costs of sprouting. These findings have broad implications for understanding patterns of plant life history variation and predicting plant responses to changing environments.

We explored how climate change can alter plant reproduction using an experiment in which we manipulated the individual and combined effects of snowmelt timing and frost exposure, and measured subsequent effects on flowering phenology, peak flower density, frost damage, pollinator visitation and reproduction of four subalpine wildflowers. Additionally, we conducted a pollen‐supplementation experiment to test whether the plants in our snowmelt and frost treatments were pollen limited for reproduction. The four plants included species flowering in early spring to mid‐summer.

The phenology of all four species was significantly advanced, and the bloom duration was longer in the plots from which we removed snow, but with species‐specific responses to snow removal and frost exposure in terms of frost damage, flower production, pollinator visitation and reproduction. The two early blooming species showed significant signs of frost damage in both early snowmelt and frost treatments, which negatively impacted reproduction for one of the species. Further, we recorded fewer pollinators during flowering for the earliest‐blooming species in the snow removal plots. We also found lower fruit and seed set for the early blooming species in the snow removal treatment, which could be attributed to the plants growing under unfavourable abiotic conditions. However, the later‐blooming species escaped frost damage even in the plots where snow was removed, and experienced increased pollinator visitation and reproduction.

Synthesis.This study provides insight into how plant communities could become altered due to changes in abiotic conditions, and some of the mechanisms involved. While early blooming species may be at a disadvantage under climate change, species that bloom later in the season may benefit from early snowmelt, suggesting that climate change has the potential to reshape flowering communities.