Climate-mediated shifts in species’ phenologies are expected to alter species interactions, but predicting the consequences of this is difficult because phenological shifts may be driven by different climate factors that may or may not be correlated. Temperature could be an important factor determining effects of phenological shifts by altering species’ growth rates and thereby the relative size ratios of interacting species. We tested this hypothesis by independently manipulating temperature and the relative hatching phenologies of two competing amphibian species. Relative shifts in hatching time generally altered the strength of competition, but the presence and magnitude of this effect was temperature dependent and joint effects of temperature and hatching phenology were non-additive. Species that hatched relatively early or late performed significantly better or worse, respectively, but only at higher temperatures and not at lower temperatures. As a consequence, climate-mediated shifts in hatching phenology or temperature resulted in stronger or weaker effects than expected when both factors acted in concert. Furthermore, consequences of phenological shifts were asymmetric; arriving relatively early had disproportional stronger (or weaker) effects than arriving relatively late, and this varied with species identity. However, consistent with recent theory, these seemingly idiosyncratic effects of phenological shifts could be explained by species-specific differences in growth rates across temperatures and concordant shifts in relative body size of interacting species. Our results emphasize the need to account for environmental conditions when predicting the effects of phenological shifts, and suggest that shifts in size-structured interactions can mediate the impact of climate change on natural communities.
Phenology ontogeny landscape Competition Amphibian Priority effect Seasonal community dynamics
We thank A. E. Dunham and N. Rasmussen for thoughtful discussion of this study and L. Yang, R. Alford and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier version of the manuscript. This work was partly supported by NSF DEB-0841686 to V. H. W. R.
Alford RA, Wilbur HM (1985) Priority effects in experimental pond communities: competition between Bufo and Rana. Ecology 66:1097–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asquith C, Vonesh J (2012) Effects of size and size structure on predation and inter-cohort competition in red-eyed treefrog tadpoles. Oecologia 170:629–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaustein L, Margalit J (1996) Priority effects in temporary pools: nature and outcome of mosquito larva toad tadpole interactions depend on order of entrance. J Anim Ecol 65:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Both C, Bouwhuis S, Lessells CM, Visser ME (2006) Climate change and population declines in a long-distance migratory bird. Nature 441:81–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest J, Miller-Rushing AJ (2010) Toward a synthetic understanding of the role of phenology in ecology and evolution. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 365:3101–3112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilman SE, Urban MC, Tewksbury J, Gilchrist GW, Holt RD (2010) A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol Evol 25:325–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordo O, Sanz JJ (2005) Phenology and climate change: a long-term study in a Mediterranean locality. Oecologia 146:484–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo K, Hao SG, Sun OJ, Kang L (2009) Differential responses to warming and increased precipitation among three contrasting grasshopper species. Glob Change Biol 15:2539–2548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez JP, Chalcraft DR (2012) Synergistic effects of multiple mechanisms drive priority effects within a tadpole assemblage. Oikos 121:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekman D (2010) Turning up the heat: temperature influences the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up effects. Ecology 91:2819–2825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar