Abstract
Due to global warming, the worldwide retreat of glaciers is causing changes in species diversity, community composition, and species interactions. However, the impact of glacier retreat on interaction diversity and ecological networks remains poorly understood. An integrative understanding of network dynamics may inform conservation actions that support biodiversity and ecosystem functioning after glacier extinction. Here, we address how glacier retreat affects the frequency, diversity, and complexity of plant–pollinator interactions, both directly and indirectly through biodiversity change. We surveyed flower visitors (pollinators) and analyzed pollination networks across a gradient of 170 years of glacier retreat (Mont Miné glacier, Valais, Switzerland) which ranges from patchy grasslands to closed forests. We reported a strong impact of glacier retreat on both plant and pollinator communities. Notably, the diversity of plant–pollinator interactions was sharply affected by glacier retreat: interaction diversity increased few years after glacier retreat, but it ultimately decreased in late stages dominated by forests. In contrast, we found that plant–pollinator network complexity did not change with glacier retreat. Our results indicate that the development of plant–pollinator networks is a two-phases process. In the first phase, glacier retreat makes space to plant colonization. This initial increase in plant diversity drives the increase in pollinator and interaction diversity. The second phase is characterized by turnover as woody species encroaches and dominates the community, decreasing the diversity of plant species in ultimate instance. The local decrease of plant diversity leads to a local decrease in pollinator and interaction diversity. Slowing down woody encroachment and enhancing flower diversity, which is initially supported by the glacial landscape, may be key strategies for halting the erosion of ecological networks while increasing biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Our research thus can help resolve the overarching question of how to conserve ecosystems once glaciers are extinct, pointing toward a composite role of both habitat structure and biological functions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Greenhouse gas emissions are altering climate patterns and warming up the Planet (IPCC 2022). As temperature increases globally at unprecedented rates in human history, glaciers are retreating and disappearing worldwide (Roe et al. 2017). Glaciers have been retreating during the last two decades twice as fast as ever observed in the last two centuries. The recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC 2022) highlights that glaciers are unique and threatened ecological and human systems that are a major reason for concern. Current projections indicate that, without drastic changes or measures, if the melting trend of the last 20 years continues, almost half (46%) of the ice volume in the Alps will disappear by 2050 (Cook et al. 2023). Yet, the consequences of glacier retreat for biological interactions remain poorly understood.
Glacier retreat affects landscape composition, soil properties, water resources, micro- and macro-climate (Fell et al. 2017; Brighenti et al. 2019). Notably, glacier retreat drives biodiversity change, i.e., changes in the diversity and composition of biological communities. As glaciers retreat, new terrains (hereafter glacier forelands; Matthews 1992) are exposed to colonization by living organisms, primarily plants, making space to species colonization and primary succession (Whittaker 1993; Burga et al. 2010; Tampucci et al. 2015; Cauvy-Fraunié and Dangles 2019; Fickert 2020; Ficetola et al. 2021). Following pioneering plants, insects take advantage of the newly created habitats and the increased availability and diversity of plant resources (Losapio et al. 2015, 2016; Tampucci et al. 2015; Junker et al. 2020). Previous studies indicate that species richness increases with glacier retreat albeit for a relatively brief period (Burga et al. 2010; Cauvy-Fraunié and Dangles 2019; Fickert 2020), Moreover, the new ice-free terrains could create refugia for high alpine plants shifting their distributions due to climate change (Gentili et al. 2020). But this trend holds true only as long as glaciers are still present in the landscape (Stibal et al. 2020; Losapio et al. 2021a; Anthelme et al. 2022).
As the succession proceeds, species turnover and competition can prevail over colonization and facilitation, which lead to local biodiversity decline (Anthelme et al. 2021; Losapio et al. 2021a; Erschbamer et al. 2023). With the extinction of glaciers from the landscape, the vegetation attains a stage typical for the specific elevation, resulting in diminished biodiversity. Consequently, in a scenario where glaciers remain intact without retreating, there would be neither a primary succession nor an upsurge in biodiversity. By contrast, due to global warming and current trends of glacier retreat, 11% of Arctic aquatic species (Fell et al. 2017) and 23% of Alpine plant species (Losapio et al. 2021a) may be threatened by local disappearance. Given the alarming rates of glacier retreat, specialist species inhabiting glacier ecosystems are at risk of extinction (Stibal et al. 2020; Losapio et al. 2021a). However, most of current research remains at a descriptive level—“counting the books while the library burns” (Lindenmayer et al. 2013)—that is cataloguing species and counting species numbers. Overlooking the causes of species decline and the mechanisms underlying biodiversity maintenance is hindering our ability to devise strategies for halting biodiversity loos and conserving biodiversity.
Biodiversity is more than a list of species (Bascompte and Jordano 2014). Plants play a key role in the process of ecosystem development by stabilizing and enriching soil (Matthews 1992). As primary producers, plants create the base of the food web which maintains other trophic levels such as pollinators and herbivores (Losapio et al. 2015; Inouye 2020). Plants have mutualistic interactions with pollinators as both partners gain benefits: pollinators disperse pollen for plants while plants provide food resources for pollinators (Calatayud et al. 2018). Without pollinators, plant populations, plant fitness, and productivity would face a large decrease (Losapio et al. 2016; Adedoja et al. 2018; Hanusch et al. 2022). Flies, bees, butterflies, moths, beetles, and ants are characteristic pollinators of high-altitude alpine plants (Inouye 2020; McCabe and Cobb 2021). Pollinator distribution and community assembly are mainly driven by environmental conditions during the initial stages of colonization (Whittaker 1993; Kaufmann 2001). Then, habitat creation and modification by plants as well as species interactions become more important for biodiversity maintenance and community dynamics (Kaufmann and Raffl 2002; Vater and Matthews 2013; Erschbamer and Caccianiga 2016; Losapio et al. 2016).
The process of ecosystem development after glacier retreat is accompanied by the formation of new and the loss of former plant–pollinator interactions (Albrecht et al. 2010; Losapio et al. 2015). This way, plant–pollinator networks are sensitive to changes in both environmental conditions and the distribution of interacting partners (Adedoja et al. 2018). Although plants and pollinators are among the primary pioneers in glacier forelands, research on plant and pollinator communities proceeded independently, focusing either on plants or on pollinators, but rarely on plant–pollinator interactions (Albrecht et al. 2010; Losapio et al. 2015). Little is known about the drivers of plant–pollinator interactions and the effects of glacier retreat on the structure of pollination networks.
Network theory and analysis are established tools for mapping the structure and dynamics of plant–pollinator interactions (Bascompte and Jordano 2014). Recent advances highlight an increase in the complexity of plant–pollinator interactions with glacier retreat (Albrecht et al. 2010; Losapio et al. 2015). This indicates that the dynamics of alpine plant and pollinator communities may be driven by mutualistic interactions more than just by abiotic factors (Losapio et al. 2016). Furthermore, the key role of plant is indicated by the evidence that plant diversity is a stronger predictor of network complexity and interaction diversity than pollinator diversity (Robinson et al. 2018). Yet, it is not clear how interaction diversity changes with glacier retreat. The lack of comprehensive network-level studies impairs our ability to predict the fate of biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems on glacier foreland. An integrative understanding of the impact of glacier retreat on plant and pollinator communities and their interaction networks is therefore of major importance to biodiversity maintenance.
To address these challenges, we asked the following questions: (i) How does glacier retreat affect the diversity of plant and pollinator communities? (ii) How does plant diversity contribute to the change of pollinator diversity with glacier retreat? (iii) How does glacier retreat impact the complexity of plant–pollinator interactions? We hypothesize that the diversity of plant–pollinator interactions as well as network complexity increase only shortly after glacier retreat, while it will ultimately decrease in the long term.
Materials and methods
Study system
The study was performed along the foreland of Mont Miné glacier (Valais, Switzerland). Since the end of the Little Ice Age (c 1850), Mont Miné glacier has retreated by 2.53 km in length and 130 m in height as of 2019 (Nicolussi et al. 2022). Following glacier dynamics, we estimated the age of plant communities based on existing geochronology of Ferpeclé and Mont Miné glaciers (Lambiel et al. 2016; Nicolussi et al. 2022), and complemented it with our additional reconstruction based on historical cartography (https://map.geo.admin.ch) and field validation of moraine margins.
We divided the Mont Miné foreland into four glacier retreat stages delimited by moraines deposited in the following years: 1989 (S1), 1925 (S2), 1900 (S3) and 1864 (S4) (Fig. 1A). Such 170-years range of glacier retreat represents a gradient of ecosystem development ranging from patchy, pioneer grasslands to closed forests (Delarze et al. 2015; Price et al. 2021). Early stages include habitats typical of alluvial zones and moraines (habitat 3.2), debris and screes (habitat 3.3), and pioneer grasslands on rocky soil (habitat 4.1). Notably, pioneer grasslands are remarkably different from those grasslands outside the glacier foreland, whereas examined forests are structurally and compositionally similar to those forests outside the glacier foreland (Lambiel et al. 2016) (Fig. 1A). Plant species occurring in pioneer stages do not grow outside the glacier foreland (Delarze et al. 2015; Price et al. 2021). As the majority of those plant species are “glacier specialists”, they do not grow in the surrounding vegetation (Losapio et al. 2021a). Intermediate stages include mountain, nutrient-poor grasslands (habitat 4.3), snow beds (habitat 4.4), tall, nutrient-rich grasslands (habitat 5.2), bushes (habitat 5.3), and dwarf-shrub heat (habitat 5.4). Late stages include bushes (habitat 5.3) and mountain coniferous forests (habitat 6.6). We would like to stress the fact that stage four is the stable mountain coniferous forest of Larix decidua, Picea abies, Rhododendron ferrugineum and Vaccinium myrtillus that represents the “climax” vegetation and also occurs outside the glacier foreland (Delarze et al. 2015; Price et al. 2021).
We defined the age (x) of each stage (i) as the average years since glacier retreat. The age of each stage was then calculated between two adjacent moraines as:
where \({x}_{0}\) is the year of sampling (i.e., 2022), \({x}_{old}\) and \({x}_{young}\) is the year of older and younger moraines, respectively. Average ages of plant communities were then 17, 65, 110, 140 years for stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4, respectively.
Data collection
The sampling took place in during the summer 2022, throughout the flowering season, from mid-June until late July. Pollinators were sampled during sunny days, from 10am to 5 pm to cover their maximum activity. We set up four plots in each stage (n = 16) (Fig. 1B). Plots were randomly chosen on the right bank of Mont Miné glacier foreland. As this glacier foreland is flat, there are no differences in elevation among plots (range from 1961 to 2000 m a.s.l). Areas disturbed by hydropower activities were avoided.
In each permanent plot, we surveyed plant communities by recording species composition and estimating visually plant cover (accuracy 10%). Plant species were identified according to Flora Helvetica (Lauber et al. 2018; https://www.infoflora.ch). We recorded a total of 130 plant species belonging to 32 families (Table S1). Throughout the season, we also recorded phenology and flowering stage (i.e., buds, flowering, fruiting) of plant species at the time of sampling.
Plant–pollinator interactions were studied by sampling flower visitors (pollinators) on plants. We considered as pollinator any flying insect that gets in touch with flower reproductive parts. Sampling was carried out for a standard amount of observation time of 30 min per sampling round. In each plot, we adopted two complementary sampling methods: quadrats and transects (Gibson et al. 2011; Grange et al. 2021). Quadrats consisted of a of 3 × 3 m square surface with 1 m buffer, resulting in 25 m2 sampling area. Transects consisted of two orthogonal 25 m long and 1 m belt across the plot center, resulting in 50 m2 sampling area. The differences in survey area account for average differences in plant density as in these terrains transects contain less plants and have more bare ground (Gibson et al. 2011). Combining these two different survey methods helps us to maximize the variability of pollinator sampling.
Pollinators were sampled with an entomological aspirator and sweep net. To minimize the impact of our sampling on pollinator populations, we collected the minimum number of specimens, especially aculeata, to only those necessary for species identification. Then, we proceeded with sampling, recording, and releasing insects. For each pollinator sampled, we recorded the plant species of the flower it was found on. That is, pollination interactions were conducted at the species level. Sampling was randomly replicated throughout the season, making sure that each plot was sampled at different times of day. In total, we performed six rounds of sampling for each of the 16 plots, resulting in n = 96 replicates.
Pollinators were identified at the lowest taxonomic level, i.e., species, whenever possible. Bumblebees were identified following Rasmont et al. (2021) and Cappellari et al. (2018). Wild bees were identified following Falk (2019) and Michez et al. (2019). In total, we collected 557 pollinator specimens belonging to 56 families via quadrat sampling, and 992 pollinator specimens belonging to 74 families via transect sampling (Table S1). We created a citizen science project on iNaturalist platform (inaturalist/projects) to gather further taxonomic information, for data sharing, and for public outreach.
Data analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted in R, version 4.2.2 (R Core Team 2022).
How does glacier retreat affect the diversity of plant and pollinator communities?
To answer this first research question, we calculated the following variables for each replicate: (1) plant diversity (number of plant species), (2) pollinator diversity (number of pollinator species), (3) pollinator abundance (number of pollinator individuals). We also analyzed diversity using Shannon index (H), which yielded qualitatively similar results (Table S2–S3).
The impact of glacier retreat on biodiversity was tested by means of regression and mixed-effects models. Each of these three variables were used as a response variable (three separate models). For plant diversity, we fitted a generalized linear model with a Poisson distribution; glacier retreat (years, \({x}_{i}\)) was the predictor as second-degree polynomial function. For pollinator diversity and pollinator abundance, we fitted a generalized linear mixed-effects model (two separate models) with Poisson distribution (Brooks et al. 2017); glacier retreat (years, \({x}_{i}\), second-degree polynomial function), plant diversity, and their statistical interaction were fixed effects; sampling method, time replicates and plots were considered as random effects. Model parameters and p-values were estimated with restricted maximum likelihood. The significance of fixed effects was assessed by means of Wald chi-square test using the Anova function (type-II) of car R package (Fox and Weisberg 2018).
How does plant diversity contribute to the change of pollinator diversity with glacier retreat?
To answer this second question, we calculated the frequency of plant species visited by pollinators as the number of flowering plant species that were visited by pollinators relative to the number of plant species flowering in each plot.
For the frequency of plant species visited by pollinators, we fitted a generalized linear mixed-effects model with a Gaussian distribution (Brooks et al. 2017); glacier retreat (years, \({x}_{i}\), second-degree polynomial function) and plant diversity were fixed effects; sampling methods, time replicates and plots were considered as random effects. Model parameters and p-values were estimated with restricted maximum likelihood. The significance of fixed effects was assessed by means of Wald chi-square test using the Anova function (type-II) of car R package (Fox and Weisberg 2018).
How does glacier retreat impact the diversity and complexity of plant–pollinator interactions?
To answer this third question, we built plant–pollinator networks for each replicate (n = 96) by means of bipartite networks (Bascompte and Jordano 2014). Pollination networks were constructed using the frequency of visits as a measure of relative interaction strength (Dormann et al. 2008). Such network is formed by two sets of nodes: pollinators as the upper-level group and plant species as the lower-level group, which are connected by a set of links, i.e., frequency of visits.
For each network, we calculated interaction diversity and network complexity. Interaction diversity (H) was calculated using the Shannon index (Bersier et al. 2002; Blüthgen et al. 2006) as \(H=-\sum_{i=1}^{N}{p}_{i}\times {\text{log}}({p}_{i}\)) where \({p}_{i}\) is the frequency of plant–pollinator interactions i weighted over all possible interactions N. This index is the weighted-mean Shannon index of interaction diversity accounting for the number of interactions in the network. Pollination network complexity was calculated using the Connectance index (Bersier et al. 2002; Dunne et al. 2002). Connectance is the proportion of realized links from the pool of all possible interactions between the species of a network as \(C=\frac{interactions}{plant species \times pollinator species}\), where the denominator is network size, i.e., the number of plant species flowering multiplied by the number of pollinator species.
The impact of glacier retreat on network structure was tested by means of mixed-effects models with interaction diversity and network complexity as response variables (two separate models; Gaussian distribution); glacier retreat, plant diversity and their statistical interaction as fixed effects; sampling methods, time replicates and plots as random effects. The significance of fixed effects and parameter estimates followed the same procedure as described previously.
Results
Glacier retreat triggers changes in plant diversity and pollinator diversity
Plant diversity increased after glacier retreat initially for in the first stages. But with succession proceeding, plant diversity ultimately decreased in the latest stages (beta_linear = -0.7 ± 0.33, p = 0.03, beta_quadratic = – 1.13 ± 0.29, p < 0.001, Fig. 2A, Table S2). Qualitatively similar patterns were observed for Shannon diversity and plant species flowering (Fig. S1, Tables S2).
Glacier retreat explained a significant amount of variance between pollinator communities. Pollinator diversity declined following glacier retreat (beta_linear = – 9.07 ± 2.1, p < 0.001, beta_quadratic = 0.21 ± 2.43, p = 0.93, Fig. 2B, Table S4). Qualitatively similar patterns were observed for pollinator abundance and pollinator diversity (Shannon index) (Figs. S2, Tables S3).
Plant diversity has positive effects on pollinator diversity
Pollinator diversity increased with increasing plant diversity (beta = 0.02 ± 0.01, p = 0.08, Fig. 2C, Table S3). We also found that glacier retreat had negative effects on the number of plant species visited by pollinators (beta_linear = – 5.79 ± 1.99, p = 0.003, beta_quadratic = – 3.81 ± 2.24, p = 0.09, Fig. S3, Table S4). We observed a consistent pattern when considering the frequency of plant species visited by pollinators (beta_linear = – 0.83 ± 0.19, p < 0.001; beta_quadratic = – 0.13 ± 0.19, p = 0.49, Fig. S3, Table S4).
The effects of glacier retreat on plant–pollinator interactions
We observed a total of 1549 plant–pollinator interactions. Shortly after glacier retreat, flies were the most active pollinators and Hieracium staticifolium was the most visited flowering plant (Fig. 3A). From 65 to 110 years after glacier retreat, flies were still the most abundant pollinator group, followed by ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). There, the most visited plants were quite diversified including Epilobium fleischeri, Achillea erba-rotta, Phyteuma betonicifolium, Ranunculus villarsii, Saxifraga aizoides, Saxifraga paniculata, Cerastium arvense (Fig. 3B, C). In the larch (Larix decidua) forest, 140 years after glacier retreat, flies, rove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) and bees were the most important pollinators in the networks while Rhododendron ferrugineum, Peucedanum ostruthium, Hieracium bifidum, Leontodon helveticus were the most visited plant species (Fig. 3D). Flies visited diverse flowering plant species, rove beetles visited Hieracium murorum, Silene vulgaris and Rhododendron ferrugineum and bees were found more on Rhododendron ferrugineum (Fig. 3D).
We observed sharp changes in plant–pollinator interaction diversity (Shannon index) following glacier retreat (Fig. 4A). No significant differences were observed between sampling methods. Glacier retreat had negative effects on interaction diversity (beta_linear = – 9.09 ± 2.00, p < 0.001, beta_quadratic = 1.76 ± 2.24, p = 0.43, Table S5). By contrast, plant diversity had positive effects on interaction diversity (beta = 0.02 ± 0.01, p = 0.02, Fig. 4B, Table S5). We did not observe significant effects of glacier retreat on network complexity as connectance did not change (beta_linear = 0.07 ± 0.05, p = 0.17; beta_quadratic = 0.05 ± 0.05, p = 0.34, Fig. 4C, Table S5).
Discussion
As global warming is rising, Alpine glaciers are predicted to lose 30–40% of their volume by 2050 and 20–60% of their surface by 2100, exposing new land and hosting novel ecosystems (Roe et al. 2017; Bosson et al 2023; Cook et al. 2023). It is therefore crucial to understand these indirect effects of climate change on species interactions to mitigate its consequences. Species interactions contribute to biodiversity maintenance and ecosystem functioning (Bascompte and Jordano 2014; Losapio et al. 2015). Although the impact of glacier retreat on biological communities is increasingly documented, species interactions remain still overlooked. Here, we address this knowledge gap by looking at the consequences of glacier retreat for networks of pollination interactions.
We found significant impacts of glacier retreat on biodiversity, plant–pollinator interactions, interaction diversity, and the way plant diversity influences pollination network. Notably, our results revealed that glacier retreat affects pollination networks via direct and indirect pathways in a two-phases process. In the first phase, glacier retreat makes space to plant colonization. This initial increase in plant diversity drives the increase in pollinator and interaction diversity. The second phase is characterized by turnover as woody species encroaches and dominates the community, decreasing the diversity of plant species in ultimate instance. The local decrease of plant diversity leads to a local decrease in pollinator and interaction diversity. The positive relationships between plant diversity and pollinator diversity observed here suggest that enhancing plant diversity can mitigate the impact of glacier retreat on pollinator communities. Our research thus can help resolve the overarching question of how to conserve ecosystems once glaciers are extinct, pointing toward a composite role of both habitat structure and biological functions.
The importance of glaciers to support biodiversity
Glacier creates unique habitats for specialist species, adapted to cold environments and particular hydrological conditions (Gentili et al. 2020; Stibal et al. 2020; Bosson et al. 2023). Several studies have already highlighted the importance of glacier to support biodiversity, and therefore their impact when they retreat (Milner et al. 2017; Cauvy-Fraunié and Dangles 2019). Specialist species relying on glacial ecosystems are disappearing, potentially leading to species extinction (Losapio et al. 2021a). Therefore, glaciers support a specific biodiversity and their disappearance is a threat to a large number of alpine species.
We documented sharp changes in biodiversity with glacier retreat. Pioneer species with important blooming such as Epilobium fleischeri, Hieracium staticifolium, Trifolium pallescens, Gypsophila repens, Saxifraga bryoides, Saxifraga paniculata, Saxifraga aizoides, Leucanthemopsis alpina, and Achillea moschata created flower-rich habitats as early as ten years after glacier retreat. As initial glacier retreat makes space to plant colonization and can be regarded as intermediate perturbation, which are known to facilitate diversity, biodiversity increased and reached the highest peak up to c 60 years after glacier retreat.
However, woody encroachment triggers plant species turnover and local plant diversity decline, which ultimately decreases pollinator diversity locally. Late succession stage consists of homogenous vegetation dominated by woody species as Larix decidua, Picea abies, and Rhododendron ferrugineum which dominate the low-diversity community. As the latest stage of the succession in our study system matches the “climax” vegetation outside the glacier foreland (Delarze et al. 2015; Price et al. 2021), it is reasonable to expect that local biodiversity decline will lead to biodiversity loss at the landscape, regional scale. Even if glaciers where not retreating due to climate change, glacier fronts act as biotic filters that support specialist species, whereas woody species would not create forest communities in glacier margins (Burga et al. 2010; Lambiel et al. 2016). Taken together, these results suggest that once glaciers disappear, biodiversity would be much lower.
This trend is consistent with previous studies from polar, temperate and tropical glacier forelands that reported a sharp dynamic in plant diversity with glacier retreat (Caccianiga et al. 2006; Inouye 2020; Junker et al. 2020; Fickert 2020; Anthelme et al. 2021; Losapio et al. 2021a). Our study thus confirms ongoing global trends in biodiversity which initially increases with glacier retreat and then ultimately declines with long-term deglaciation. Notably, the decline in biodiversity we observed here may be faster than in other Alpine areas as Mont Miné glacier foreland lies in the subalpine zone: pioneer plant communities are rapidly encroached by woody vegetation and pioneer species disappear as fast as a few decades after glacier retreat. Therefore, the subalpine glacier foreland deserves particular attention.
The impact of glacier retreat on plant–pollinator networks
The dynamics of pollinator communities matched the same trend documented for plant communities. We expected this pattern as plants are the base components of ecosystems, particularly the key food resource for pollinators. On the one hand, changes in plant communities can directly affect the composition and diversity of biological communities at higher trophic levels, and drive species interactions (Losapio et al. 2016, 2021b; Vitasse et al. 2021). On the other hand, glacier retreat on its own was less important for pollinators as compared to plant communities. Notably, we observed positive effects of plant diversity on pollination networks. The higher the richness, the higher the volume of plants that attract pollinators, the higher the pollination success (Inouye 2020).
We propose that the decline in pollinator diversity is directly driven by the decline in foraging (flower) resources, and by changes in climate or habitat only indirectly. As plant diversity has positive effects on pollinator diversity and network connectance remained constant, we suggest that pollinators can maximize the use of plant resources. This process can reflect the potential ability of pollinators to adapt to fast-changing biotic environments.
The diversity of plant–pollinator interactions increased shortly after glacier retreat, but then declined after a few decades. Changes in interaction diversity can affect community stability (Bersier et al. 2002; Dunne et al. 2002). Poorly diversified networks are the most vulnerable to species loss or perturbation by abiotic factors (Dunne et al. 2002). Conversely, increasing interaction diversity can reduce the risk of species extinction (Blüthgen et al. 2006). The highest levels of interaction diversity were observed at intermediate stages of ecosystem development, in species-rich grassland–shrubland ecotones. Increasing interaction diversity may increase functioning, suggesting that pioneer and intermediate communities are crucial for ecosystem services and require adequate protection.
With the alteration of both taxonomic and interaction diversity following glacier retreat, discussions on glacier foreland protection and management need to be opened (Zimmer et al. 2022). As shown in our case study, the development of ecosystem is extremely fast following the retreat. In less than 100 hundred years, a mature species-poor forest has overtaken diverse plant and insect communities, decreasing biodiversity locally. In Switzerland, as for most of temperate regions, forests are expanding, especially in mountain area (Pretzsch et al. 2014, 2023). When forests expand, they also take space over various important habitats for biodiversity, such as alpine grasslands and glacier moraines, which are threatened in Switzerland (Klaus et al. 2023). Alpine grasslands are the richest habitat in Switzerland and in temperate Europe and host numerous plant and pollinators (Schils et al. 2022). As shown in our results, pioneer grasslands are hosting the highest interaction diversity. Although late forest provides various ecosystem services, such as wood production or protection against natural hazards, it is important to understand such nuances and address the trade-offs among diverse sets of ecosystem services. For instance, our study reports a sharp decline in pollinators and interaction diversity in forests.
We are reaching a point where it is necessary to take actions to manage glacier foreland in order to protect the unique biodiversity close to glacier margins and promoting alpine grasslands to enhanced species interactions, ecological networks, and ecosystem functioning. Notably, there is a crucial difference between protecting forests and limiting forest encroachment. As much as it is important to maintain current forests, it is equally key to support diverse communities and diversified landscapes that also include open habitats such grasslands and shrublands.
In conclusion, our results confirm the hypothesis that initial glacier retreat can make space to support plant and pollinator diversity, but in the long term it will turn into negative effects which decrease biodiversity locally. Plant diversity plays an importance role in driving pollinators and supporting the stability of pollination networks. Increasing plant diversity would help to maintain the diversity of pollinators and build up robust networks. Enhancing the diversity of plants may therefore be a key strategy for halting the erosion of ecological networks under the negative impacts of global warming while increasing ecosystem functioning.
Data availability
All datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely are publicly available to readers on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10911864).
Code availability
The R script (no novel code) to reproduce the analyses and figures is deposited on GitHub (https://github.com/losapio/AlpineBotany2024).
References
Adedoja OA, Kehinde T, Samways MJ (2018) Insect-flower interaction networks vary among endemic pollinator taxa over an elevation gradient. PLoS ONE 13(11):e0207453. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207453
Albrecht M, Reisen M, Schmid B (2010) Plant–pollinator network assembly along the chronosequence of a glacier foreland. Oikos 119:1610–1624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18376.x
Anthelme F, Cauvy-Fraunié S, Francou B, Cáceres B, Dangles O (2021) Living at the edge: increasing stress for plants 2–13 years after the retreat of a tropical glacier. Front Ecol Evol 9:584872. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.584872
Anthelme F, Carrasquer I, Ceballos JL, Peyre G (2022) Novel plant communities after glacial retreat in Colombia: (Many) losses and (few) gains. Alp Bot 132(2):211–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-022-00282-1
Bascompte J, Jordano P (2014) Mutualistic networks. Princeton University Press (ISBN: 9780691131269)
Bersier L-F, Banašek-Richter C, Cattin M-F (2002) Quantitative descriptors of food-web matrices. Ecology 83(9):2394–2407. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2394:QDOFWM]2.0.CO;2
Blüthgen N, Menzel F, Blüthgen N (2006) Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. BMC Ecol 6:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-6-9
Bosson JB, Huss M, Cauvy-Fraunié S, Clément JC, Costes G, Fischer M, Poulenard J, Arthaud F (2023) Future emergence of new ecosystems caused by glacier retreat. Nature 620:562–569. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06302-2
Brighenti S, Tolotti M, Bruno MC, Wharton G, Pusch MT, Bertoldi W (2019) Ecosystem shifts in Alpine streams under glacier retreat and rock glacier thaw: a review. Sci Total Environ 675:542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.221
Brooks M, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, Skaug HJ, Maechler M, Bolker BM (2017) glmmTMB Balances Speed and Flexibility Among Packages for Zero-inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling. R J 9:378–400. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Burga CA, Krüsi B, Egli M, Wernli M, Elsener S, Ziefle M, Fischer T, Marvis C (2010) Plant succession and soil development on the foreland of the Morteratsch glacier (Pontresina, Switzerland): straight forward or chaotic? Flora 205(9):561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2009.10.001
Caccianiga M, Luzzaro A, Pierce S, Ceriani RM, Cerabolini B (2006) The functional basis of a primary succession resolved by CSR classification. Oikos 112(1):10–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14107.x
Calatayud P-A, Sauvion N, Thiéry D, Rebaudo F, Jacquin-Joly E (2018) Plant-insect interactions. In: Calatayud P-A, Sauvion N, Thiéry D, Rebaudo F, Jacquin-Joly E (eds) Ecology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199830060-0193
Cappellari A, Mei M, Lopresti M, Cerretti P (2018) BumbleKey: an interactive key for the identification of bumblebees of Italy and Corsica (Hymenoptera, Apidae). ZooKeys 784:127. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.784.25765
Cauvy-Fraunié S, Dangles O (2019) A global synthesis of biodiversity responses to glacier retreat. Nat Ecol Evol 3(12):1675–1685. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1042-8
Cook SJ, Jouvet G, Millan R, Rabatel A, Zekollari H, Dussaillant I (2023) Committed ice loss in the European Alps until 2050 using a deep-learning-aided 3D ice-flow model with data assimilation. Geophys Res Lett 50:e2023GL105029. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105029
Delarze R, Gonseth Y, Eggenberg S, Vust M (2015) Lebensräume Der Schweiz. 3. Aufl. –Ott Verlag, Bern, p 456
Dormann CF, Gruber B, Fruend J (2008) Introducing the bipartite package: analysing ecological networks. R News 8:8–11. https://journal.r-project.org/articles/RN-2008-010/
Dunne JA, Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2002) Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecol Lett 5(4):558–567. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00354.x
Erschbamer B, Caccianiga MS (2016) Glacier forelands: lessons of plant population and community development. In: Cánovas FM, Lüttge U, Matyssek R (eds) Progress in botany, vol 78. Springer, Cham, pp 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/124_2016_4
Erschbamer B, Niederfriniger Schlag R, Carnicero P, Kaufmann R (2023) Long-term monitoring confirms limitations of recruitment and facilitation and reveals unexpected changes of the successional pathways in a glacier foreland of the Central Austrian Alps. Plant Ecol 224:373–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-023-01308-2
Falk S (2019) Field guide to the bees of Great Britain and Ireland. Bloomsbury Publishing
Fell SC, Carrivick JL, Brown LE (2017) The multitrophic effects of climate change and glacier retreat in mountain rivers. Bioscience 67(10):897–911. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix107
Ficetola GF, Marta S, Guerrieri A, Gobbi M, Ambrosini R, Fontaneto D, Zerboni A, Poulenard J, Caccianiga M, Thuiller W (2021) Dynamics of ecological communities following current retreat of glaciers. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 52(1):405–426. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-010521-040017
Fickert T (2020) Common patterns and diverging trajectories in primary succession of plants in Eastern Alpine glacier forelands. Diversity 12:191. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12050191
Fox J, Weisberg S (2018) An R companion to applied regression, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://tinyurl.com/carbook. Accessed 11 Mar 2019
Gentili R et al (2020) Glacier shrinkage and slope processes create habitat at high elevation and microrefugia across treeline for alpine plants during warm stages. CATENA 193:104626
Gibson RH, Knott B, Eberlein T, Memmott J (2011) Sampling method influences the structure of plant-pollinator networks. Oikos 120(6):822–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18927.x
Grange MC, Munoz F, Moretti M, Varona-Y-Varona S, Renaud J, Colace M-P, Gueguen M, Gallien L (2021) Designing sampling protocols for plant-pollinator interactions—timing, meteorology, flowering variations and failed captures matter. Bot Lett 168(3):324–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/23818107.2021.1964596
Hanusch M, He X, Ruiz-Hernández V, Junker RR (2022) Succession comprises a sequence of threshold-induced community assembly processes towards multidiversity. Commun Biol 5(1):424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03372-2
Inouye DW (2020) Effects of climate change on alpine plants and their pollinators. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1469(1):26–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14104
IPCC (2022) Climate Change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press
Junker RR, Hanusch M, He X, Ruiz-Hernández V, Otto J-C, Kraushaar S, Bauch K, Griessenberger F, Ohler L-M, Trutschnig W (2020) Ödenwinkel: an Alpine platform for observational and experimental research on the emergence of multidiversity and ecosystem complexity. Web Ecol 20(2):95–106. https://doi.org/10.5194/we-20-95-2020
Kaufmann R (2001) Invertebrate succession on an Alpine glacier foreland. Ecology 82:2261–2278. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2261:ISOAAG]2.0.CO;2
Kaufmann R, Raffl C (2002) Diversity in primary succession: the chronosequence of a glacier foreland. In: Körner C, Spehn EM (eds) Mountain diversity: a global assessment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 177–190
Klaus G, Cordillot F, Künzle I (2023) Espèces et milieux menaces en Suisse. Office fédéral de l’environnement (OFEV). https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/fr/home/themes/biodiversite/publications/publications-biodiversite/especes-menacees-suisse.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2023
Lambiel C, Maillard B, Kummert M, Reynard E (2016) Geomorphology of the Hérens valley (Swiss Alps). J Maps 12(1):160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2014.999135
Lauber K, Wagner G, Gygax A (2018) Flora Helvetica. 5th edn. Haupt Verlag, Switzerland
Lindenmayer DB, Piggott MP, Wintle BA (2013) Counting the books while the library burns: why conservation monitoring programs need a plan for action. Front Ecol Environ 11:549–555. https://doi.org/10.1890/120220
Losapio G, Jordánc F, Caccianiga M, Gobbi M (2015) Structure-dynamic relationship of plant–insect networks along a primary succession gradient on a glacier foreland. Ecol Model 314:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.014
Losapio G, Gobbi M, Marano G, Avesani D, Boracchi P, Compostella C, Pavesi M, Schöb C, Seppi R, Sommaggio D, Zanetti A, Caccianiga M (2016) Feedback effects between plant and flower-visiting insect communities along a primary succession gradient. Arthropod-Plant Interact 10(6):485–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-016-9444-x
Losapio G, Cerabolini BEL, Maffioletti C, Tampucci D, Gobbi M, Caccianiga M (2021a) The consequences of glacier retreat are uneven between plant species. Front Ecol Evol 8:616562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.616562
Losapio G, Norton Hasday E, Espadaler X, Germann C, Ortiz-Sánchez FJ, Pont A, Sommaggio D, Schöb C (2021b) Facilitation and biodiversity jointly drive mutualistic networks. J Ecol 109(5):2029–2037. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13593
Matthews JA (1992) The ecology of recently-deglaciated terrain .A geoecological approach to glacier forelands and primary succession. Antar Sci 4(4):484–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102092260715
McCabe LM, Cobb NS (2021) From bees to flies: global shift in pollinator communities along elevation gradients. Front Ecol Evol 8:626124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.626124
Michez D, Rasmont P, Terzo M, Vereecken NJ (2019) Bees of Europe. Hymenoptera of Europe—1. NAP Editions
Milner AM, Khamis K, Battin TJ, Brittain JE, Barrand NE, Füreder L, Cauvy-Fraunié S, Gíslason GM, Jacobsen D, Hannah DM, Hodson AJ, Hood E, Lencioni V, Ólafsson JS, Robinson CT, Tranter M, Brown LE (2017) Glacier shrinkage driving global changes in downstream systems. PNAS 114(37):9770–9778. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619807114
Nicolussi K, Le Roy M, Schlüchter C, Stoffel M, Wacker L (2022) The glacier advance at the onset of the Little Ice Age in the Alps: New evidence from Mont Miné and Morteratsch glaciers. The Holocene 32(7):624–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836221088247
Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schütze G, Uhl E, Rötzer T (2014) Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870. Nat Commun 5:4967. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5967
Pretzsch H, del Río M, Arcangeli C et al (2023) Forest growth in Europe shows diverging large regional trends. Sci Rep 13:15373. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41077-6
Price B, Huber N, Ginzler C, Pazúr R, Rüetschi M (2021) The Habitat Map of Switzerland v1. EnviDat. https://doi.org/10.16904/envidat.262
R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org
Rasmont P, Ghisbain G, Terzo M (2021) Bumblebees of Europe and neighbouring regions. NAP Editions
Robinson SVJ, Losapio G, Henry GHR (2018) Flower-power: flower diversity is a stronger predictor of network structure than insect diversity in an Arctic plant–pollinator network. Ecol Complex 36:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2018.04.005
Roe GH, Baker MB, Herla F (2017) Centennial glacier retreat as categorical evidence of regional climate change. Nat Geosci 10(2):95–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2863
Schils RLM, Bufe C, Rhymer CM et al (2022) Permanent grasslands in Europe: Land use change and intensification decrease their multifunctionality. Agr Ecosyst Environ 330:107891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.107891
Stibal M, Bradley JA, Edwards A, Hotaling S, Zawierucha K, Rosvold J, Lutz S, Cameron KA, Mikucki JA, Kohler TJ, Šabacká M, Anesio AM (2020) Glacial ecosystems are essential to understanding biodiversity responses to glacier retreat. Nat Ecol Evol 4(5):686–687. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1163-0
Tampucci D, Gobbi M, Boracchi P, Cabrini E, Compostella C, Mangili F, Marano G, Pantini P, Caccianiga M (2015) Plant and arthropod colonisation of a glacier foreland in a peripheral mountain range. Biodiversity 16(4):213–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2015.1117990
Vater AE, Matthews JA (2013) Testing the ‘addition and persistence model’ of invertebrate succession in a subalpine glacier-foreland chronosequence: Fabergstølsbreen, southern Norway. Holocene 23:1151–1162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683613483623
Vitasse Y, Ursenbacher S, Klein G, Bohnenstengel T, Chittaro Y, Delestrade A, Monnerat C, Rebetez M, Rixen C, Strebel N, Schmidt BR, Wipf S, Wohlgemuth T, Yoccoz NG, Lenoir J (2021) Phenological and elevational shifts of plants, animals and fungi under climate change in the European Alps. Biol Rev 96(5):1816–1835. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12727
Whittaker RJ (1993) Plant population patterns in a glacier foreland succession: pioneer herbs and later-colonizing shrubs. Ecography 16(2):117–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1993.tb00064.x
Zimmer A, Beach T, Klein JA, Bullard JR (2022) The need for stewardship of lands exposed by deglaciation from climate change. Wires Clim Change 13(2):e753. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.753
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Ambizione grant n. PZ00P3_202127 awarded to GL). We thank the Editor Judith Trunschke and the two anonymous reviewers for reviewing our manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Lausanne.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GL conceived the study and designed it with BNT, NK and NDV. BNT collected data with NK and GL. PC, CP, JS, DS contributed to species identification. BNT analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript with NK and GL. All authors read and commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
Animal welfare was ensured. The study was authorized by the Service des forets, de la nature et du paysage of Canton du Valais.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tu, B.N., Khelidj, N., Cerretti, P. et al. Glacier retreat triggers changes in biodiversity and plant–pollinator interaction diversity. Alp Botany (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-024-00309-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-024-00309-9