Low Biodiversity Brings Earlier Bloom

For every two species lost in a grassland, the remaining flowers there bloomed a day earlier—on par with changes due to rising global temperatures. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Amy Wolf

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As climate change dials up global temperatures, one effect is an earlier flower bloom. But it turns out there's another factor that also means faster flowering: a loss in biodiversity in a flower field.

"The amount of change in flowering time that we see with diversity loss is in the same magnitude range as the amount of change in flowering time we see with rising temperatures, globally." Amy Wolf, an ecologist at Columbia University and U.C. Davis. 

Wolf and her colleagues studied that effect in a grassland in northern California, in study plots with two to 16 species of plants. And they found that, for every two species lost, the remaining flowers blossomed a day earlier, on average. Possibly because the less diverse plots had higher soil temperatures, more moisture, and more nitrogen—all variables that could tweak bloom time. The study is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Amelia A. Wolf et al., Flowering phenology shifts in response to biodiversity loss]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The reason it matters? Because flowers might bloom earlier than pollinators are expecting them. "And that could lead to a whole cascade of things. If plants don't get pollinated, or they don't get pollinated well, then you can start to lose species at an even more rapid rate."

Wolf says it's too soon to know whether biodiversity loss and climate change will have synergistic effects on flower timing. But combine climate change, species loss, and unpredictable ecological effects like this—and you've got a pretty ugly arrangement.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe