Studies were conducted in a mountain habitat to determine the effects of altered light and temperature upon the natural growth and/or carbohydrate cycles of Claytonia lanceolata during the period of winter snow cover. Treatments included natural control, light exclusion, and temperature alteration by insulation and by heating for a brief period. Monthly measurements were made of soil temperature (upper 12 cm), shoot development, soluble sugar, and soluble starch. The quantity and quality of light penetrating the snow cover was also determined. About 0.0052% of the available visible light (400-750 nm) penetrated 70 cm of snow and 0.02% penetrated 50 cm of snow. The under snow spectral curve remained constant with a peak at 575 nm, while absolute energy increased 35 times from January to April. Soil temperatures were unchanged by treatments averaging 0.0 to 0.3 C at the surface and slightly warmer at each successive depth. Shoot development and carbohydrate cycles were the same for all treatments. Carbohydrate depletion was generally correlated with increased shoot development. The cycles are traced and discussed. The starch/sugar ratio remained almost constant at one.

There is concern that climate change may cause mismatches between timing of flowering and activity of pollinators (phenology). However, concluding that mismatches will occur, and have serious consequences for pollination services, requires assumptions that have not yet been tested. I begin by discussing a set of these assumptions, bringing past research into the context of mismatch. Briefly, the assumptions are that 1) dates of first-flowering or emergence (DFFE) correctly describe phenology (and therefore mismatch); 2) differences in DFFE represent the magnitude of mismatch; 3) advancement of DFFE will be the primary phenological change; 4) shifts will be random and independent for each species; 5) populations of plants and pollinators are “bottom-up” regulated by their mutualistic interactions; 6) all interactions are of similar strength and importance; 7) dispersal, and the spatial context of phenological mismatches can be ignored; and ecological processes including 8) phenotypic plasticity and adaptive evolution of phenology, 9) competition and facilitation, and 10) emergence of novel interactions, will not affect mismatches. I then describe novel experiments, which could help to account for some of these assumptions, clarifying the existence and impacts of mismatches. Next, I present an original field experiment on factors affecting seed set in an alpine meadow in the Coast Range of British Columbia, Canada. I found evidence contradicting the assumption that seed set is primarily limited by pollination. My data highlight the roles of phenology, temperature (degree-days above 15°C, and frost hours), and interactions with pollinators (mutualists) and seed-predators (floral antagonists) in driving patterns of seed set. Seed set of early and late-flowering species responded differently to a 400m elevation gradient, which might be explained by phenology of bumble bees. My data suggest that the consequences of mismatch may be smallest for plants that are fly-pollinated and self-fertile. Non-selfing, bee-pollinated species might be more prone to reproductive limitation through mismatch (affected by snowmelt and cumulative degree-days). Plants that are limited by seed-predators might be negatively affected by warming temperatures with fewer frost hours, and extreme events such as late-season frosts and hail storms can prevent plants from setting seed entirely. Overall, my work emphasizes the importance of complementing theory, data-driven simulations, and meta-analyses with experiments carried out in the field. / Graduate