Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Competition for pollinators destabilizes plant coexistence


Mounting concern over the global decline of pollinators has fuelled calls for investigating their role in maintaining plant diversity1,2. Theory predicts that competition for pollinators can stabilize interactions between plant species by providing opportunities for niche differentiation3, while at the same time can drive competitive imbalances that favour exclusion4. Here we empirically tested these contrasting effects by manipulating competition for pollinators in a way that predicts its long-term implications for plant coexistence. We subjected annual plant individuals situated across experimentally imposed gradients in neighbour density to either ambient insect pollination or a pollen supplementation treatment alleviating competition for pollinators. The vital rates of these individuals informed plant population dynamic models predicting the key theoretical metrics of species coexistence. Competition for pollinators generally destabilized the interactions between plant species, reducing the proportion of pairs expected to coexist. Interactions with pollinators also influenced the competitive imbalances between plant species, effects that are expected to strengthen with pollinator decline, potentially disrupting plant coexistence. Indeed, results from an experiment simulating pollinator decline showed that plant species experiencing greater reductions in floral visitation also suffered greater declines in population growth rate. Our results reveal that competition for pollinators may weaken plant coexistence by destabilizing interactions and contributing to competitive imbalances, information critical for interpreting the impacts of pollinator decline.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Hand pollination reveals the effects of competition for pollinators on plant coexistence.
Fig. 2: Effects of competition for pollinators on niche and average fitness differences.
Fig. 3: Effects of competition for pollinators on parameter estimates.
Fig. 4: Effects of experimentally simulated pollinator decline on floral visitation and plant per capita population growth.

Data availability

Data are available on Zenodo: The data were recorded in Microsoft Excel (v. 16.48) and analysed in R (v. 3.6.3). Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Codes are available on Zenodo: The figures were plotted in Mathematica (v. 12.0).


  1. Potts, S. et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thomann, M., Imbert, E., Devaux, C. & Cheptou, P.-O. Flowering plants under global pollinator decline. Trends Plant Sci. 18, 353–359 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pauw, A. Can pollination niches facilitate plant coexistence? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 30–37 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson, C. A. How mutualisms influence the coexistence of competing species. Ecology 102, e03346 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tilman, D. Resource Competition and Community Structure (Princeton Univ. Press, 1982).

  6. Tilman, D. Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58, 3–15 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–358 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitchell, R. J., Flanagan, R. J., Brown, B. J., Waser, N. M. & Karron, J. D. New frontiers in competition for pollination. Ann. Bot. 103, 1403–1413 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Morales, C. L. & Traveset, A. A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. Ecol. Lett. 12, 716–728 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones, E. I., Bronstein, J. L. & Ferrière, R. The fundamental role of competition in the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1256, 66–88 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Memmott, J., Waser, N. M. & Price, M. V. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2605–2611 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bascompte, J. & Jordano, P. Mutualistic Networks (Princeton University Press, 2013).

  13. Bascompte, J. Mutualism and biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 29, R467–R470 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chesson, P. Updates on mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. J. Ecol. 106, 1773–1794 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Levin, D. A. & Anderson, W. W. Competition for pollinators between simultaneously flowering species. Am. Nat. 104, 455–467 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kunin, W. & Iwasa, Y. Pollinator foraging strategies in mixed floral arrays: density effects and floral constancy. Theor. Popul. Biol. 49, 232–263 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lanuza, J. B., Bartomeus, I. & Godoy, O. Opposing effects of floral visitors and soil conditions on the determinants of competitive outcomes maintain species diversity in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 21, 865–874 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Thomson, J. Spatial and temporal components of resource assessment by flower-feeding insects. J. Anim. Ecol. 50, 49–59 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Knight, T. M. et al. Reflections on, and visions for, the changing field of pollination ecology. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1282–1295 (2018).

    MathSciNet  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Biella, P. et al. Experimental loss of generalist plants reveals alterations in plant-pollinator interactions and a constrained flexibility of foraging. Sci. Rep. 9, 7376 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brosi, B. & Briggs, H. M. Single pollinator species losses reduce floral fidelity and plant reproductive function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 13044–13048 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Addicott, J. F. in The Biology of Mutualism (ed. Boucher, D. H.) 217–247 (Croom Helm, 1985).

  23. Knight, T. M. et al. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: pattern and process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 467–497 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bartomeus, I., Saavedra, S., Rohr, R. P. & Godoy, O. Experimental evidence of the importance of multitrophic structure for species persistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023872118 (2021).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Levine, J. M., Bascompte, J., Adler, P. B. & Allesina, S. Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities. Nature 546, 56–64 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saavedra, S. et al. A structural approach for understanding multispecies coexistence. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 470–486 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rinella, M. J., Strong, D. J. & Vermeire, L. T. Omitted variable bias in studies of plant interactions. Ecology 101, e03020 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank M. von Rütte, A. Bieger, C. Hess, M. Negreiros, A. Reid and R. Zäch for their work in the field and laboratory; J. Johnson (Life Science Studios) for the illustrations in Figs. 1 and 3; W. Petry and S. Hart for statistical advice; and laboratory members at the ETH Zürich and Princeton University for comments on the manuscript. C.A.J. was supported by the ETH Zürich Center for Adaptation to Changing Environments and funds from Princeton University. J.M.L. was supported by NSF grant DEB 2022213.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



C.A.J. and J.M.L. designed the research. C.A.J. performed the experiments and analysed the data. P.D. and C.A.J. conducted the pollinator observations. C.A.J. and J.M.L. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher A. Johnson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Peter Chesson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Table 1 Details about the annual plant species used in the experiment
Extended Data Table 2 Likelihood-ratio tests evaluating whether low-density fecundity, λi, or competition coefficients, αij, differed between pollination treatments
Extended Data Table 3 Effects of plant competitors for pollinators at multiple spatial scales on pollen limitation
Extended Data Table 4 Effects of pairwise competition for pollinators in all possible three-, four-, and five-species communities

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods; Supplementary Discussion; Supplementary Tables 1–4 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Fig. 1

Supplementary Data

This file contains source data for Supplementary Fig. 1.

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, C.A., Dutt, P. & Levine, J.M. Competition for pollinators destabilizes plant coexistence. Nature 607, 721–725 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing