F. Collart

Brief introduction: What are microclimates and why are they important? Microclimate science has developed into a global discipline. Microclimate science is increasingly used to understand and mitigate climate and biodiversity shifts. Here, we provide an overview of the current status of microclimate ecology and biogeography in terrestrial ecosystems, and where this field is heading next. Microclimate investigations in ecology and biogeography We highlight the latest research on interactions between microclimates and organisms, including how microclimates influence individuals, and through them populations, communities and entire ecosystems and their processes. We also briefly discuss recent research on how organisms shape microclimates from the tropics to the poles. Microclimate applications in ecosystem management Microclimates are also important in ecosystem management under climate change. We showcase new research in microclimate management with examples from biodiversity conservation, forestry and urban ecology. We discuss the importance of microrefugia in conservation and how to promote microclimate heterogeneity. Methods for microclimate science We showcase the recent advances in data acquisition, such as novel field sensors and remote sensing methods. We discuss microclimate modelling, mapping and data processing, including accessibility of modelling tools, advantages of mechanistic and statistical modelling and solutions for computational challenges that have pushed the state‐of‐the‐art of the field. What's next? We identify major knowledge gaps that need to be filled for further advancing microclimate investigations, applications and methods. These gaps include spatiotemporal scaling of microclimate data, mismatches between macroclimate and microclimate in predicting responses of organisms to climate change, and the need for more evidence on the outcomes of microclimate management.

Epiphytes offer an appealing framework to disentangle the contributions of chance, biotic and abiotic drivers of species distributions. In the context of the stress‐gradient theory, we test the hypotheses that (i) deterministic ( i.e. , non‐random) factors play an increasing role in communities from young to old trees, (ii) negative biotic interactions increase on older trees and towards the tree base, and (iii) positive interactions show the reverse pattern. Bryophyte species distributions and abiotic conditions were recorded on a 1.1 ha tropical rainforest canopy crane site. We analysed co‐occurrence patterns in a niche modelling framework to disentangle the roles of chance, abiotic factors and putative biotic interactions among species pairs. 76% of species pairs resulted from chance. Abiotic factors explained 78% of non‐randomly associated species pairs, and co‐occurrences prevailed over non‐coincidences in the remaining species pairs. Positive and negative interactions mostly involved species pairs from the same versus different communities (mosses versus liverworts) and life forms, respectively. There was an increase in randomly associated pairs from large to small trees. No increase in negative interactions from young to old trees or from the canopy to the base was observed. Our results suggest that epiphytic bryophyte community composition is primarily driven by environmental filtering, whose importance increases with niche complexity and diversity. Biotic interactions play a secondary role, with a very marginal contribution of competitive exclusion. Biotic interactions vary among communities (mosses versus liverworts) and life forms, facilitation prevailing among species from the same community and life form, and competition among species from different communities and life forms.

At the interface between atmosphere and vegetation, epiphytic floras have been largely used as indicators of air quality. The recovery of epiphytes from high levels of SO 2 pollution has resulted in major range changes, whose interpretation has, however, been challenged by concomitant variation in other pollutants as well as climate change. Here, we combine historical and contemporary information on epiphytic bryophyte species distributions, climatic conditions, and pollution loads since the 1980s in southern Belgium to disentangle the relative impact of climate change and air pollution on temporal shifts in species composition. The relationship between the temporal variation of species composition, climatic conditions, SO 2 , NO 2 , O 3 , and fine particle concentrations, was analyzed by variation partitioning. The temporal shift in species composition was such, that it was, on average, more than twice larger than the change in species composition observed today among communities scattered across the study area. The main driver, contributing to 38% of this temporal shift in species composition, was the variation of air quality. Climate change alone did not contribute to the substantial compositional shifts in epiphytic bryophyte communities in the course of the last 40 years. As a consequence of the substantial drop of N and S loads over the last decades, present‐day variations of epiphytic floras were, however, better explained by the spatial variation of climatic conditions than by extant pollution loads. The lack of any signature of recolonization delays of formerly polluted areas in the composition of modern floras suggests that epiphytic bryophytes efficiently disperse at the landscape scale. We suggest that a monitoring of epiphyte communities at 10‐year intervals would be desirable to assess the impact of raising pollution sources, and especially pesticides, whose impact on bryophytes remains poorly documented.