TY - JOUR
T1 - Proximal microclimate
T2 - Moving beyond spatiotemporal resolution improves ecological predictions
AU - Klinges, David H.
AU - Baecher, J. Alex
AU - Lembrechts, Jonas J.
AU - Maclean, Ilya M.D.
AU - Lenoir, Jonathan
AU - Greiser, Caroline
AU - Ashcroft, Michael
AU - Evans, Luke J.
AU - Kearney, Michael R.
AU - Aalto, Juha
AU - Barrio, Isabel C.
AU - De Frenne, Pieter
AU - Guillemot, Joannès
AU - Hylander, Kristoffer
AU - Jucker, Tommaso
AU - Kopecký, Martin
AU - Luoto, Miska
AU - Macek, Martin
AU - Nijs, Ivan
AU - Urban, Josef
AU - van den Brink, Liesbeth
AU - Vangansbeke, Pieter
AU - Von Oppen, Jonathan
AU - Wild, Jan
AU - Boike, Julia
AU - Canessa, Rafaella
AU - Nosetto, Marcelo
AU - Rubtsov, Alexey
AU - Sallo-Bravo, Jhonatan
AU - Scheffers, Brett R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2024/8/14
Y1 - 2024/8/14
N2 - Aim: The scale of environmental data is often defined by their extent (spatial area, temporal duration) and resolution (grain size, temporal interval). Although describing climate data scale via these terms is appropriate for most meteorological applications, for ecology and biogeography, climate data of the same spatiotemporal resolution and extent may differ in their relevance to an organism. Here, we propose that climate proximity, or how well climate data represent the actual conditions that an organism is exposed to, is more important for ecological realism than the spatiotemporal resolution of the climate data. Location: Temperature comparison in nine countries across four continents; ecological case studies in Alberta (Canada), Sabah (Malaysia) and North Carolina/Tennessee (USA). Time Period: 1960–2018. Major Taxa Studied: Case studies with flies, mosquitoes and salamanders, but concepts relevant to all life on earth. Methods: We compare the accuracy of two macroclimate data sources (ERA5 and WorldClim) and a novel microclimate model (microclimf) in predicting soil temperatures. We then use ERA5, WorldClim and microclimf to drive ecological models in three case studies: temporal (fly phenology), spatial (mosquito thermal suitability) and spatiotemporal (salamander range shifts) ecological responses. Results: For predicting soil temperatures, microclimf had 24.9% and 16.4% lower absolute bias than ERA5 and WorldClim respectively. Across the case studies, we find that increasing proximity (from macroclimate to microclimate) yields a 247% improvement in performance of ecological models on average, compared to 18% and 9% improvements from increasing spatial resolution 20-fold, and temporal resolution 30-fold respectively. Main Conclusions: We propose that increasing climate proximity, even if at the sacrifice of finer climate spatiotemporal resolution, may improve ecological predictions. We emphasize biophysically informed approaches, rather than generic formulations, when quantifying ecoclimatic relationships. Redefining the scale of climate through the lens of the organism itself helps reveal mechanisms underlying how climate shapes ecological systems.
AB - Aim: The scale of environmental data is often defined by their extent (spatial area, temporal duration) and resolution (grain size, temporal interval). Although describing climate data scale via these terms is appropriate for most meteorological applications, for ecology and biogeography, climate data of the same spatiotemporal resolution and extent may differ in their relevance to an organism. Here, we propose that climate proximity, or how well climate data represent the actual conditions that an organism is exposed to, is more important for ecological realism than the spatiotemporal resolution of the climate data. Location: Temperature comparison in nine countries across four continents; ecological case studies in Alberta (Canada), Sabah (Malaysia) and North Carolina/Tennessee (USA). Time Period: 1960–2018. Major Taxa Studied: Case studies with flies, mosquitoes and salamanders, but concepts relevant to all life on earth. Methods: We compare the accuracy of two macroclimate data sources (ERA5 and WorldClim) and a novel microclimate model (microclimf) in predicting soil temperatures. We then use ERA5, WorldClim and microclimf to drive ecological models in three case studies: temporal (fly phenology), spatial (mosquito thermal suitability) and spatiotemporal (salamander range shifts) ecological responses. Results: For predicting soil temperatures, microclimf had 24.9% and 16.4% lower absolute bias than ERA5 and WorldClim respectively. Across the case studies, we find that increasing proximity (from macroclimate to microclimate) yields a 247% improvement in performance of ecological models on average, compared to 18% and 9% improvements from increasing spatial resolution 20-fold, and temporal resolution 30-fold respectively. Main Conclusions: We propose that increasing climate proximity, even if at the sacrifice of finer climate spatiotemporal resolution, may improve ecological predictions. We emphasize biophysically informed approaches, rather than generic formulations, when quantifying ecoclimatic relationships. Redefining the scale of climate through the lens of the organism itself helps reveal mechanisms underlying how climate shapes ecological systems.
KW - biophysical ecology
KW - climate change
KW - ecophysiology
KW - macroclimate
KW - microclimate
KW - nonlinearity
KW - resolution
KW - species distribution model
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85197460913&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/geb.13884
DO - 10.1111/geb.13884
M3 - Article (Academic Journal)
AN - SCOPUS:85197460913
SN - 1466-822X
VL - 33
JO - Global Ecology and Biogeography
JF - Global Ecology and Biogeography
IS - 9
M1 - e13884
ER -