Incorporating microclimate into species distribution models

Abstract

Ecography E4 awardSpecies distribution models (SDMs) have rapidly evolved into one of the most widely used tools to answer a broad range of ecological questions, from the effects of climate change to challenges for species management. Current SDMs and their predictions under anthropogenic climate change are, however, often based on free-air or synoptic temperature conditions with a coarse resolution, and thus fail to capture apparent temperature (cf. microclimate) experienced by living organisms within their habitats. Yet microclimate operates as soon as a habitat can be characterized by a vertical component (e.g. forests, mountains, or cities) or by horizontal variation in surface cover. The mismatch between how we usually express climate (cf. coarse-grained free-air conditions) and the apparent microclimatic conditions that living organisms experience has only recently been acknowledged in SDMs, yet several studies have already made considerable progress in tackling this problem from different angles. In this review, we summarize the currently available methods to obtain meaningful microclimatic data for use in distribution modelling. We discuss the issue of extent and resolution, and propose an integrated framework using a selection of appropriatelyplaced sensors in combination with both the detailed measurements of the habitat 3D structure, for example derived from digital elevation models or airborne laser scanning, and the long-term records of free-air conditions from weather stations. As such, we can obtain microclimatic data with a relevant spatiotemporal resolution and extent to dynamically model current and future species distributions.

Heat tolerance is more variable than cold tolerance across species of Iberian lizards after controlling for intraspecific variation

“…For that reason, even if our dataset represents one of the largest one‐off regional surveys of lizard thermal tolerances undertaken globally to date, the number of populations per species (2–5, see Section 2) precludes biologically meaningful modelling of correlations between environmental and thermal‐tolerance variances. Overall, we require studies of phenotypic plasticity and microevolution in heat and cold tolerance over the entire distribution of individual species (discussed by Herrando‐Pérez, Ferri‐Yáñez, et al, ), while novel climatic reconstructions must be developed to match the multidirectionality of climate change (Garcia, Cabeza, Rahbek, & Araújo, ; VanDerWal et al, ) and the spatial scales that are relevant to the life history of the species under investigation (Bonebrake et al, ; Lembrechts, Nijs, & Lenoir, ). The former approaches should, for instance, validate predictions that species extinctions can be largely buffered by the availability of microhabitats (Suggitt et al, ) and shading (Kearney, ) or even poorly driven by physiological limits (Cahill et al, ) under climate change.…”

Landforms contribute to plant biodiversity at alpha, beta and gamma levels

“…Landforms often have unique but type‐specific material, microclimatic and hydrological characteristics that are overlooked if abiotic diversity is observed only with one or two factors, such as topographic parameters (Bailey et al., ; Lawler et al., ). In our results, DEM‐based topographic variables at 10‐m resolution alone did not succeed well in distinguishing biodiversity of the area (Appendix S2), although topography‐related microhabitats and ‐climates are shown to drive plant diversity (Lenoir et al., ; Lembrechts et al., ). To examine the role of microhabitats and ‐climates more closely, more exact data on microtopography at the studied landforms would be needed.…”

“…species richness and diversity indices). Landforms sustain various microtopographical and microclimatic conditions, which affect positively on species diversity by producing various niche space (Carson, Campbell, Rooney, Clipson, & Gleeson, 2009;Lembrechts, Nijs, & Lenoir, 2018;Lenoir, Hattab, & Pierre, 2017). By comparing the plant diversity across landforms and across the different diversity levels, we will gain essential knowledge which helps to estimate the feasibility of the CNS strategy on management scale, beyond current studies.…”

What's hot in conservation biogeography in a changing climate? Going beyond species range dynamics

“…Spatial prediction of these small-scale opportunities for conservation is also a research opportunity for conservation biogeography, as they could buffer climate change effects on biodiversity loss, and can affect spatial conservation planning (Hannah et al, 2014;Keppel et al, 2015;Lenoir, Hattab, & Pierre, 2017). Likewise, it has been acknowledged that vegetation structure-notably canopy cover-could also reduce the impact of climate change as canopies tend to reduce the realized temperature of organisms understory (Frey et al, 2016), and accounting for this in distribution models has been proposed (Lembrechts, Nijs, & Lenoir, 2018).…”