2025/10/30 by Lisa Geres, Tobias Richter, Rupert Seidl +9 · 1 voice · 3 citations
Environmental Science · #Beta diversity #Biodiversity #Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies #Ectotherm #Edaphic #Habitat #Microclimate #Physiological and biochemical adaptations #Species Distribution and Climate Change #Species diversity #Understory
paper · pdf · doi:10.1002/ecog.07984
published in Ecography 2025(12) (Wiley)
openalex created_date 2025/10/30 · openalex publication_date 2025/10/30 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
Macroclimate is a key driver of biodiversity, but habitat conditions can modulate the local microclimate by amplifying or buffering macroclimatic temperatures. The interplay between microclimatic modulation and macroclimatic temperature is crucial for shaping local biodiversity in a warming world, but remains poorly understood across life forms. We examined how macroclimate and microclimatic modulation jointly shape alpha diversity across eight taxonomic groups. We surveyed multi‐taxon biodiversity along gradients of macroclimate (elevation) and microclimatic modulation (habitat structure), focusing on soil bacteria, soil fungi, understory plants, ground‐dwelling arthropods, moths, flying insects, bats, and birds. We hypothesized that alpha diversity would increase with temperature at both macro‐ and microclimatic scales, with the strongest effects for immobile and ectothermic taxa, and that microclimatic effects would be more pronounced in thermally constrained (cold) macroclimates. Contrary to our expectations, micro‐ and macroclimatic effects were weakest for soil bacteria, soil fungi, and vascular plants, which responded more strongly to edaphic factors. Alpha diversity increased with macroclimatic temperature for arthropods, but not for the other groups. Effects of microclimatic amplification varied across taxa, with positive effects for flying insects and bats, but negative effects for soil bacteria and fungi. Interactive effects of microclimatic modulation and macroclimatic temperature on understory plants, ground‐dwelling arthropods, moths, and birds indicated that microclimate influenced diversity differently in warm versus cold macroclimates. However, we found both stronger (ground‐dwelling arthropods and moths) and weaker (understory plants and birds) positive effects of microclimatic amplification under cold compared to warm macroclimates. Our findings demonstrate that effects of microclimatic modulation on biodiversity depend on macroclimatic context and differ between taxa, and thus, both have to be considered when predicting climate‐change impacts on biodiversity. Conservation planning should account for potentially changing effects of microclimatic modulation under climate warming that might affect the role of climatic microrefugia within the landscape.