Research in global change ecology relies heavily on global climatic grids derived from estimates of air temperature in open areas at around 2 m above the ground. These climatic grids do not reflect conditions below vegetation canopies and near the ground surface, where critical ecosystem functions occur and most terrestrial species reside. Here, we provide global maps of soil temperature and bioclimatic variables at a 1‐km²resolution for 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil depth. These maps were created by calculating the difference (i.e. offset) between in situ soil temperature measurements, based on time series from over 1200 1‐km²pixels (summarized from 8519 unique temperature sensors) across all the world's major terrestrial biomes, and coarse‐grained air temperature estimates from ERA5‐Land (an atmospheric reanalysis by the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts). We show that mean annual soil temperature differs markedly from the corresponding gridded air temperature, by up to 10°C (mean = 3.0 ± 2.1°C), with substantial variation across biomes and seasons. Over the year, soils in cold and/or dry biomes are substantially warmer (+3.6 ± 2.3°C) than gridded air temperature, whereas soils in warm and humid environments are on average slightly cooler (−0.7 ± 2.3°C). The observed substantial and biome‐specific offsets emphasize that the projected impacts of climate and climate change on near‐surface biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are inaccurately assessed when air rather than soil temperature is used, especially in cold environments. The global soil‐related bioclimatic variables provided here are an important step forward for any application in ecology and related disciplines. Nevertheless, we highlight the need to fill remaining geographic gaps by collecting more in situ measurements of microclimate conditions to further enhance the spatiotemporal resolution of global soil temperature products for ecological applications.

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.

The terrestrial flora of Antarctica’s frozen continent is restricted to sparse ice-free areas and dominated by lichens and bryophytes. These plants frequently battle sub-zero temperatures, extreme winds and reduced water availability; all influencing their ability to survive and grow. Antarctic mosses, however, can have canopy temperatures well above air temperature. At midday, canopy temperatures can exceed 15°C, depending on moss turf water content. In this study, the optimum temperature of photosynthesis was determined for six Antarctic moss species: Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Ceratodon purpureus, Chorisodontium aciphyllum, Polytrichastrum alpinum, Sanionia uncinata, and Schistidium antarctici collected from King George Island (maritime Antarctica) and/or the Windmill Islands, East Antarctica. Both chlorophyll fluorescence and gas exchange showed maximum values of electron transport rate occurred at canopy temperatures higher than 20°C. The optimum temperature for both net assimilation of CO₂ and photoprotective heat dissipation of three East Antarctic species was 20–30°C and at temperatures below 10°C, mesophyll conductance did not significantly differ from 0. Maximum mitochondrial respiration rates occurred at temperatures higher than 35°C and were lower by around 80% at 5°C. Despite the extreme cold conditions that Antarctic mosses face over winter, the photosynthetic apparatus appears optimised to warm temperatures. Our estimation of the total carbon balance suggests that survival in this cold environment may rely on a capacity to maximize photosynthesis for brief periods during summer and minimize respiratory carbon losses in cold conditions.

Cryptogamic vegetation dominates the ice-free areas along the Antarctic Peninsula. The two mosses Sanionia uncinata and Polytrichastrum alpinum inhabit soils with contrasting water availability. Sanionia uncinata grows in soil with continuous water supply, while P. alpinum grows in sandy, non-flooded soils. Desiccation and rehydration experiments were carried out to test for differences in the rate of water loss and uptake, with non-structural carbohydrates analysed to test their role in these processes. Individual plants of S. uncinata lost water 60 % faster than P. alpinum; however, clumps of S. uncinata took longer to dry than those of P. alpinum (11 vs. 5 h, respectively). In contrast, rehydration took less than 10 min for both mosses. Total non-structural carbohydrate content was higher in P. alpinum than in S. uncinata, but sugar levels changed more in P. alpinum during desiccation and rehydration (60–50 %) when compared to S. uncinata. We report the presence of galactinol (a precursor of the raffinose family) for the first time in P. alpinum. Galactinol was present at higher amounts than all other non-structural sugars. Individual plants of S. uncinata were not able to retain water for long periods but by growing and forming carpets, this species can retain water the longest. In contrast individual P. alpinum plants required more time to lose water than S. uncinata, but as moss cushions they suffered desiccation faster than the later. On the other hand, both species rehydrated very quickly. We found that when both mosses lost 50 % of their water, carbohydrates content remained stable and the plants did not accumulate non-structural carbohydrates during the desiccation prosses as usually occurs in vascular plants. The raffinose family oligosaccarides decreased during desiccation, and increased during rehydration, suggesting they function as osmoprotectors.