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.

Aims: We introduce ReSurveyEurope — a new data source of resurveyed vegetation plots in Europe, compiled by a collaborative network of vegetation scientists. We describe the scope of this initiative, provide an overview of currently available data, governance, data contribution rules, and accessibility. In addition, we outline further steps, including potential research questions.Results: ReSurveyEurope includes resurveyed vegetation plots from all habitats. Version 1.0 of ReSurveyEurope contains 283,135 observations (i.e., individual surveys of each plot) from 79,190 plots sampled in 449 independent resurvey projects. Of these, 62,139 (78%) are permanent plots, that is, marked in situ, or located with GPS, which allow for high spatial accuracy in resurvey. The remaining 17,051 (22%) plots are from studies in which plots from the initial survey could not be exactly relocated. Four data sets, which together account for 28,470 (36%) plots, provide only presence/absence information on plant species, while the remaining 50,720 (64%) plots contain abundance information (e.g., percentage cover or cover–abundance classes such as variants of the Braun‐Blanquet scale). The oldest plots were sampled in 1911 in the Swiss Alps, while most plots were sampled between 1950 and 2020.Conclusions: ReSurveyEurope is a new resource to address a wide range of research questions on fine‐scale changes in European vegetation. The initiative is devoted to an inclusive and transparent governance and data usage approach, based on slightly adapted rules of the well‐established European Vegetation Archive (EVA). ReSurveyEurope data are ready for use, and proposals for analyses of the data set can be submitted at any time to the coordinators. Still, further data contributions are highly welcome.

Summary: 1. Worldwide, the floristic composition of temperate forests bears the imprint of past land use for decades to centuries as forests regrow on agricultural land. Many species, however, display significant interregional variation in their ability to (re)colonize post‐agricultural forests. This variation in colonization across regions and the underlying factors remain largely unexplored. 2. We compiled data on 90 species and 812 species × study combinations from 18 studies across Europe that determined species’ distribution patterns in ancient (i.e. continuously forested since the first available land use maps) and post‐agricultural forests. The recovery rate (RR) of species in each landscape was quantified as the log‐response ratio of the percentage occurrence in post‐agricultural over ancient forest and related to the species‐specific life‐history traits and local (soil characteristics and light availability) and regional factors (landscape properties as habitat availability, time available for colonization, and climate). 3. For the herb species, we demonstrate a strong (interactive) effect of species’ life‐history traits and forest habitat availability on the RR of post‐agricultural forest. In graminoids, however, none of the investigated variables were significantly related to the RR. 4. The better colonizing species that mainly belonged to the short‐lived herbs group showed the largest interregional variability. Their recovery significantly increased with the amount of forest habitat within the landscape, whereas, surprisingly, the time available for colonization, climate, soil characteristics and light availability had no effect. 5. Synthesis. By analysing 18 independent studies across Europe, we clearly showed for the first time on a continental scale that the recovery of short‐lived forest herbs increased with the forest habitat availability in the landscape. Small perennial forest herbs, however, were generally unsuccessful in colonizing post‐agricultural forest – even in relatively densely forested landscapes. Hence, our results stress the need to avoid ancient forest clearance to preserve the typical woodland flora.

Question: When evaluating forests in terms of their biodiversity, distinctiveness and naturalness, the affinity of the constituent species to forests is a crucial parameter. Here we ask to what extent are vascular plant species associated with forests, and does species’ affinity to forests vary between European regions?Location: Temperate and boreal forest biome of Northwestern and Central Europe.Methods: We compiled EuForPlant, a new extensive list of forest vascular plant species in 24 regions spread across 13 European countries using vegetation databases and expert knowledge. Species were region‐specifically classified into four categories reflecting the degree of their affinity to forest habitats: 1.1, species of forest interiors; 1.2, species of forest edges and forest openings; 2.1, species that can be found in forest as well as open vegetation; and 2.2, species that can be found partly in forest, but mainly in open vegetation. An additional “O” category was distinguished, covering species typical for non‐forest vegetation.Results: EuForPlant comprises 1,726 species, including 1,437 herb‐layer species, 159 shrubs, 107 trees, 19 lianas and 4 epiphytic parasites. Across regions, generalist forest species (with 450 and 777 species classified as 2.1 and 2.2, respectively) significantly outnumbered specialist forest species (with 250 and 137 species classified as 1.1 and 1.2, respectively). Even though the degree of shifting between the categories of forest affinity among regions was relatively low (on average, 17.5%), about one‐third of the forest species (especially 1.2 and 2.2) swapped categories in at least one of the study regions.Conclusions: The proposed list can be used widely in vegetation science and global change ecology related to forest biodiversity and community dynamics. Shifting of forest affinity among regions emphasizes the importance of a continental‐scale forest plant species list with regional specificity.