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 most common approach to predicting how species ranges and ecological functions will shift with climate change is to construct correlative species distribution models (SDMs). These models use a species’ climatic distribution to determine currently suitable areas for the species and project its potential distribution under future climate scenarios. A core, rarely tested, assumption of SDMs is that all populations will respond equivalently to climate. Few studies have examined this assumption, and those that have rarely dissect the reasons for intraspecific differences. Focusing on the arctic‐alpine cushion plant Silene acaulis , we compared predictive accuracy from SDMs constructed using the species’ full global distribution with composite predictions from separate SDMs constructed using subpopulations defined either by genetic or habitat differences. This is one of the first studies to compare multiple ways of constructing intraspecific‐level SDMs with a species‐level SDM. We also examine the contested relationship between relative probability of occurrence and species performance or ecological function, testing if SDM output can predict individual performance (plant size) and biotic interactions (facilitation). We found that both genetic‐ and habitat‐informed SDMs are considerably more accurate than a species‐level SDM, and that the genetic model substantially differs from and outperforms the habitat model. While SDMs have been used to infer population performance and possibly even biotic interactions, in our system these relationships were extremely weak. Our results indicate that individual subpopulations may respond differently to climate, although we discuss and explore several alternative explanations for the superior performance of intraspecific‐level SDMs. We emphasize the need to carefully examine how to best define intraspecific‐level SDMs as well as how potential genetic, environmental, or sampling variation within species ranges can critically affect SDM predictions. We urge caution in inferring population performance or biotic interactions from SDM predictions, as these often‐assumed relationships are not supported in our study.

Structured demographic models are among the most common and useful tools in population biology. However, the introduction of integral projection models (IPMs) has caused a profound shift in the way many demographic models are conceptualized. Some researchers have argued that IPMs, by explicitly representing demographic processes as continuous functions of state variables such as size, are more statistically efficient, biologically realistic, and accurate than classic matrix projection models, calling into question the usefulness of the many studies based on matrix models. Here, we evaluate how IPMs and matrix models differ, as well as the extent to which these differences matter for estimation of key model outputs, including population growth rates, sensitivity patterns, and life spans. First, we detail the steps in constructing and using each type of model. Second, we present a review of published demographic models, concentrating on size‐based studies, which shows significant overlap in the way IPMs and matrix models are constructed and analyzed. Third, to assess the impact of various modeling decisions on demographic predictions, we ran a series of simulations based on size‐based demographic data sets for five biologically diverse species. We found little evidence that discrete vital rate estimation is less accurate than continuous functions across a wide range of sample sizes or size classes (equivalently bin numbers or mesh points). Most model outputs quickly converged with modest class numbers (≥10), regardless of most other modeling decisions. Another surprising result was that the most commonly used method to discretize growth rates for IPM analyses can introduce substantial error into model outputs. Finally, we show that empirical sample sizes generally matter more than modeling approach for the accuracy of demographic outputs. Based on these results, we provide specific recommendations to those constructing and evaluating structured population models. Both our literature review and simulations question the treatment of IPMs as a clearly distinct modeling approach or one that is inherently more accurate than classic matrix models. Importantly, this suggests that matrix models, representing the vast majority of past demographic analyses available for comparative and conservation work, continue to be useful and important sources of demographic information.

Global change is modifying species communities from local to landscape scales, with alterations in the abiotic and biotic determinants of geographic range limits causing species range shifts along both latitudinal and elevational gradients. An important but often overlooked component of global change is the effect of anthropogenic disturbance, and how it interacts with the effects of climate to affect both species and communities, as well as interspecies interactions, such as facilitation and competition. We examined the effects of frequent human trampling disturbances on alpine plant communities in Switzerland, focusing on the elevational range of the widely distributed cushion plant Silene acaulis and the interactions of this facilitator species with other plants. Examining size distributions and densities, we found that disturbance appears to favor individual Silene growth at middle elevations. However, it has negative effects at the population level, as evidenced by a reduction in population density and reproductive indices. Disturbance synergistically interacts with the effects of elevation to reduce species richness at low and high elevations, an effect not mitigated by Silene. In fact, we find predominantly competitive interactions, both by Silene on its hosted and neighboring species and by neighboring (but not hosted) species on Silene. Our results indicate that disturbance can be beneficial for Silene individual performance, potentially through changes in its neighboring species community. However, possible reduced recruitment in disturbed areas could eventually lead to population declines. While other studies have shown that light to moderate disturbances can maintain high species diversity, our results emphasize that heavier disturbance reduces species richness, diversity, as well as percent cover, and adversely affects cushion plants and that these effects are not substantially reduced by plant–plant interactions. Heavily disturbed alpine systems could therefore be at greater risk for upward encroachment of lower elevation species in a warming world.