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.

Tree‐ring records provide global high‐resolution information on tree‐species responses to global change, forest carbon and water dynamics, and past climate variability and extremes. The underlying assumption is a stationary (time‐stable), quasi‐linear relationship between tree growth and environment, which however conflicts with basic ecological and evolutionary theory. Indeed, our global assessment of the relevant tree‐ring literature demonstrates non‐stationarity in the majority of tested cases, not limited to specific proxies, environmental parameters, regions or species. Non‐stationarity likely represents the general nature of the relationship between tree‐growth proxies and environment. Studies assuming stationarity however score two times more citations influencing other fields of science and the science–policy interface. To reconcile ecological reality with the application of tree‐ring proxies for climate or environmental estimates, we provide a clarification of the stationarity concept, propose a simple confidence framework for the re‐evaluation of existing studies and recommend the use of a new statistical tool to detect non‐stationarity in tree‐ring proxies. Our contribution is meant to stimulate and facilitate discussion in light of our results to help increase confidence in tree‐ring‐based climate and environmental estimates for science, the public and policymakers.

Changes in the environment will alter the growth rate of trees and forests. Different disciplines assess such growth rates differently, for example, with tree-ring width data, forest inventories or with carbon-flux data from eddy covariance towers. Such data is used to quantify forests biomass increment, forest’s carbon sequestration or to reconstruct environmental variables before instrumental records. However, raw measurement data is typically not considered to be representative for the average growth rate of trees or forests. Depending on the research question, the effects of certain environmental variables or effects of tree and forest structure have to be removed first. It can be challenging to define and quantify a growth trend that can answer a specific research question because trees and forests grow and respond to environmental change in multiple ways simultaneously, for example, with altered radial increment, height growth, and stand density. Further challenges pose time-lagged feedback loops, for example, between height and radial increment or between stand density and radial increment. Generally, different environments will lead to different tree and forest structures, but because of tree’s longevity this adaptation to the new environment will take decades or even centuries. Consequently, there can be an offset between the present forest structure and what we term the potential natural forest (PNF): Similar to the potential natural vegetation (PNV), the PNF represents that forest that would develop under the current environmental conditions in the absence of human intervention. Because growth rates are affected by the tree and forest structure, growth-trend estimates will differ between the present and the potential forest. Consequently, if the legacy effects of the past are not of interest, the PNF is the theoretical baseline to correct and estimate growth trends.