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.

Aim: Understanding the variation in community composition and species abundances (i.e., β‐diversity) is at the heart of community ecology. A common approach to examine β‐diversity is to evaluate directional variation in community composition by measuring the decay in the similarity among pairs of communities along spatial or environmental distance. We provide the first global synthesis of taxonomic and functional distance decay along spatial and environmental distance by analysing 148 datasets comprising different types of organisms and environments.Location: Global.Time period: 1990 to present.Major taxa studied: From diatoms to mammals.Method: We measured the strength of the decay using ranked Mantel tests (Mantel r) and the rate of distance decay as the slope of an exponential fit using generalized linear models. We used null models to test whether functional similarity decays faster or slower than expected given the taxonomic decay along the spatial and environmental distance. We also unveiled the factors driving the rate of decay across the datasets, including latitude, spatial extent, realm and organismal features.Results: Taxonomic distance decay was stronger than functional distance decay along both spatial and environmental distance. Functional distance decay was random given the taxonomic distance decay. The rate of taxonomic and functional spatial distance decay was fastest in the datasets from mid‐latitudes. Overall, datasets covering larger spatial extents showed a lower rate of decay along spatial distance but a higher rate of decay along environmental distance. Marine ecosystems had the slowest rate of decay along environmental distances.Main conclusions: In general, taxonomic distance decay is a useful tool for biogeographical research because it reflects dispersal‐related factors in addition to species responses to climatic and environmental variables. Moreover, functional distance decay might be a cost‐effective option for investigating community changes in heterogeneous environments.

The Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) is a commonly used proxy for soil moisture. The predictive capability of TWI is influenced by the flow‐routing algorithm and the resolution of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) that TWI is derived from. Here, we examine the predictive capability of TWI using 11 flow‐routing algorithms at DEM resolutions 1–30 m. We analyze the relationship between TWI and field‐quantified soil moisture using statistical modeling methods and 5,200 study plots with over 46 000 soil moisture measurements. In addition, we test the sensitivity of the flow‐routing algorithms against vertical height errors in DEM at different resolutions. The results reveal that the overall predictive capability of TWI was modest. The highest r² (23.7%) was reached using a multiple‐flow‐direction algorithm at 2 m resolution. In addition, the test of sensitivity against height errors revealed that the multiple‐flow‐direction algorithms were also more robust against DEM errors than single‐flow‐direction algorithms. The results provide field‐evidence indicating that at its best TWI is a modest proxy for soil moisture and its predictive capability is influenced by the flow‐routing algorithm and DEM resolution. Thus, we encourage careful evaluation of algorithms and resolutions when using TWI as a proxy for soil moisture.