Recently, microclimate has gained significant momentum [1], as evidenced by the increasing number of studies and the emergence of a dedicated scientific community coordinating research efforts [2]. Several factors underpin this trend, including advances in technology that have made microclimate monitoring [3] and ecological contextualization [4] more accessible, as well as improvements in computational methods that facilitate modeling at unprecedented scales [5]. But the growing emphasis on microclimate is primarily driven by their ecological relevance, as microclimate represent the actual climate conditions experienced by organisms [1]. This makes them more suitable than macroclimate data for understanding and predicting biodiversity responses to climate change [6]. While macroclimate data remain a common tool in ecology, they often represent generalized climatic conditions over large spatial scales. These data are typically derived from statistical models calibrated on observations collected at meteorological stations [7], which are usually located at 2 meters above the ground in open areas and at elevations compatible with human activities. Such characteristics limit the applicability of macroclimate data for understanding biodiversity responses, particularly at finer spatial scales.

 This is especially true in forest ecosystems, where microclimate results from the filtering of macroclimate conditions by forest habitats [8]. A simple walk in a forest during summer highlights this filtering, with the cooling effect of canopy shading and tree packing being clearly perceptible. If humans can sense these variations, they likely influence forest biodiversity. In fact, microclimates are crucial for defining the thermal niches of understory plant species [9] and understanding plant community reshuffling in response to climate warming [10]. In mountainous areas, topography adds further complexity to microclimates. The drop in temperature with elevation, known as the elevation-temperature lapse rate, is familiar, but topography also drives fine-scale variations [11]. Solar radiation hitting forest varies with aspect and hillshade, creating localized temperature differences. For example, equator-facing slopes receive more sunlight, while west-facing slopes are sunlit during the warmest part of the day. Consequently, in the northern hemisphere, southwest-facing slopes generally exhibit warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons, and shorter snow cover durations [12]. Thus, both topography and forest canopy shape the understory microclimate experienced by organisms in temperate mountainous forests.

 Is biodiversity more influenced by topography- or canopy-induced temperature buffering? While this question may not seem particularly interesting at first glance, understanding the underlying mechanisms of microclimate is crucial for guiding biodiversity conservation decisions in the face of climate change [13]. Poleward-facing slopes, valley bottoms, and dense canopies buffer warm episodes by creating cooler, more humid habitats that can serve as refugia for biodiversity [12]. Both buffering processes are valuable for conservation, but topography-induced buffering is generally more stable over the long term [14]. In contrast, canopy buffering is more vulnerable to human management, disturbances, and the ongoing acceleration of climate change, which is expected to drive tree mortality and lead to canopy opening [15]. Identifying the dominant buffering process in a given area is essential for mapping biodiversity refugia and fully integrating microclimate into conservation strategies. This approach can improve decision-making and actions aimed at promoting biodiversity sustainability in a warming world.

 The work of Borderieux and colleagues [16] offers new insights into this question through an innovative approach. They focus on temperate forests in a watershed in the Vosges Mountains, where they monitor understory temperature and inventory forest plant communities in separate samplings. Aiming to disentangle the effects of topography and forest canopy on understory temperature and its impact on plant communities, the authors deployed a network of temperature sensors using stratified sampling, balanced according to topography (elevation, aspect, and slope) and canopy cover. They then correlated mean annual temperatures (daily mean and maximum) with topographic factors and canopy cover, considering their potential interactions in a linear model. The contribution of each microclimate component was computed, and their effects on temperatures were mapped. These predictions were then confronted to floristic inventories to test whether topography- and canopy-induced temperature variations explained plant diversity and assemblages.

 First, the authors demonstrated that local topographic variations, which determine the amount of solar radiation reaching forests in mountainous areas, outweigh the contribution of canopy shading to understory temperatures. This result is surprising, as many previous studies have emphasized the importance of canopy buffering in shaping forest microclimate conditions [8]. However, these studies mostly focused on lowland areas or large scales, where terrain roughness has less influence. It is also unexpected because the authors observed that canopy cover varies at a smaller scale than aspect or topographic position in their study area, creating habitat heterogeneity that could reasonably drive local temperature variations. Nevertheless, the authors found that aspect, heat load, and topographic position induced more variation in microclimate than canopy filtering, significantly allowing deviations from the expected elevation-temperature lapse rate. Second, the topographic effect on understory temperature propagated to biodiversity. The authors found that topography-induced temperature offset explained plant diversity and composition, while canopy-induced temperature offset did not. Specifically, cold topoclimates harbored 30% more species than the average species richness across the inventoried plots. This increase in species richness was primarily due to an increase in cold-adapted species, highlighting the role of cold topoclimates as refugia.

 It is difficult to assess the extent to which these results are influenced by the specific forest context of the study area chosen by the authors, as there is no clear consensus in previous research regarding the role of topoclimate. For example, Macek et al. (2019) [17] highlighted the predominance of topography in controlling temperature and, consequently, forest community structure in the Czech Republic, while Vandewiele et al. (2023) [18] demonstrated the dominance of canopy control in the German Alps. The forest conditions investigated by Borderieux et al. (2025) were narrow, as they focused mainly on closed forests (more than 80% of the study area and sampling sites exhibiting canopy cover greater than 79%). Given that the canopy buffering effect on temperature increases with canopy cover until plateauing at around 80% [19], this may explain why the authors did not find a strong contribution from the canopy. Nevertheless, the methodology and case presented in their study are both innovative and applicable to other mountainous regions. The work of Borderieux et al. (2025) deserves attention for highlighting a frequently overlooked component of forest microclimate, as canopy filtering is typically regarded as the dominant driver. Topoclimate is a critical factor to consider when protecting cold-adapted forest species in the context of global warming, especially since topographic features are less subject to change than canopy cover. Future research should aim to test this hypothesis across a broader range of forest and topography conditions to identify general patterns, as well as assess the long-term effectiveness of these topographic refugia for biodiversity. It remains unclear whether the cooling effect provided by topoclimate will be sufficient to stabilize climate conditions despite the expected acceleration of climate warming in the coming decades, and whether it will be able to preserve cold-adapted species, which are among the most unique but threatened components of mountain biodiversity.

References

[1] Kemppinen, J. et al. Microclimate, an important part of ecology and biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeography 33, e13834 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13834

[2] Lembrechts, J. J. et al. SoilTemp: A global database of near-surface temperature. Global Change Biology 26, 6616–6629 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15123

[3] Wild, J. et al. Climate at ecologically relevant scales: A new temperature and soil moisture logger for long-term microclimate measurement. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 268, 40–47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.12.018

[4] Zellweger, F., Frenne, P. D., Lenoir, J., Rocchini, D. & Coomes, D. Advances in Microclimate Ecology Arising from Remote Sensing. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34, 327–341 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.12.012

[5] Haesen, S. et al. ForestTemp – Sub-canopy microclimate temperatures of European forests. Global Change Biology 27, 6307–6319 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15892

[6] Lembrechts, J. J. et al. Comparing temperature data sources for use in species distribution models: From in-situ logging to remote sensing. Global Ecology and Biogeography 28, 1578–1596 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12974

[7] Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37, 4302–4315 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086

[8] De Frenne, P. et al. Global buffering of temperatures under forest canopies. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 744–749 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0842-1

[9] Haesen, S. et al. Microclimate reveals the true thermal niche of forest plant species. Ecology Letters 26, 2043–2055 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14312

[10] Zellweger, F. et al. Forest microclimate dynamics drive plant responses to warming. Science 368, 772–775 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba6880

[11] Rolland, C. Spatial and Seasonal Variations of Air Temperature Lapse Rates in Alpine Regions. Journal of climate, 16(7), 1032-1046 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C1032:SASVOA%3E2.0.CO;2

[12] Rita, A. et al. Topography modulates near-ground microclimate in the Mediterranean Fagus sylvatica treeline. Sci Rep 11, 1–14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87661-6

[13] Bertrand, R., Aubret, F., Grenouillet, G., Ribéron, A. & Blanchet, S. Comment on “Forest microclimate dynamics drive plant responses to warming”. Science 370, eabd3850 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3850

[14] Hylander, K., Greiser, C., Christiansen, D. M. & Koelemeijer, I. A. Climate adaptation of biodiversity conservation in managed forest landscapes. Conservation Biology 36, e13847 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13847

[15] McDowell, N. G. & Allen, C. D. Darcy’s law predicts widespread forest mortality under climate warming. Nature Clim Change 5, 669–672 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2641

[16] Borderieux, J. et al. Cool topoclimates promote cold-adapted plant diversity in temperate mountain forests. Ecoevorxiv, ver. 3( 2024). Peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.32942/X2XC8T

[17] Macek, M., Kopecký, M. & Wild, J. Maximum air temperature controlled by landscape topography affects plant species composition in temperate forests. Landscape Ecol 34, 2541–2556 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00903-x

[18] Vandewiele, M. et al. Mapping spatial microclimate patterns in mountain forests from LiDAR. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 341, 109662 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109662

[19] Zellweger, F. et al. Seasonal drivers of understorey temperature buffering in temperate deciduous forests across Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography 28, 1774–1786 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12991

This very interesting article describes the changes taking place on artificial substrates placed in an intertidal zone. The study presents an ambitious data set and demonstrates the importance of long-term monitoring to identify community dynamics. In summary, in the short term, the authors observe a phase of complexification of the communities and a peak in productivity, but after a few years, the macro-algae disappear in favour of limpets, a situation that persists after 10 years of monitoring. Monitoring over the short term would lead to an erroneous analysis of the succession patterns and dynamics of the communities, which has important consequences in terms of the recolonisation of artificial substrates in the marine environment.

References

Aline Migné, François Bordeyne, Dominique Davoult (2023) Long-term survey of intertidal rocky shore macrobenthic community metabolism and structure after primary succession. HAL, ver.2 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://hal.science/hal-04347756

Seagrass beds are in a poor state of conservation and the ecological function of these plant communities is poorly assessed.

Four zones of eelgrass beds (Zostera marina and Zostera noltei) were described in terms of the morphology of the plant populations and the associated fauna. At the same time, parameters related to the functioning of these ecosystems were quantified (benthic fluxes of oxygen, carbon and nutrients) over a two-year cycle.

The article provides the databases collected and provides the main characteristics of these habitats for the measured parameters.

The work provides a reference database on the Zoostera beds of french coastal areas, outlining the ecological contrasts between both ecosystems. This database can on the one hand contribute to help management and restoration of these habitats, and on the other hand provide a reference state of their ecology, with a view to long-term monitoring.

References

Élise Lacoste, Vincent Ouisse, Nicolas Desroy, Lionel Allano, Isabelle Auby, Touria Bajjouk, Constance Bourdier, Xavier Caisey, Marie-Noelle de Casamajor, Nicolas Cimiterra, Céline Cordier, Amélia Curd, Lauriane Derrien, Gabin Droual, Stanislas F. Dubois, Élodie Foucault, Aurélie Foveau, Jean-Dominique Gaffet, Florian Ganthy, Camille Gianaroli, Rachel Ignacio-Cifré, Pierre-Olivier Liabot, Gregory Messiaen, Claire Meteigner, Benjamin Monnier, Robin Van Paemelen, Marine Pasquier, Loic Rigouin, Claire Rollet, Aurélien Royer, Laura Soissons, Aurélien Tancray, Aline Blanchet-Aurigny (2023) A dataset of Zostera marina and Zostera noltei structure and functioning in four sites along the French coast over a period of 18 months.. Zenodo, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10425140

Accurately estimating survival rate and identifying the drivers of its variation is essential for our understanding of population dynamics and life history strategies (Sæther and Bakke 2000), as well as for population management and conservation (Francis et al. 1998, Doherty et al. 2014). Many studies estimate survival from capture–recapture data using the Cormack–Jolly–Seber (CJS) model (Lebreton et al. 1992). However, survival estimates are confounded with permanent emigration from the study area, which can be particularly problematic for mobile species. This is problematic, not only because CJS models under estimate true survival in populations where permanent emigration occurs (i.e. they estimate “apparent” survival), but also because some factors of interest may affect both survival and emigration (e.g., habitat quality, Paquet et al. 2020), leaving the interpretation of results challenging, for example in terms of management decisions.

Several methods have been developed to account for permanent emigration when estimating survival, for example by jointly analyzing CMR data with data on individuals’ locations at each capture/resighting site (to estimate their dispersal distances; Schaub and Royle 2013, Badia Boher et al. 2023), with telemetry data (Powel et al. 2000), mark recovery data (Burnham 1993, Fay et al. 2019), or with live-resight data (Barker 1997).

The Barker joint live-recapture/live-resight (JLRLR) model can estimate survival when resight data are continuous over a long interval and from a larger area than the capture recapture data. This model becomes particularly promising with the growing collection of data from citizen science, or remote detection tools (Dzul et al. 2023). However, as pointed out by Dzul et al., this model assumes that resight probability is homogeneous across the area where individuals can move, and this assumption is likely violated for example because of non-random movements or because of non-random location of resighting sites.

In their manuscript, Dzul et al. performed a thorough simulation study to evaluate the accuracy of survival estimates from JLRLR models under various study designs regarding the location of resight sites (global, random, fixed including the capture site, and fixed excluding the capture site). They simulated data with varying survival and movement values, varying recapture and resight probabilities, and varying sample sizes. Finally, they also developed and fitted a multi state version of the JLRLR model. They show that JLRLR models performed better than CJS models. Survival estimates were still often biased (either positively or negatively) but they were less biased when sesight sites were randomly located (rather than at fixed locations), when recapture sites were included in the resighting design, and when using the multi state JLRLR model they developed.

This study highlights (multistate) JLRLR models as an alternative to CJS models one should consider when auxiliary resight data can be collected. Moreover, it shows the importance of evaluating not only model performance, but also the efficiency of alternative sampling designs before choosing one for our studies. Hopefully, this study will help the authors and other researchers making a more informed and efficient choice of model and design to estimate survival in their study populations.

References

Jaume A. Badia-Boher, Joan Real, Joan Lluís Riera, Frederic Bartumeus, Francesc Parés, Josep Maria Bas, and Antonio Hernández-Matías. Joint estimation of survival and dispersal effectively corrects the permanent emigration bias in mark-recapture analyses. (2023) Scientific reports 13, no. 1: 6970. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32866-0 

Richard J Barker (1997) Joint modeling of live-recapture, tag-resight, and tag-recovery data. Biometrics: 666-677. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533966 

Kenneth P. Burnham (1993) Marked Individuals in the Study of Bird Populations (ed. J.D. Lebreton), pp. 199–213. Birkhäuser, Basel

Kevin E. Doherty, David E. Naugle, Jason D. Tack, Brett L. Walker, Jon M. Graham, Jeffrey L. Beck (2014) Linking conservation actions to demography: grass height explains variation in greater sage‐grouse nest survival. Wildlife biology 20, no. 6 : 320-325. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00004

Maria C. Dzul, Charles B. Yackulic, William L. Kendall (2023) The importance of sampling design for unbiased estimation of survival using joint live-recapture and live resight models. arXiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.13414

Rémi Fay, Stephanie Michler, Jacques Laesser, and Michael Schaub (2019) Integrated population model reveals that kestrels breeding in nest boxes operate as a source population. Ecography 42, no. 12: 2122-2131. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04559

Charles M. Francis, John R. Sauer, Jerome R. Serie (1998) Effect of restrictive harvest regulations on survival and recovery rates of American black ducks. The Journal of Wildlife Management : 1544-1557. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802021

Jean-Dominique Lebreton, Kenneth P. Burnham, Jean Clobert, David R. Anderson (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. Ecological monographs 62.1: 67-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937171

Matthieu Paquet, Debora Arlt, Jonas Knape, Matthew Low, Pär Forslund, and Tomas Pärt (2020) Why we should care about movements: Using spatially explicit integrated population models to assess habitat source–sink dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 89, no. 12: 2922-2933. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13357

Larkin A. Powell, Michael J. Conroy, James E. Hines, James D. Nichols, and David G. Krementz. Simultaneous use of mark-recapture and radiotelemetry to estimate survival, movement, and capture rates. (2000) The Journal of Wildlife Management : 302-313. https://doi.org/10.2307/3803003

Bernt-Erik Sæther, Øyvind Bakke (2000) Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81.3 : 642-653. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0642:ALHVAC]2.0.CO;2

Michael Schaub, J. Andrew Royle. Estimating true instead of apparent survival using spatial Cormack–Jolly–Seber models (2014) Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5, no. 12: 1316-1326. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12134

Population ecologists are in the business of decrypting the drivers of variation in the abundance of organisms across space and time (Begon et al. 1986). Comprehensive studies of wild vertebrate populations which provide the necessary information on variations in vital rates in relation to environmental conditions to construct informative models of large-scale population dynamics are rare, ostensibly because of the huge effort required to monitor individuals across ecological contexts and over generations. In this current aim, Nater et al. (2024) are leading the way forward by combining distance sampling data collected through a large-scale citizen science (Fraisl et al. 2022) programme in Norway with state-of-the-art modelling approaches to build a comprehensive overview of the population dynamics of willow ptarmigan. Their work enhances our fundamental understanding of this system and provides evidence-based tools to improve its management (Williams et al. 2002). Even better, they are working for the common good, by providing an open-source workflow that should enable ecologists and managers together to predict what will happen to their favourite model organism when the planet throws its next curve ball. In the case of the ptarmigan, for example, it seems that the impact of climate change on their population dynamics will differ across the species’ distributional range, with a slower pace of life (sensu Stearns 1983) at higher latitudes and altitudes. 

On a personal note, I have often mused whether citizen science, with its inherent limits and biases, was just another sticking plaster over the ever-deeper cuts in the research budgets to finance long-term ecological research. Here, Nater et al. are doing well to convince me that we would be foolish to ignore such opportunities, particularly when citizens are engaged, motivated, with an inherent capacity for the necessary discipline to employ common protocols in a standardised fashion. A key challenge for us professional ecologists is to inculcate the next generation of citizens with a sense of their opportunity to contribute to a better understanding of the natural world.

References

Begon, Michael, John L Harper, and Colin R Townsend. 1986. Ecology: individuals, populations and communities. Blackwell Science.

Fraisl, Dilek, Gerid Hager, Baptiste Bedessem, Margaret Gold, Pen-Yuan Hsing, Finn Danielsen, Colleen B Hitchcock, et al. 2022. Citizen Science in Environmental and Ecological Sciences. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2 (1): 64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4

Chloé R. Nater, Francesco Frassinelli, James A. Martin, Erlend B. Nilsen (2024) Large-scale spatio-temporal variation in vital rates and population dynamics of an alpine bird. EcoEvoRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.32942/X2VP6J

Stearns, S.C. 1983. The influence of size and phylogeny of covariation among life-history traits in the mammals. Oikos, 41, 173–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544261

Williams, Byron K, James D Nichols, and Michael J Conroy. 2002. Analysis and Management of Animal Populations. Academic Press.