Тип публикации: статья из журнала

Год издания: 2024

Идентификатор DOI: 10.1111/geb.13884

Аннотация: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim</jats:title><jats:p>The scale of environmental data is often defined by their extent (spatial area, temporal duration) and resolution (grain size, temporal interval). Although describing climate data scale via these terms is appropriate for most meteorological applications,Показать полностьюfor ecology and biogeography, climate data of the same spatiotemporal resolution and extent may differ in their relevance to an organism. Here, we propose that climate proximity, or how well climate data represent the actual conditions that an organism is exposed to, is more important for ecological realism than the spatiotemporal resolution of the climate data.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Location</jats:title><jats:p>Temperature comparison in nine countries across four continents; ecological case studies in Alberta (Canada), Sabah (Malaysia) and North Carolina/Tennessee (USA).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Time Period</jats:title><jats:p>1960–2018.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Major Taxa Studied</jats:title><jats:p>Case studies with flies, mosquitoes and salamanders, but concepts relevant to all life on earth.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We compare the accuracy of two macroclimate data sources (ERA5 and WorldClim) and a novel microclimate model (<jats:italic>microclimf</jats:italic>) in predicting soil temperatures. We then use ERA5, WorldClim and <jats:italic>microclimf</jats:italic> to drive ecological models in three case studies: temporal (fly phenology), spatial (mosquito thermal suitability) and spatiotemporal (salamander range shifts) ecological responses.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>For predicting soil temperatures, <jats:italic>microclimf</jats:italic> had 24.9% and 16.4% lower absolute bias than ERA5 and WorldClim respectively. Across the case studies, we find that increasing proximity (from macroclimate to microclimate) yields a 247% improvement in performance of ecological models on average, compared to 18% and 9% improvements from increasing spatial resolution 20-fold, and temporal resolution 30-fold respectively.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Main Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>We propose that increasing climate proximity, even if at the sacrifice of finer climate spatiotemporal resolution, may improve ecological predictions. We emphasize biophysically informed approaches, rather than generic formulations, when quantifying ecoclimatic relationships. Redefining the scale of climate through the lens of the organism itself helps reveal mechanisms underlying how climate shapes ecological systems.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Журнал: Global Ecology and Biogeography

ISSN журнала: 1466822X

Издатель: John Wiley &amp; Sons

• Klinges David H. (School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA)
• Baecher J. Alex (School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA)
• Lembrechts Jonas J. (Department of Biology University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium)
• Maclean Ilya M. D. (Department of Biosciences, Environment and Sustainability Institute University of Exeter Exeter UK)
• Lenoir Jonathan (UMR CNRS 7058, Ecologie et Dynamique Des Systèmes Anthropisés (EDYSAN) Université de Picardie Jules Verne Amiens France)
• Greiser Caroline (Department of Forest Ecology and Management Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden)
• Ashcroft Michael (Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions University of Wollongong Wollongong New South Wales Australia)
• Evans Luke J. (Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA)
• Kearney Michael R. (School of BioSciences The University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia)
• Aalto Juha (Weather and Climate Change Impact Research Finnish Meteorological Institute Helsinki Finland)
• Barrio Isabel C. (Faculty of Environmental and Forest Sciences Agricultural University of Iceland Reykjavík Iceland)
• De Frenne Pieter (Forest &amp; Nature Lab, Department of Environment Ghent University Ghent Belgium)
• Guillemot Joannès (Forest Science Department University of São Paulo/ESALQ Piracicaba Brazil)
• Hylander Kristoffer (Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant Science Stockholm University Stockholm Sweden)
• Jucker Tommaso (School of Biological Sciences University of Bristol Bristol UK)
• Kopecký Martin (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences University of Life Sciences Prague Praha 6-Suchdol Czech Republic)
• Luoto Miska (Department of Geosciences and Geography University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland)
• Macek Martin (Department of Geoecology Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences Průhonice Czech Republic)
• Nijs Ivan (Department of Biology University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium)
• Urban Josef (Department of Forest Botany, Dendrology and Geobiocenology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology Mendel University in Brno Brno Czech Republic)
• van den Brink Liesbeth (ECOBIOSIS, Department of Botany University of Concepción Concepción Chile)
• Vangansbeke Pieter (Forest &amp; Nature Lab, Department of Environment Ghent University Ghent Belgium)
• Von Oppen Jonathan (Department of Biology Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark)
• Wild Jan (Department of Geoecology Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences Průhonice Czech Republic)
• Boike Julia (Geography Department Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany)
• Canessa Rafaella (Institute of Biology Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg Halle (Saale) Germany)
• Nosetto Marcelo (Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias Cátedra de Climatología Agrícola (UNER) Oro Verde Argentina)
• Rubtsov Alexey (Institute of Ecology and Geography Siberian Federal University Krasnoyarsk Russia)
• Sallo-Bravo Jhonatan (Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco Cusco Peru)
• Scheffers Brett R. (Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA)

• Ядро РИНЦ (eLIBRARY.RU)