Can bryophyte groups increase functional resolution in tundra ecosystems?

Funding Information: This study was supported by a grant to SL from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie, Grant No. 797446 and by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Grant no. 0135-00140B. Funding from the Academy of Finland (grant 322266), National Science Foundation (1504224, 1836839, PLR-1504381 and PLR-1836898), Independent Research Fund Denmark (9040-00314B), Moscow State University, (project No 121032500089-1), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, ArcticNet, Polar Continental Shelf Program, Northern Science Training Program, Polar Knowledge Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Tomsk State University competitiveness improvement program and the Russian Science Foundation (grant No 20-67-46018) are gratefully acknowledged. Matthias Ahrens provided valuable insights on the cushion growth form, and we are most thankful. We thank Gaius Shaver and two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable critique and input to earlier versions of this manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © the author(s) or their institution(s).The relative contribution of bryophytes to plant diversity, primary productivity, and ecosystem functioning increases towards colder climates. Bryophytes respond to environmental changes at the species level, but because bryophyte species are relatively difficult to identify, they are often lumped into one functional group. Consequently, bryophyte function remains poorly resolved. Here, we explore how higher resolution of bryophyte functional diversity can be encouraged and implemented in tundra ecological studies. We briefly review previous bryophyte functional classifications and the roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems and their susceptibility to environmental change. Based on shoot morphology and colony organization, we then propose twelve easily distinguishable bryophyte functional groups. To illustrate how bryophyte functional groups can help elucidate variation in bryophyte effects and responses, we compiled existing data on water holding capacity, a key bryophyte trait. Although plant functional groups can mask potentially high interspecific and intraspecific variability, we found better separation of bryophyte functional group means compared with previous grouping systems regarding water holding capacity. This suggests that our bryophyte functional groups truly represent variation in the functional roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems. Lastly, we provide recommendations to improve the monitoring of bryophyte community changes in tundra study sites.Peer reviewe

Can bryophyte groups increase functional resolution in tundra ecosystems?

The relative contribution of bryophytes to plant diversity, primary productivity, and ecosystem functioning increases towards colder climates. Bryophytes respond to environmental changes at the species level, but because bryophyte species are relatively difficult to identify, they are often lumped into one functional group. Consequently, bryophyte function remains poorly resolved. Here, we explore how higher resolution of bryophyte functional diversity can be encouraged and implemented in tundra ecological studies. We briefly review previous bryophyte functional classifications and the roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems and their susceptibility to environmental change. Based on shoot morphology and colony organization, we then propose twelve easily distinguishable bryophyte functional groups. To illustrate how bryophyte functional groups can help elucidate variation in bryophyte effects and responses, we compiled existing data on water holding capacity, a key bryophyte trait. Although plant functional groups can mask potentially high interspecific and intraspecific variability, we found better separation of bryophyte functional group means compared with previous grouping systems regarding water holding capacity. This suggests that our bryophyte functional groups truly represent variation in the functional roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems. Lastly, we provide recommendations to improve the monitoring of bryophyte community changes in tundra study sites

Global maps of soil temperature

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-km2 resolution 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-km2 pixels (summarized from 8519 unique temperature sensors) across all the world\u27s 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

Global maps of soil temperature

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-km² resolution 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-km² pixels (summarized from 8500 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

Global maps of soil temperature.

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-km2 resolution 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-km2 pixels (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

Can bryophyte groups increase functional resolution in tundra ecosystems?

Funding Information: This study was supported by a grant to SL from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie, Grant No. 797446 and by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Grant no. 0135-00140B. Funding from the Academy of Finland (grant 322266), National Science Foundation (1504224, 1836839, PLR-1504381 and PLR-1836898), Independent Research Fund Denmark (9040-00314B), Moscow State University, (project No 121032500089-1), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, ArcticNet, Polar Continental Shelf Program, Northern Science Training Program, Polar Knowledge Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Tomsk State University competitiveness improvement program and the Russian Science Foundation (grant No 20-67-46018) are gratefully acknowledged. Matthias Ahrens provided valuable insights on the cushion growth form, and we are most thankful. We thank Gaius Shaver and two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable critique and input to earlier versions of this manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © the author(s) or their institution(s).The relative contribution of bryophytes to plant diversity, primary productivity, and ecosystem functioning increases towards colder climates. Bryophytes respond to environmental changes at the species level, but because bryophyte species are relatively difficult to identify, they are often lumped into one functional group. Consequently, bryophyte function remains poorly resolved. Here, we explore how higher resolution of bryophyte functional diversity can be encouraged and implemented in tundra ecological studies. We briefly review previous bryophyte functional classifications and the roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems and their susceptibility to environmental change. Based on shoot morphology and colony organization, we then propose twelve easily distinguishable bryophyte functional groups. To illustrate how bryophyte functional groups can help elucidate variation in bryophyte effects and responses, we compiled existing data on water holding capacity, a key bryophyte trait. Although plant functional groups can mask potentially high interspecific and intraspecific variability, we found better separation of bryophyte functional group means compared with previous grouping systems regarding water holding capacity. This suggests that our bryophyte functional groups truly represent variation in the functional roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems. Lastly, we provide recommendations to improve the monitoring of bryophyte community changes in tundra study sites.Peer reviewe

Can bryophyte groups increase functional resolution in tundra ecosystems?

The relative contribution of bryophytes to plant diversity, primary productivity, and ecosystem functioning increases towards colder climates. Bryophytes respond to environmental changes at the species level, but because bryophyte species are relatively difficult to identify, they are often lumped into one functional group. Consequently, bryophyte function remains poorly resolved. Here, we explore how higher resolution of bryophyte functional diversity can be encouraged and implemented in tundra ecological studies. We briefly review previous bryophyte functional classifications and the roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems and their susceptibility to environmental change. Based on shoot morphology and colony organization, we then propose twelve easily distinguishable bryophyte functional groups. To illustrate how bryophyte functional groups can help elucidate variation in bryophyte effects and responses, we compiled existing data on water holding capacity, a key bryophyte trait. Although plant functional groups can mask potentially high interspecific and intraspecific variability, we found better separation of bryophyte functional group means compared with previous grouping systems regarding water holding capacity. This suggests that our bryophyte functional groups truly represent variation in the functional roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems. Lastly, we provide recommendations to improve the monitoring of bryophyte community changes in tundra study sites.This study was supported by a grant to SL from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie, Grant No. 797446 and by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Grant no. 0135-00140B. Funding from the Academy of Finland (grant 322266), National Science Foundation (1504224, 1836839, PLR-1504381 and PLR-1836898), Independent Research Fund Denmark (9040-00314B), Moscow State University, (project No 121032500089-1), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, ArcticNet, Polar Continental Shelf Program, Northern Science Training Program, Polar Knowledge Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Tomsk State University competitiveness improvement program and the Russian Science Foundation (grant No 20-67-46018) are gratefully acknowledged. Matthias Ahrens provided valuable insights on the cushion growth form, and we are most thankful. We thank Gaius Shaver and two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable critique and input to earlier versions of this manuscript

Accelerated increase in plant species richness on mountain summits is linked to warming

We thank D. Barolin, J. Birks, A. Björken, C. Björken, S. Dahle, U. Deppe, G. Dussassois, J. V. Ferrández, T. Gassner, S. Giovanettina, F. Giuntoli, Ø. Lunde Heggebø, K. Herz, A. Jost, K. Kallnik, W. Kapfer, T. Kronstad, H. Laukeland, S. Nießner, M. Olson, P. Roux-Fouillet, K. Schofield, M. Suen, D. Watson, J. Wells Abbott, J. Zaremba and numerous additional helpers for fieldwork support; P. Barancˇ ok, J. L. Benito Alonso, M. Camenisch, G. Coldea, J. Dick, M. Gottfried, G. Grabherr, J. I. Holten, J. Kollár, P. Larsson, M. Mallaun, O. Michelsen, U. Molau, M. Pus¸  cas¸ , T. Scheurer, P. Unterluggauer, L. Villar, G.-R. Walther, and numerous helpers for data originating from the GLORIA network13; C. Jenks for linguistic support; and the following institutions for funding. M.J.S.: Danish Carlsbergfondet (CF14-0148), EU Marie Sklodowska-Curie action (grant 707491). C.R., V.S., S.W.: Velux Foundation, Switzerland. C.R., V.S., S.W., J.-P.T., P.V.: Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). A.K.: Swiss National Science Foundation (31003A_144011 to C.R.), Basler Stiftung für biologische Forschung, Switzerland. J.K.: Fram Centre, Norway (362202). J.K., J.-A.G., P.C., B.J.: Polish-Norwegian Research Programme of the Norwegian National Centre for Research and Development (Pol-Nor/196829/87/2013). O.F.-A., M.J.H., S.P.: Instituto de Estudios Altoaragoneses (Huesca, Spain). S.D.: Austrian Climate Research Programme (ACRP, project 368575: DISEQU-ALP). F.J.: Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland; Alpine Garden Society, UK. M.J.H.: Felix de Azara research grant (IBERSUMIT project, DPH, Spain). R.K.: Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV 0866-12). S.N., D.G.: VILLUM Foundation’s Young Investigator Programme (VKR023456; Denmark). S.P.: Ramón y Cajal fellowship (RYC-2013-14164, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain). J.-C.S.: European Research Council (ERC-2012-StG-310886-HISTFUNC); VILLUM Investigator project (VILLUM FONDEN grant 16549; Denmark). S.W.: WSL internal grant (201307N0678, Switzerland); EU FP7 Interact Transnational Access (AlpFlor Europe). S.W., S.B., F.J., M.J.H.: Swiss Botanical Society Alpine Flower Fund. Time and effort was supported by sDiv, the Synthesis Centre of iDiv, Germany (DFG FZT 118, sUMMITDiv working group).Peer reviewedPostprin

Global maps of soil temperature

Abstract 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-km² resolution 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‐km² pixels (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° degrees C (mean = 3.0 +/‐ 2.1° degrees 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° degrees C) than gridded air temperature, whereas soils in warm and humid environments are on average slightly cooler (‐0.7 +/‐ 2.3° degrees 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