The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Microclimatic challenges in global change biology
Abstract
Despite decades of work on climate change biology, the scientific community remains uncertain about where and when most species distributions will respond to altered climates. A major barrier is the spatial mismatch between the size of organisms and the scale at which climate data are collected and modeled. Using a meta‐analysis of published literature, we show that grid lengths in species distribution models are, on average, ca. 10 000‐fold larger than the animals they study, and ca. 1000‐fold larger than the plants they study. And the gap is even worse than these ratios indicate, as most work has focused on organisms that are significantly biased toward large size. This mismatch is problematic because organisms do not experience climate on coarse scales. Rather, they live in microclimates, which can be highly heterogeneous and strongly divergent from surrounding macroclimates. Bridging the spatial gap should be a high priority for research and will require gathering climate data at finer scales, developing better methods for downscaling environmental data to microclimates, and improving our statistical understanding of variation at finer scales. Interdisciplinary collaborations (including ecologists, engineers, climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, and geographers) will be key to bridging the gap, and ultimately to providing scientifically grounded data and recommendations to conservation biologists and policy makers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change
Parmesan, C. (2006) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100 · Cited by 8,652
Cited by
Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A., & Hegewisch, K. C. (2018) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.191 · Cited by 3,421
Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate
Deutsch, C. A., Tewksbury, J. J., Tigchelaar, M., Battisti, D. S., Merrill, S. C., Huey, R. B., & Naylor, R. L. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aat3466 · Cited by 1,549
Global buffering of temperatures under forest canopies
De Frenne, P., Zellweger, F., Rodríguez-Sánchez, F., Scheffers, B. R., Hylander, K., Luoto, M., Vellend, M., Verheyen, K., & Lenoir, J. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0842-1 · Cited by 787
Wilson, A. M., & Jetz, W. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002415 · Cited by 406
Spatial models reveal the microclimatic buffering capacity of old-growth forests
Frey, S. J. K., Hadley, A. S., Johnson, S. L., Schulze, M., Jones, J. A., & Betts, M. G. (2016) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501392 · Cited by 369
Metadata
- Authors
- Potter, K. A., Arthur Woods, H., & Pincebourde, S.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-08-08
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2932-2939
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2138677176
- Cited by
- 629
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Microclimatic challenges in global change biology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.12257
- The paper
- Potter, K. A., Arthur Woods, H., & Pincebourde, S. (2013). Microclimatic challenges in global change biology. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12257
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.