I the face of rapid climate change, physically heterogeneous landscapes, with different abiotic environments in close proximity, play an important role (Lawler et al. 2015), given that they are expected to promote biological diversity in a changing climate for two distinct reasons. First, heterogeneous landscapes produce a diversity of conditions suitable for species with different niche requirements and functional strategies (Kreft and Jetz 2007). The resulting biological diversity serves as a “portfolio” strategy as environmental conditions change, as such variety increases the chances that at least some of the species will be well suited to future conditions (Figge 2004). Second, heterogeneous landscapes reduce the distances that species must move to track suitable conditions, effectively reducing the velocity of climate change (Loarie et al. 2009; Ackerly et al. 2010); this should enhance the persistence of species that are able to find appropriate conditions within reach of their dispersal capacity. This prediction is supported by patterns of endemic diversity (Sandel et al. 2011) and local extinction rates observed in the 20th century (Suggitt et al. 2018). Because they contain a wide range of microclimatic conditions, heterogeneous landscapes are also expected to harbor climate refugia (Ashcroft 2010; Hannah et al. 2014; Morelli et al. 2017). Although defining climate refugia remains a subject of debate (Keppel et al. 2012; Morelli et al. 2020), we focus on the landscape scale, and on whether species occupying cool and/or moist locations will be more vulnerable to a warming climate than species in warm and/or dry locations. Cool microsites are often viewed as potential refugia (eg Gollan et al. 2014), given that they harbor species adapted to cooler climates, but this notion has also been called into question because these particular species may be the most vulnerable to further warming. At the same time, warm and dry locations within a landscape will become even warmer in the future and will exceed the historical range of variability for the site, and as such species occupying these sites are likely to encounter intolerable conditions in the future. In the context of the papers in this Special Issue, however, we are unable to evaluate whether some sites along this continuum will be buffered and experience less change than others in response to regional climate change (see below). To evaluate the vulnerability of cool versus warm microsites, we considered the plant community within a specific landscape in relation to the overall geographic and climatic Topoclimates, refugia, and biotic responses to climate change

中文翻译：

---

气候变化、避难所和生物对气候变化的反应

面对快速的气候变化，物理上异质的景观，不同的非生物环境紧密相连，发挥着重要作用（Lawler 等人，2015 年），因为它们有望在不断变化的气候中促进生物多样性，原因有两个。首先，异质景观产生了适合具有不同生态位需求和功能策略的物种的多样性条件（Kreft 和 Jetz 2007）。随着环境条件的变化，由此产生的生物多样性可作为“组合”策略，因为这种多样性增加了至少某些物种非常适合未来条件的机会（Figge 2004）。其次，异质景观减少了物种为追踪合适条件而必须移动的距离，有效地降低了气候变化的速度（Loarie 等人，2017 年）。2009; 阿克利等人。2010); 这将增强能够在其传播能力范围内找到适当条件的物种的持久性。这一预测得到了地方性多样性模式（Sandel 等人，2011 年）和 20 世纪观察到的当地灭绝率（Suggitt 等人，2018 年）的支持。因为它们包含广泛的小气候条件，异质景观也有望成为气候避难所（Ashcroft 2010; Hannah et al. 2014; Morelli et al. 2017）。尽管定义气候避难所仍然是一个有争议的话题（Keppel 等人，2012 年；Morelli 等人，2020 年），但我们关注的是景观尺度，以及占据凉爽和/或潮湿地区的物种是否比气候变暖更容易受到气候变暖的影响。温暖和/或干燥地区的物种。凉爽的微型站点通常被视为潜在的避难所（例如 Gollan 等人，2014 年），因为它们拥有适应凉爽气候的物种，但这一概念也受到质疑，因为这些特定物种可能最容易受到进一步变暖的影响。同时，景观中温暖干燥的地点在未来会变得更加温暖，并将超过该地点的历史变化范围，因此占据这些地点的物种在未来可能会遇到无法忍受的情况。然而，在本期特刊的论文中，我们无法评估沿该连续体的某些站点是否会受到缓冲，并且在响应区域气候变化时会比其他站点经历更少的变化（见下文）。为了评估冷微网站与暖微网站的脆弱性，