maintainer: Anita Risch

en: ecosystem-functions grazing swiss-national-park vertebrates exclusion ecosystem-multifunctionality grassland invertebrates ecosystem-coupling subalpine

en: Datafile

en:
ID: Plot ID composited of Fence & Treatment number (90 plots total)

Grassland: Name of the six subalpine grasslands where the exclosure setups were erected. In large grasslands (GRIM, MING, STAB), we established four hierarchical exclosure setups (two in short- and two in tall-grass vegetation), whereas in the small grasslands (BOTS, DADA, MARG) only one setup was erected per vegetation type. BOTS = Val dal Botsch, GRIM = Grimmels, MING = Val Mingér, STAB = Alp Stabelchod, DADA = Stabelchod da daint, MARG = Margunet

Fence: Number of exclosure setup (1 - 18). Note that uneven numbers (1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17) represent setups established on short-grass vegetation, even numbers (2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18) setups established in tall-grass vegetation
Vegetation	Vegetation type, 1 = short-grass vegetation, 2 = tall-grass vegetation; (9 replicate fences on each vegetation type)
Treatment	Progressive animal exclusion, numbers indicate which animals had access to the plot: 1 = Large/medium/small mammals, and invertebrates have access ("L/M/S/I"), 2 = Medium/small mammals, and invertebrates have access (“M/S/I”), 3 = Small mammals and invertebrates have access (“S/I”), 4 = Invertebrates have access (“I”), 5 = No animals have access (“None”)

Bulkden:	Fine fraction soil bulk density (g cm-3)

Soil.moist	: Soil moisture (%)

Soil.org.C: Rhizosphere soil C content (%)

pH: Soil pH

Nema.PC1: First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil nematode community composition

Nema.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil nematode community composition

Micro.PC1: 	First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil microbial community composition

Micro.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil microbial community composition

Abv.Inv.PC1: First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the aboveground-dwelling invertebrate community composition

Abv.Inv.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the aboveground-dwelling invertebrate community composition

Arthr.PC1: First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil arthropod community composition

Arthr.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the soil arthropod community composition

Plant.PC1: First principal component (PC1) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the plant community composition

Plant.PC2: Second principal component (PC2) of principal component analysis (PCA) of the plant community composition

Root.biomass: Root biomass (g m-2)

Micro.biomass	: Microbial biomass carbon (mg kg-1)

Plant.richness: Plant species richness

Plant.N: Plant tissue nitrogen content (%)

Soil.N.min: Soil net nitrogen mineralisation (kg ha-1 season)

Soil.resp: Soil carbon dioxide emissions (soil respiration; g m-2 h-1)

en:
This dataset contains all data on which the following publication below is based.

Paper Citation:
 > Risch AC, Ochoa-Hueso R, van der Putten WH, Bump JK, Busse MD, Frey B, Gwiazdowicz DJ, Page-Dumroese DS, Vandegehuchte ML, Zimmermann S, Schütz M. Size-dependent loss of aboveground animals differentially affects grassland ecosystem coupling and functions. 2018. Nature Communications 9: 3684. [doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06105-4](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06105-4).

Please cite this paper together with the citation for the datafile.

#Methods
Study sites
The experimental exclosure setups were installed within the SNP (IUCN category Ia preserve; Dudley 2008), in south-eastern Switzerland. The park covers 172 km2 of forests and subalpine and alpine grasslands along with scattered rock outcrops and scree slopes. The entire area has been protected from human impact (no hunting, fishing, camping or off-trail hiking) since 1914. Large, fairly homogenous patches of short- and tall-grass vegetation, which originate from different historical management and grazing regimes, cover the park’s subalpine grasslands entirely. Short-grass vegetation developed in areas where cattle used to rest (nutrient input) prior to the park’s foundation (14th century to 1914) (Schütz and others 2003, 2006) and is dominated by lawn grass species such as Festuca rubra L., Briza media L. and Agrostis capillaris L. (Schütz and others 2003, 2006). Today, this vegetation type is intensively grazed by diverse vertebrate and invertebrate communities that inhabit the park and consume up to 60% of the available biomass (Risch and others 2013). Tall-grass vegetation developed where cattle formerly grazed, but did not rest, and is dominated by rather nutrient-poor tussocks of Carex sempervirens Vill. and Nardus stricta L. (Schütz and others 2003, 2006). This vegetation type receives considerably less grazing, with only roughly 20% of the biomass consumed (Risch and others 2013). Consequently, the two vegetation types together represent a long-term trajectory of changes in grazing regimes. Underlying bedrock of all grasslands is dolomite, which renders these grasslands rather poor in nutrients regardless of former and current land-use regimes.
Experimental design
To progressively exclude aboveground vertebrate and invertebrate animals, we established 18 size-selective exclosure setups (nine in short-grass, nine in tall-grass vegetation) distributed over six subalpine grasslands across the SNP (Risch and others 2013, 2015). Elevation differences of exclosure locations did not exceed 350 m (between 1975 and 2300 m a.s.l.). The exclosures were established immediately after snowmelt in spring 2009 and were left in place for five consecutive growing seasons (until end of 2013). They were, however, temporarily dismantled every fall (late October after first snowfall) to protect them from avalanches. They were re-established in the same location every spring immediately after snowmelt. Each size-selective exclosure setup consisted of five plots (2 x 3 m) that progressively excluded aboveground vertebrates and invertebrates from large to small. The plots are labelled according to the guilds that had access to them “L/M/S/I”, “M/S/I”, “S/I”, “I”, “None”; L = large mammals, M = medium mammals, S = small mammals, I = invertebrates, None = no animals had access. As we only had permission to have the experimental setup in place for five consecutive growing seasons, the experiment had to be completely dismantled in the late fall of 2013 and all material removed from the SNP.
Our exclosure design was aimed at excluding mammalian herbivores, but naturally also excluded the few medium and small mammalian predators, as well as the entire aboveground invertebrate food web. A total of 26 large to small mammal species can be found in the SNP, but large apex predators are missing (wolf, bear, lynx) . Reptiles, amphibians and birds are scarce to absent in the subalpine grasslands under study. Only two reptile species occur in the park and they are confined to rocky areas that warm up enough for them to survive. One frog species spawns in an isolated pond far from our grasslands. Only three bird species occasionally feed on the subalpine grasslands. Using game cameras (Moultrie 6MP Game Spy I-60 Infrared Digital Game Camera, Moultrie Feeders, Alabaster, AL, USA), we did observe that the medium- and small-sized mammals (marmot/hares and mice) were not afraid to enter the fences and feed on their designated plots. We never spotted reptiles, amphibians or birds on camera. We distinguished between 59 higher aboveground-dwelling invertebrate taxa that our size-selective exclosures excluded (see also methods for aboveground-dwelling invertebrates below).
The “L/M/S/I” plot (not fenced) was located at least 5 m from the 2.1 m tall and 7 x 9 m large main electrical fence that enclosed the other four plots. The bottom wire of this fence was mounted at 0.5 m height and was not electrified to enable safe access for medium and small mammals, while fencing out the large ones. Within each main fence, we randomly established four 2 x 3 m plots separated by 1-m wide walkways from one another and from the main fence line: 1) the “M/S/I” plots were unfenced, allowing access to all but the large mammals; 2) the “S/I” plots (10 x 10 cm electrical mesh fence) excluded all medium-sized mammals. Note that the bottom 10 cm of this fence remained non-electrified to enable safe access for small mammals; 3) the “I” plots (2 x 2 cm metal mesh fence) excluded all mammals. We double-folded the mesh at the bottom 50 cm to reduce the mesh size to smaller than 1 x 1 cm openings; and 4) the “None” plots were surrounded by a 1 m tall mosquito net (1.5 x 2 mm) to exclude all animals. The top of the plot was covered with a mosquito-meshed wooden frame mounted to the corner posts (roof). We treated these plots a few times with biocompatible insecticide (Clean kill original, Eco Belle GmbH, Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany) to remove insects that might have entered during data collection or that hatched from the soil, but amounts were negligible and did not impact soil moisture conditions within these plots.
To assess whether the design of the “None” exclosure (mesh and roof) affected the response variables within the plots and, therefore, influenced the results, we established an additional six “micro-climate control” exclosures (one in each of the six grasslands) (Risch and others 2013, 2015). These exclosures were built as the “None” exclosures but were open at the bottom (20 cm) of the 3-m side of the fence facing away from the prevailing wind direction to allow invertebrates to enter. A 20-cm high and 3-m long strip of metal mesh was used to block access to small mammals. Thus, this construction allowed a comparable micro-climate to the “None” plots, but also a comparable feeding pressure by invertebrates to the “I” plots. We compared various properties within these exclosures against one another to assess if our construction altered the conditions in the “None” plots. We showed that differences in plant (e.g., vegetation height, aboveground biomass) and soil properties (e.g., soil temperature, moisture) found between the “I” and the “None” treatments were not due to the construction of the “None” exclosure, but a function of animal exclusions, although the amount of UV light reaching the plant canopy was significantly reduced (Risch and others 2013).
Aboveground invertebrate sampling
Aboveground invertebrates were sampled with two different methods to capture both ground- and plant-dwelling organisms: 1) we randomly placed two pitfall traps (67 mm in diameter, covered with a roof) filled with 20% propylene glycol in one 1 x 1 m subplot of the 2 x 3 m treatment plots in spring 2013 (May) and emptied them every two weeks until late September 2013 (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b, 2018). A pitfall trap consisted of a plastic cylinder (13 cm depth, 6.75 cm diameter). Within each cylinder we placed a 100 ml plastic vial with outer diameter 6.70 cm and on top of the cylinder we placed a plastic funnel to guide the invertebrates into the vials. Each trap was cover with a cone-shaped and transparent plastic roof to protect the trap from rain (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b, 2018). Note that in the “None” plots only one trap was placed as control to check for effectiveness of the exclosure. 2) We vacuumed all invertebrates from a 60 x 60 cm area on another 1 x 1 m subplot with a suction sampler (Vortis, Burkhard manufacturing CO, Ltd., Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, UK) every month from June to September 2013 (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b, 2018). For this purpose, we quickly placed a square plastic frame (60 x 60 x 40 cm) with a closable mosquito mesh sleeve attached to the top edge into the plot from the outside. The suction sample was then inserted into through the sleeve and operated for 45 s to collect the invertebrates (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b, 2018).
We sorted the ≈100 000 individuals collected with both methods by hand and identified each individual morphologically to the lowest taxonomic level feasible (59 taxa, including orders, suborders, subfamilies, families; phylum for Mollusca). These taxa belonged to the following feeding types: 19 herbivores, 16 detritivores, 9 predators, 8 mixed feeders, 5 omnivores and 2 non-classified feeders (or not feeding as adults) (Vandegehuchte and others 2017b). We summed the numbers from the two pitfall traps and the suction sampling over the course of the 2013 season to represent the aboveground invertebrate abundance and community composition of a plot. Note: we did not specifically attempt to catch flying invertebrates with e.g., sticky traps, thus a few flying insects may have been missed with our vacuum sampling approach.
Sampling of plant properties
The vascular plant species composition was assessed at peak biomass every summer (July) by estimating the frequency of occurrence of each species with the pin count method in each plot (Frank and McNaughton 1990). A total of 172 taxa occurred within our 90 plots and we calculated plant species richness for each plot separately. We used the 2013 data in this study. Plant quality was assessed every year in July and September; here we use plant quality at the end of the experiment (September 2013). Two 10 x 100 cm wide strips of vegetation per plot were clipped, combined, dried at 65°C, and ground (Pulverisette 16, Fritsch, Idar-Oberstein, Germany) to pass through a 0.5 mm sieve. Twenty randomly selected samples across all treatments were analysed for N (Leco TruSpec Analyser, Leco, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA) (Vandegehuchte and others 2015). Nitrogen concentrations of the other samples were then estimated from models established for the experiment and the entire SNP relating Fourier transform-near infrared reflectance (FT-NIR) spectra to the measured values of N using a multi-purpose FT-NIR spectrometer (Bruker Optics, Fällanden, Switzerland) (Vandegehuchte and others 2015). Root biomass was sampled every fall by collecting five 2.2 cm diameter x 10 cm deep soil samples (Giddings Machine Company, Windsor, CO, USA) per plot (450 samples year-1). The samples were dried at 30 °C and roots were sorted from the sample by hand. We sorted each sample for 1 h which allowed to retrieve over 90% of all roots present in the samples (Risch and others 2013). The roots were then dried at 65 °C for 48 and weighed to the nearest mg. We averaged the values per plot and used the 2013 data only in this study.
Sampling of edaphic communities
In 2009, 2010, and 2011 we collected three composited soil samples (5 cm diameter x 10 cm depth; AMS Samplers, American Falls, ID, USA) and assessed bacterial community structure using T-RFLP profiling (Liu and others 1997; Blackwood and others 2003; Hodel and others 2014). We detected a total of 89 operational taxonomic units (OTUs). These values are in accordance with other studies reporting OTU richness (Wirthner and others 2011; Zumsteg and others 2012; Meola and others 2014) using T-RFLP profiling, a method that detects the most abundant, and thus likely, the most relevant, taxa. We averaged the data over the three years of collections for our calculations. Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) was determined with the substrate-induced method (Anderson and Domsch 1978) every fall (September) between 2009 and 2013 by collecting three mineral soil samples (5 cm diameter × 10 cm mineral soil core, AMS Samplers, American Falls, ID, USA). The three samples were combined (90 samples for each sampling year), immediately put on ice, taken to the laboratory, passed through a 2-mm sieve and stored at 4°C. Again, we only used the 2013 data in this study.
Soil samples (5 cm diameter x 10 cm depth) to extract soil arthropods were collected in June, July, and August 2011 with a soil corer lined with a plastic sleeve to ensure an undisturbed sample (total of 270 samples). The plastic line core was immediately sealed on both ends using cling film and put into a cooler. All plots were sampled within three days and the extraction of arthropods started the evening of the sampling day using a high-gradient Tullgren funnel apparatus (Crossley and Blair 1991; Vandegehuchte and others 2015). Samples were kept in the extractor for four days and the soil arthropods were collected in 95% ethanol. All individuals were counted and each individual was identified morphologically to the lowest level feasible [76 taxa, including orders, suborders, subfamilies, families (Protura, Thysanoptera, Aphidina, Psylina, Coleoptera, Brachycera, Nematocera, Auchenorryncha, Heteroptera, Formicidae); sub-phylum for Myriapoda, for Acari and Collembola also including morpho-species). Note that we also included larval stages (nine of the 76 taxa) (Vandegehuchte and others 2015). All data were summed over the season. A detailed species list for mites and collembolans is published (Vandegehuchte and others 2017a) [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118679.s001]. Earthworms are rare in the SNP and therefore were not included. We collected eight random 2.2 cm diameter x 10 cm deep soil cores from each plot in September 2013 to determine the soil nematode community composition. The samples were mixed and the nematodes were extracted from 100 ml of fresh soil using Oostenbrink elutriators (Oostenbrink 1960). All nematodes in a 1 ml of the 10 ml extract were counted, a minimum of 150 individuals sample-1 were identified to genus or family level using (Bongers 1988), the numbers of all nematodes were extrapolated to the entire sample and expressed for a 100 g dry sample. In total we identified 63 genus or family levels (Vandegehuchte and others 2015). The list of all the nematodes found is published (Vandegehuchte and others 2015) [http://www.oikosjournal.org/appendix/oik-03341] or DOI: [doi: 10.1111/oik.03341].
We are aware that sampling soil microbes from 2009 to 2011 and soil arthropods in 2011 was not ideal, but we are positive that this does not bias the results. Most of the parameters measured in our experiment either already showed a treatment response after the first growing season (e.g., plant biomass) or did not respond over the entire time experiment (e.g., microbial biomass C). The microbial community composition (2009 – 2011) was highly influenced by inter-annual differences in temperature and precipitation, but did not differ between treatments or vegetation types (Hodel and others 2014). We therefore felt comfortable using the 2009 through 2011 data for describing the soil microbial community in our experimental treatments. Similarly, we are positive that our soil arthropod data are representative. We did assess soil arthropods in August 2012 and found no differences to the August 2011 data. However, we did not feel comfortable combining the 2011 June, July, August data with only August data for 2012 for our analyses.
Sampling of soil properties
We collected three soil samples (5 cm diameter x 10 cm depth) in each plot in September 2013 after removing the vegetation. First, we collected the top layer of mineral soil rich in organic matter, the surface organic layer or rhizosphere, typically 1 to 3 cm in depth with a soil corer (AMS Samples, American Falls, Idaho, USA). Second, we collected a 10 cm mineral soil core beneath this surface layer. The cores for each layer were composited, dried at 65 °C for 48 h and fine-ground to pass a 0.5 mm screen. We then analysed all samples for total C using a Leco TruSpec Analyser (Leco, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA). Mineral soil pH was measured potentiometrically in 1:2 soil:CaCl2 solution with an equilibration time of 30 min.
Soil net N mineralisation was assessed during the 2013 growing season (Risch and others 2015). For this purpose, we randomly collected a 5 cm diameter x10 cm deep soil sample with a soil corer (AMS Samples, American Falls, Idaho, USA) after clipping the vegetation in June 2013. After weighing and sieving (4 mm mesh) the soil, we extracted a 20 g subsample in 1 mol l-1 KCl for 1.5 h on an end-over-end shaker and thereafter filtered it through ashless folded filter paper (DF 5895 150, ALBET LabScience, Hahnenmühle FineArt GmbH, Dassel, Germany). From these filtrates NO3- concentrations were measured colorimetrically (Norman and Stucki 1981) and NH4+with flow injection analysis (FIAS 300, Perkin Elmer, Waltham Massachusetts, USA) (Risch and others 2015). We dried the rest of the sample 105 °C to constant mass to determine fine,fraction bulk density. A second soil sample was collected within each plot in June 2013 with a corer lined with a 5 x 13 cm aluminium cylinder. The corer was driven 11.5 cm deep into the soil so that the top 1.5 cm of the cylinder remained empty. Into this space we placed a polyester bag (250 µm) filled an ion-exchanger resin to capture the incoming N. The bag was filled with a 1:1 mixture of acidic and alkaline exchanger resin (ion-exchanger I KA/ion exchanger IIIAA, Merck AG, Darmstadt, Germany). We then removed 1.5 cm soil at the bottom of the cylinder and placed a second resin exchanger bag into this space to capture the N leached from the soil column. To assure that the exchange resin was saturated with H+ and Cl- prior to filling the bags, the mixture was stirred with 1.2 ml l-1 HCl for 1 h and then rinsed with demineralized water until the electrical conductivity of the water reached 5 µm cm-1. The cylinder with the resin bags in place was reinserted into the soil with the top flush to the soil surface and incubated for three months. We recollected the cylinders in September 2013. Each resin bag and 20 g of sieved soil (4 mm mesh) from each cylinder were then separately extracted with KCl and NO3- and NH4+ concentrations were measured. Nitrate and NH4+ concentrations of all samples were then converted to a content basis by multiplying their values with fine fraction bulk density. Net N mineralisation was thereafter calculated as the difference between the N content of the samples collected at the end of the three-month incubation (including the N extracted from the bottom resin bag) and the N content at the beginning of the incubation (Risch and others 2015).
Soil CO2 emissions were measured every two weeks between 0900 and 1700 hrs from early May through late September 2013 with a PP-Systems SRC-1 soil respiration chamber (15 cm high, 10 cm diameter; closed circuit) attached to a PP-Systems EGM-4 infrared gas analyser (PP-Systems, Amesbury, MA, USA) on two locations per plot (Risch and others 2013). The chamber was placed on randomly placed, permanently installed PVC collars (10 cm diameter) driven 5 cm into the soil at the beginning of the study (Risch and others 2013). Freshly germinated plants growing within the collars were removed prior to each measurement to avoid measuring plant respiration or photosynthesis. The two measurements collected per plot and sampling date were averaged.
Soil moisture (with time domain reflectometry; Field-Scout TDR-100, Spectrum Technologies, Plainfield, Illionois, USA) and temperature (with a waterproof digital pocket thermometer; Barnstead International, Dubuque, Iowa, USA) were measured at five random locations per plot every two weeks during the growing seasons during the experiment for the 0 to 10 cm depth (Risch and others 2013, 2015). As soil moisture and soil temperature were highly negatively correlated (Risch and others 2013), we only used soil moisture for this study. We used plot-level averages of all values available to capture soil moisture variability during the five years of the experiment. The results remained unchanged when we only used soil moisture from the 2013 growing season.
Numeral calculations and statistical analyses
Ecosystem coupling. We conducted principal component analyses (PCAs; unscaled) at the complete dataset level using the abundances of each taxonomical entity to describe each of the five different communities used in this study: aboveground-dwelling invertebrates, vascular plants, soil microorganisms, soil arthropods and soil nematodes. We retained the first two components (PCA axis 1 and PCA axis 2) of each analysis as we found them to adequately represent the temporal and spatial variability of our 90 treatment plots in previous studies55,67. Together they explained a total of 71.70% of the variation for aboveground invertebrates, 44.36% for plants, 44.85% for soil microorganisms, 61.85% for soil arthropods and 77.19% for soil nematodes. In addition, we used soil pH and soil organic C content as a proxy for soil chemical properties, soil bulk density as a proxy for soil physical properties and soil moisture (negatively correlated with soil temperature) as a proxy for soil micro-climatic conditions for an overall total of fourteen constituents.
We calculated ecosystem coupling9 for each exclosure treatment within each vegetation type (i.e., 2  5 treatment combinations in total) as an integrated measure of pairwise ecological interactions between ecosystem constituents representing ecological communities and the soil abiotic environment. These ecological interactions are defined by non-parametric Spearman rank correlation analyses between two constituents, excluding interactions involving two abiotic constituents (e.g., soil pH vs. soil moisture) and interactions between the first (PC1) and second (PC2) component of each community type, as these are orthogonal by definition. Interactions between abiotic constituents were excluded from the analyses because the focus of our study was on communities and how they interact with one another and their surrounding environment; therefore, including abiotic-abiotic interactions was not of interest here. Given that the effectiveness of our experimental design resulted in that no community composition data of aboveground-dwelling invertebrates was available for the “None” plots (all animals excluded), only thirteen instead of fourteen constituents were included in the ecosystem coupling calculations for this treatment. The complete absence of aboveground invertebrates represents the most extreme case of disturbance between aboveground animal communities and the rest of the ecosystem constituents. This may have resulted in a slight overestimation of ecosystem coupling for these plots.
	Average ecosystem coupling was calculated as follows:
Ecosystem coupling=
where Xi is the absolute Coupling was calculated value of the Spearman’s rho coefficient of the ith correlation for each treatment within each vegetation type (i.e., based on nine replicates each), considering and n is the number of pairwise comparisons considered (n = a total of 80; interactions (56 in the case of the “None” treatment). We considered a total of 40 biotic-biotic interactions (i.e., concerning two community-level principal components such as plants and microbes; 24 in the case of the “None” treatment) and 40 abiotic-biotic (i.e., concerning one community-level principal component and one abiotic factor, e.g., plant community and soil properties; 32 in the case of the “None” treatment).	Coupling was calculated for each treatment within each vegetation type (i.e., based on nine replicates each), considering a total of 80 interactions (56 in the case of the “None” treatment). We considered a total of 40 biotic-biotic interactions (i.e., concerning two community-level principal components such as plants and microbes; 24 in the case of the “None” treatment) and 40 abiotic-biotic (i.e., concerning one community-level principal component and one abiotic factor, e.g., plant community and soil properties; 32 in the case of the “None” treatment).
To establish whether constituents were significantly and positively coupled within treatments (i.e., the average of their correlation coefficients were greater than in a null model where correlation only happens by chance), we calculated one-tailed p-values based on permutation tests with 999 permutations.

We considered six ecosystem functions and process rates commonly used to assess ecosystem functioning (Meyer and others 2015; Manning and others 2018). Plant N content represents a measure of forage quality, while plant richness has been shown to stabilise biomass production, thus allowing the system to respond to changes in herbivory. Soil net N mineralisation, soil respiration, root biomass, and microbial biomass represent fluxes or stocks of energy. For all functions and processes higher values represent higher functioning (Manning and others 2018). All these variables were measured in the last year of the experiment (2013). We then quantified ecosystem multifunctionality using the multiple threshold approach (Byrnes and others 2014; Manning and others 2018), which considers the number of functions that are above a certain threshold, over a series of threshold values (typically 10-99%) that are defined based on the maximum value of each function. We weighted all our functions equally for these calculations (Manning and others 2018). The number of functions in a plot with values higher than a given threshold value for the respective function is summed up. The sum represents ecosystem multifunctionality for that plot. Given that choosing any particular threshold as a measure of ecosystem multifunctionality is arbitrary, we calculated the average of thresholds from 10-90% (in 10% intervals) as a more integrated representation of ecosystem multifunctionality.
We used Pearson correlations to explore the relationships between ecosystem coupling (all interactions, biotic-biotic interactions, abiotic-biotic interactions involving above- and belowground constituents, and all interactions, biotic-biotic interactions, abiotic-biotic interactions involving belowground constituents only) and ecosystem multifunctionality by calculating the slopes of all relationships between ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality for all thresholds between 10 and 99%. We also related ecosystem coupling with the average of multifunctionality at thresholds between 30-80% as explained before and considered this correlation as a robust indication of the type of association between these two variables. In addition, we explored the relationships between ecosystem coupling (all interactions, biotic-biotic interactions, abiotic-biotic interactions involving above- and belowground constituents, and all interactions, biotic-biotic interactions, abiotic-biotic interactions involving belowground constituents only) and individual ecosystem functions. The effects of exclosures and vegetation type on individual functions and multifunctionality were evaluated using linear mixed effects models ('lme' function of the nlme package), with exclosure and vegetation type as fixed effects and fence as a random factor. All statistical analyses and numerical calculations were done in R version 3.4.0 (R Core Team 2016).

#References

- Anderson J, Domsch K. 1978. A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 10:215–21.
- Blackwood CB, Marsh T, Kim S-H, Paul EA. 2003. Terminal Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Data Analysis for Quantitative Comparison of Microbial Communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:926–32. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC143601/
- Bongers T. 1988. De nematoden von Nederland. Schoorl, The Netherlands: Pirola
- Byrnes JEK, Gamfeldt L, Isbell F, Lefcheck JS, Griffin JN, Hector A, Cardinale BJ, Hooper DU, Dee LE, Duffy JE. 2014. Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: Challenges and solutions. Methods Ecol Evol 5:111–24.
- Crossley DAJ, Blair JM. 1991. A high-efficiency low-technology Tulgren-type extractor for soil microarthopods. Agric Ecosyst Environ 34:187–92.
- Dudley N. 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area managment categories. Gland: IUCN
- Frank DA, McNaughton SJ. 1990. Aboveground biomass estimation with the canopy intercept method: A plant growth form caveat. Oikos 57:57–60.
- Haynes AG, Schütz M, Buchmann N, Page-Dumroese DS, Busse MD, Risch AC. 2014. Linkages between grazing history and herbivore exclusion on decomposition rates in mineral soils of subalpine grasslands. Plant Soil 374.
- Hodel M, Schütz M, Vandegehuchte ML, Frey B, Albrecht M, Busse MD, Risch AC. 2014. Does the aboveground herbivore assemblage influence soil bacterial community composition and richness in subalpine grasslands? Microb Ecol 68:584–95.
- Liu WT, Marsh TL, Cheng H, Forney LJ. 1997. Characterization of microbial diversity by determining terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms of genes encoding 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4516–22. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC168770/
- Manning P, van der Plas F, Soliveres S, Allan E, Maestre FT, Mace G, Whittingham MJ, Fischer M. 2018. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat Ecol Evol 2:427–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0461-7
- Meola M, Lazzaro A, Zeyer J. 2014. Diversity, resistance and resilience of the bacterial communities at two alpine glacier forefields after a reciprocal soil transplantation. Environ Microbiol 16:1918–34. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1462-2920.12435
- Meyer ST, Koch C, Weisser WW. 2015. Towards a standardized Rapid Ecosystem Function Assessment (REFA). Trends Ecol Evol 30:390–7. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534715000968
- Norman R., Stucki JW. 1981. The determination of nitrate and nitrite in soil extracts by ultraviolet spectrophotometry. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:347–53.
- Ochoa-Hueso R. 2016. Non-linear disruption of ecological interactions in response to nitrogen deposition. Ecology 87:2802–2814.
- Oostenbrink M. 1960. Estimating nematode populations by some selected methods. In: Sasser NJ, Jenkins WR, editors. Nematology. Chapel Hill, NC, USA: University of North Carolina Press. pp 85–101.
- R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing
- Risch AC, Haynes AG, Busse MD, Filli F, Schütz M. 2013. The response of soil CO2 fluxes to progressively excluding vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores depends on ecosystem type. Ecosystems 16:1192–202.
- Risch AC, Schütz M, Vandegehuchte ML, Van Der Putten WH, Duyts H, Raschein U, Gwiazdowicz DJ, Busse MD, Page-Dumroese DS, Zimmermann S. 2015. Aboveground vertebrate and invertebrate herbivore impact on net N mineralization in subalpine grasslands. Ecology 96:3312–22.
- Schütz M, Risch AC, Achermann G, Thiel-Egenter C, Page-Dumroese DS, Jurgensen MF, Edwards PJ. 2006. Phosphorus translocation by red deer on a subalpine grassland in the Central European Alps. Ecosystems 9:624–633.
- Schütz M, Risch AC, Leuzinger E, Krüsi BO, Achermann G. 2003. Impact of herbivory by red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) on patterns and processes in subalpine grasslands in the Swiss National Park. For Ecol Manage 181:177–88.
- Vandegehuchte ML, van der Putten WH, Duyts H, Schütz M, Risch AC. 2017a. Aboveground mammal and invertebrate exclusions cause consistent changes in soil food webs of two subalpine grassland types, but mechanisms are system-speciﬁc. Oikos 126:212–23.
- Vandegehuchte ML, Raschein U, Schütz M, Gwiazdowicz DJ, Risch AC. 2015. Indirect short- and long-term effects of aboveground invertebrate and vertebrate herbivores on soil microarthropod communities. PLoS One 10:e0118679.
- Vandegehuchte ML, Schütz M, de Schaetzen F, Risch AC. 2017b. Mammal-induced trophic cascades in invertebrate food webs are modulated by grazing intensity in subalpine grassland. J Anim Ecol 86:1434–46.
- Vandegehuchte ML, Trivellone V, Schütz M, Firn J, de Schaetzen F, Risch AC. 2018. Mammalian herbivores affect leafhoppers associated with specific plant functional types at different timescales. Funct Ecol 32:545–55.
- Wirthner S, Frey B, Busse MD, Schütz M, Risch AC. 2011. Effects of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) rooting on the bacterial community structure in mixed-hardwood forest soils in Switzerland. Eur J Soil Biol 47:296–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.07.003
- Zumsteg A, Luster J, Göransson H, Smittenberg RH, Brunner I, Bernasconi SM, Zeyer J, Frey B. 2012. Bacterial, Archaeal and Fungal Succession in the Forefield of a Receding Glacier. Microb Ecol 63:552–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-011-9991-8

ecosystem-coupling

display_name: ecosystem-coupling

ecosystem-functions

display_name: ecosystem-functions

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

exclusion

display_name: exclusion

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


maintainer: EnviDat

en: research-data-management metadata-convention csv nead meteorological-data-format

state: active

type: dataset

en: MeteoIO (future reference implementation)

media_type: text/html

format: HTML

mimetype: text/html

en: PyNEAD (future reference implementation)

format: SERVICE

en: NEAD on GitHub

media_type: HTML

en: NEAD syntax v0.1 (EBNF)

media_type: text/plain

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en:
Acknowledgement: The NEAD format includes NetCDF metadata and is proudly inspired by both SMET and NetCDF formats. NEAD is designed as a long-term data preservation and exchange format.

The NEAD specifications were presented at the "WMO Data Conference 2020 - Earth System Data Exchange in the 21st Century" (Virtual Conference).

-----------------------

Summary:
The Non-Binary Environmental Data Archive (NEAD) format is being developed as a generic and intuitive format that combines the self-documenting features of NetCDF with human readable and writeable features of CSV. It is designed for exchange and preservation of time series data in environmental data repositories.

License: The NEAD specifications are released to the public domain under a Creative Commons 4.0 CC0 "No Rights Reserved" international license. You can reuse the information contained herein in any way you want, for any purposes and without restrictions.

csv

display_name: csv

metadata-convention

display_name: metadata-convention

meteorological-data-format

display_name: meteorological-data-format

nead

display_name: nead

research-data-management

display_name: research-data-management

education

fr: Education, science

de: Bildung, Wissenschaft

en: Education and science

it: Formazione e scienza

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

fr: EnviDat est le portail de données du WSL; il offre un accès uniformisé et réglementé aux données de surveillance et de recherche en matière d’environnement. Ce portail est capable d’héberger et de publier des ensembles de données précieuses et uniques, qui sont partagées aux quatre coins de la planète. Ce faisant, EnviDat favorise la recherche et contribue à l’avancement des sciences environnementales.

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.

de: EnviDat ist das Datenportal der WSL für einen einheitlichen und verwalteten Zugang zu Umweltdaten aus Monitoring- und Forschungsprojekten. Auf dem Portal können Datensätze gehostet und veröffentlicht werden. Durch die weltweite Bereitstellung einzigartiger und wertvoller Datensätze leistet EnviDat einen Beitrag zur Forschung im Bereich der Umweltwissenschaften.

it: EnviDat è il portale dati del WSL che fornisce un accesso unificato e gestito ai dati di monitoraggio ambientale e di ricerca. Il portale ha la capacità di ospitare e pubblicare serie di dati preziosi e unici che vengono condivisi in tutto il mondo. Così facendo, EnviDat promuove la ricerca e contribuisce al progresso della scienza ambientale.

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester

en: Non-Binary Environmental Archive Data (NEAD) format


maintainer: EnviDat Support

en: wind-direction raclets wind wind-speed anemometer wind-velocity

en: Sonic temperature

media_type: npy

en: The data set contains values of temperature (°C) measured with the anemometer at a sampling frequency of 20 Hz.

en: Sonic wind component u

en:
The data contains values for u direction of the wind in a sampling frequency of 20 Hz.
Erroneour spikes were filterd in two steps.

1. Define moving window uₓ = u(i-3:i+3)
2. If u(i)-mean(uₓ) > 2*std(uₓ):u(i) = NaN

Frozen detectors resulted in continuous zero values (not filtered).
The wind speed and direction were calculated as follows:

wind speed = sqrt(u² + v²)
wind direction = 180° + (180° / PI)* arctan2 (-u, -v)

en: Sonic wind component w

en:
The data contains values for w direction of the wind in a sampling frequency of 20 Hz.
Erroneour spikes were filterd in two steps.

1. Define moving window uₓ = u(i-3:i+3)
2. If u(i)-mean(uₓ) > 2*std(uₓ):u(i) = NaN

Frozen detectors resulted in continuous zero values (not filtered).
The wind speed and direction were calculated as follows:

wind speed = sqrt(u² + v²)
wind direction = 180° + (180° / PI)* arctan2 (-u, -v)

en: Sonic wind component v

en:
The data contains values for v direction of the wind in a sampling frequency of 20 Hz.
Erroneour spikes were filterd in two steps.

1. Define moving window uₓ = u(i-3:i+3)
2. If u(i)-mean(uₓ) > 2*std(uₓ):u(i) = NaN

Frozen detectors resulted in continuous zero values (not filtered).
The wind speed and direction were calculated as follows:

wind speed = sqrt(u² + v²)
wind direction = 180° + (180° / PI)* arctan2 (-u, -v)

en: Sonic time

en: The data set contains the time in YYYY-mm-dd HH:MM:SS.sss for the anemometer data. The time is given in UTC+1.

en: A Young 81000 sonic anemomenter was deployed at Gotschnagrat (LON: 46.859 LAT: 9.849) to record three components of the wind velocity (u, v, w in [m s‾ ¹]) and air temperature (Ts in [°C]). The anemomenter was mounted in direction North at a height of 1.5 m above snow surface at the beginning. The time within each data set is given in UTC+1. Instrument specifications can be found [here](http://www.youngusa.com/Manuals/81000-90(I).pdf) .

anemometer

display_name: anemometer

raclets

display_name: raclets

wind

display_name: wind

wind-direction

display_name: wind-direction

wind-speed

display_name: wind-speed

wind-velocity

display_name: wind-velocity

en: Snow Drift Station - 3D Ultrasonic


maintainer: Ionuț Iosifescu Enescu

en: map 2GB

media_type: image/tiff

format: TIFF

mimetype: image/tiff

en: map 0.2GB

en: huge map 100GB

en: map 0.5GB

en: large map 10GB

en: Bulk Data Access

en: Link to the S3 bucket where all the data resources can be downloaded in bulk

en: map preview 0.5MB

media_type: image/jpeg

mimetype: image/jpeg

en: map 1GB

en:
The attached data are some large GIS raster files (GeoTIFFs) made with Natural Earth data. Natural Earth is a free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com. The data used for creating these large files was the "Cross Blended Hypso with Shaded Relief and Water". Data was concatenated to achieve larger and larger files. Internal pyramids were created, in order that the files can be opened easily in a GIS software such as QGIS or by a (future) GIS data visualisation module integrated in EnviDat.

Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com

gis

display_name: gis

large-files

display_name: large-files

natural-earth

display_name: natural-earth

qgis

display_name: qgis

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Large GIS raster data derived from Natural Earth Data (Cross Blended Hypso with Shaded Relief and Water)


en: davos radiation longwave-radiation weisfluhjoch shortwave-radiation

en: Parameter file

en: Description of ASRB parameters.

en: Metadata

media_type: application/pdf

format: PDF

mimetype: application/pdf

en: DATA ACCESS

media_type: SMET

en: ASRB radiation station at the Weissfluhjoch versuchsfeld.

en: Processing doc

en: Description of processing code that was ported to R by P. Frei (2016).

en:
Incoming and outgoing shortwave and longwave 2 min radiation measurements at the Weissfluhjoch research site, Davos, CH. The experimental site at the Weissfluhjoch (WFJ, 46.83 N, 9.81 E) is located at an altitude of 2540 m in the Swiss Alps near Davos. During the winter months, almost all precipitation falls as snow at this altitude. As a consequence, a continuous seasonal snow cover builds up every winter, with a maximum snow height ranging from 153–366 cm over the period 1934–2012. The measurement site is located in an almost flat part of a southeast oriented slope.

 References
1. Marty, C., Philipona, R., Frohlich, C., Ohmura, A.. Altitude dependence of surface radiation fluxes and cloud forcing in the alps: results from the alpine surface radiation budget network. 2002. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. Volume 72. Issue 3-4. 137-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s007040200019. 10.1007/s007040200019.
2. Christoph Marty. Surface Radiation, Cloud Forcing and Greenhouse Effect in the Alps. 2000. Institute fuer Klimaforschung ETH. Zuercher Klima-Schriften. Volume 79. http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:23491/eth-23491-01.pdf.

davos

display_name: davos

longwave-radiation

display_name: longwave-radiation

radiation

display_name: radiation

shortwave-radiation

display_name: shortwave-radiation

weisfluhjoch

display_name: weisfluhjoch

education

en: Education and science

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.

en: ASRB_WFJVF: Shortwave and longwave radiation measurements (2 min) at the Weissfluhjoch research site, Davos


maintainer: Frank Techel

en: avalanche-fatalities long-term-trends avalanche-accident avalanche-accident-statistics avalanche-statistics

en: Data avalanche fatalities 1969/1970 - 2014/2015

en: The data comprises avalanche fatality data from the Alpine regions in the seven countries Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, and Switzerland.

en:
During the last 45 years, about 100 people lost their lives in avalanches in the European Alps each year. Avalanche fatalities in settlements and on transportation corridors have considerably decreased since the 1970s. In contrast, the number of avalanche fatalities during recreational activities away from avalanche-secured terrain doubled between the 1960s and 1980s and has remained relatively stable since, despite a continuing strong increase in winter backcountry recreational activities.

Data complementing Figure 2 in:
_"Avalanche fatalities in the European Alps: long-term trends and statistics"_, by Techel, F., Jarry, F., Kronthaler, G., Mitterer, S., Nairz, P., Pavšek, M., Valt, M., and Darms, G.

Data description:
please refer to section 2 (Data and Methods) in the mentioned publication

avalanche-accident

display_name: avalanche-accident

avalanche-accident-statistics

display_name: avalanche-accident-statistics

avalanche-fatalities

display_name: avalanche-fatalities

avalanche-statistics

display_name: avalanche-statistics

long-term-trends

display_name: long-term-trends

en: Avalanche fatalities in the European Alps (1969/1970 - 2014/2015)


maintainer: Elisabeth Hafner

en: natural-hazard hazard-mapping snow satellite avalanche

en: SPOT6 Avalanche Outlines 16 January 2019

media_type: SHP

en: Shapefile of the manually mapped avalanche outlines. Please only use this data together with the example key document provided with this dataset and within the limitations of the dataset described in the publications.

format: SHP

en:
Outlines of 6'041 avalanches mapped from SPOT6 satellite data over the Swiss Alps on 16 January 2019. The dataset was acquired following a period with very high avalanche danger. The outlines have different attributes described in the data example key (ExampleKey_AvalMapping16012019.pdf)

The generation of the data is described in:

Bühler, Y., E. D. Hafner, B. Zweifel, M. Zesiger, and H. Heisig (2019), Where are the avalanches? Rapid SPOT6 satellite data acquisition to map an extreme avalanche period over the Swiss Alps, The Cryosphere, 13(12), 3225-3238, doi:10.5194/tc-13-3225-2019.

The data was comprehensivly validated in a subset area in

Hafner, E.D.; Techel, F.; Leinss, S.; Bühler, Y., 2021: Mapping avalanches with satellites - evaluation of performance and completeness. Cryosphere, 15, 2: 983-1004. doi: 10.5194/tc-15-983-2021

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

hazard-mapping

display_name: hazard-mapping

natural-hazard

display_name: natural-hazard

satellite

display_name: satellite

snow

display_name: snow

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: SPOT6 Avalanche outlines 16 January 2019


maintainer: Henning Löwe

en: spherical-model-snow snow-mechanics discrete-element-modelling unconfined-compression-experiments 3d-ct-images microstructure

en: Data Structure (Python Notebook)

media_type: ipynb

en: Data Structure (Python Notebook - view online)

en: Data Access

media_type: HTTPS

en:
For the investigation of microstructural and mechanical properties of snow unconfined compression experiments and 3D computed tomography (CT) imaging were performed on sintered rounded grain snow and spherical model snow. The spherical model snow was generated to create geometrically simplified, well-defined microstructures for calibration of numerical models, such as discrete element models (DEM) in which the microstructure is represented by spherical particles.
In the experiments, microstructural variation was created by varying the sintering time (contact size) and the density of the ice sphere samples (number of contacts). The 3D CT images allow for a complete reconstruction of the entire experimental sample (cylindrical sample dimension: diameter = 33.6 mm; height = 14 mm).

discrete-element-modelling

display_name: discrete-element-modelling

microstructure

display_name: microstructure

snow-mechanics

display_name: snow-mechanics

spherical-model-snow

display_name: spherical-model-snow

unconfined-compression-experiments

display_name: unconfined-compression-experiments

en: Unconfined compression experiments and 3D CT images of spherical model snow and RG snow samples


causal-effect-of-lup

title_for_slug: causal-effect-of-lup

en: land-use-change psm-did annual-effect land-use-planning plan-evaluation

en: causal-effect-of-lup

media_type: ZIP

en:
Data.dbf contains the varibles of 1662 villages in Zhangzhou Cities
PSM_DID.R can re-produce the results

format: ZIP

en:
Title: Does zoning contain built-up land expansion? Causal evidence from Zhangzhou City, China.

Research objective: Built-up land zoning is an imporatant policy measure of land use planning (LUP) to contain built-up land expansion in China. We used a difference-indifference model with propensity score matching to estimate the average and annual effect of built-up land zoning on built-up land expansion in Zhangzhou City, China between 2010 and 2020.

Data: Data.dbf contains the varibles of 1662 villages in Zhangzhou Cities in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2018, and 2020.
XZQDM2 is villages' unique administrative ID;
Area is the land area of village i;
Dis2water is the Euclidean distance from village i to the nearest waterbody;
Dis2coastl is the Euclidean distance from village i to the nearest coastline;
Dis2city is the the Euclidean distance from village i to the city center;
Dis2county is the the Euclidean distance from village i to the nearest county center;
Elevation is the the average elevation within village i;
Dis2road is the the Euclidean distance from village i to the nearest road;
Nei_Built_ is the the area of built-up land (Nei Built.upit) in the neighboring villages of village i in year t;
Treated is a binary variable, Treated = 1 to the villages that were partially or entirely located inside the development-permitted zones, and Treated = 0 to the villages that were entirely located outside the development-permitted zones;
Intensity is the percentage of land that was assigned to the development-permitted zones in village i;
Year represent the year in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2018, and 2020;
BuLE is the dependent variable, representing built-up land expansion in village i in year t;
Town is town' unique administrative ID.

Method: First, we employed propensity score matching to overcome the selection bias and satisfy the parallel trend
assumption. Second, we built four Difference-in-Difference models to estimate the average and annual effect.

annual-effect

display_name: annual-effect

land-use-change

display_name: land-use-change

land-use-planning

display_name: land-use-planning

plan-evaluation

display_name: plan-evaluation

psm-did

display_name: psm-did

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.

en: Causal effect of LUP


en: phylogenetic-diversity taxonomic-diversity soil functional-diversity grain-size ecological-indicator-values climate

en: Data access

en:
This dataset comprises a large array of ecological data for the European Alps:

  (1) Current soil and climate predictors at various resolutions.
  (2) GBIF observations of the European Alps Flora (~4,000 species).
  (3) Species habitat suitability maps (1,109 species; based on species observations filtered at 40x40-km)
  at various resolutions used in the study to generate (4); except 'expert'...
  (4) Expert, Taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity of the study region at various resolutions
  (from 100-m to 40-km --> 100-m aggregated & mean to km + non-aggregated/predicted) for CLIM,
  SOIL and CLIM-SOIL models.
  (5) Ecological and altitudinal preferences of the European Alps Flora.
  (6) Data outputs of the related published article.
  (7) All scripts used for analyses.
  (8) Additional files used for analyses.
  (9) Improved set of species habitat suitability maps (~2,600 species; based on species observations
  filtered at 1x1-km) and related taxonomic diversity at 100-m resolution (aggregated to km +
  non-aggregated/predicted) for CLIM, SOIL and CLIM-SOIL models ---> not incorporated in the study.

climate

display_name: climate

ecological-indicator-values

display_name: ecological-indicator-values

functional-diversity

display_name: functional-diversity

grain-size

display_name: grain-size

phylogenetic-diversity

display_name: phylogenetic-diversity

soil

display_name: soil

taxonomic-diversity

display_name: taxonomic-diversity

en: Resolution in species distribution models shapes spatial patterns of plant multifaceted diversity


en: land-use-change land-use-transformations spatial-planning digital-zoning-plans land-use-simulations

media_type: ascii x, y, z

en: Legend simulated maps

en:
Table of Content: 1. General context of the data set "LUSzoning”; 2. Background and aims of the study using the data set LUSzoning; 3. The data set LUSzoning.
1. General context of the data set "LUSzoning".
The data set "LUSzoning" stands for Land-use simulations integrating zoning regulations in Spanish functional urban areas. The data set has been generated as part of the CONCUR research project (https://www.wsl.ch/en/projects/concur.html) led by Dr. Anna M. Hersperger and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (ERC TBS Consolidator Grant (ID: BSCGIO 157789) for the period 2016-2021. The CONCUR research project is interdisciplinary and aims to develop a scientific basis for adequately integrating spatial policies (in this case, digital zoning plans) into quantitative land-change modelling approaches at the urban regional level.
2.	Background and aims of the study using the data set “LUSzoning”.
As part of the CONCUR project, a specific task was to integrate planning spatial policies in land-change modelling. Planning can be implemented in modelling using either hard or gradual restrictions. Different studies have addressed the inclusion of spatial planning policies in land-use change modelling. However, the integration of zoning constraints is generally established as hard or Boolean-based restrictions (e.g., whether urban development is allowed or not), while not accounting for the spatial heterogeneity or gradual characteristics within planning zones (e.g., whether planning regulations allow low, medium or high urban density), though these could improve real patterns simulations in urban areas. We assume Spanish General Zoning plans were suitable to explore the integration of planning into land-change modelling as soft constrains because they define land-use intensities in the buildable zoning areas. In light of the above considerations, the overall aim of the study was to model urban land-use changes using a multi-scenario approach that integrates digitized zoning plans for the Functional Urban Areas (FUAs) of Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, and Zaragoza. The following specific objectives were addressed: i) to analyse the role of planning by defining three future scenarios that integrate digitized zoning plans and one scenario that assumes almost no planning intervention; ii) to introduce zoning constraints that reflect different degrees of urban densities; iii) to generate a transferable spatially-explicit modelling framework to integrate planning into land-use change simulations.
Four future land-use demands scenarios were defined for the FUAs. Storylines were created considering probable development scenarios related to zoning plans, current Spanish legislation and sustainability goals defined along two axes: a high market-oriented vs. high planning-intervention axis, and an axis of short-term economic growth vs. long-term sustainable growth. The sustainable development scenario (S1) is characterized by low gross floor area (GFA) growth that is limited to areas that are currently under development according to zoning plans. The business-as-usual scenario (S2) is characterized by medium GFA growth in the range of on-going trends. The strong development scenario (S3) is characterized by high GFA growth rates. Growth is restricted to buildable areas without urbanization project designated in zoning plans. The unrestricted development scenario (S4) prioritizes a high degree of market liberalization characterized by high GFA growth that surpasses population demands. S4 follows a rapid economic growth pattern with almost no planning intervention.
3.	 The data set “LUSzoning”.
The dataset includes 16 .asc raster layers providing the simulated land-uses under four defined scenarios for Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia and Zaragoza Functional Urban Areas (FUAs) for 2030. The simulated raster layers were created using CLUMondo simulation framework and have a spatial resolution of 30m. The .asc layers name include the name of the FUA and scenario number. For example, the output from simulating the urban growth for the city of Zaragoza under Scenario 2 is named “Zaragoza_S2.tif”. Furthermore, a .txt file named “Legend.txt” includes the numeric value of the land-use and the category of land-use that represents to interpret the .asc raster layers. The name of the land-use classes is a reclassification of the Urban Atlas 2012 land-use classes within the four Spanish FUAs analyzed.

digital-zoning-plans

display_name: digital-zoning-plans

land-use-simulations

display_name: land-use-simulations

land-use-transformations

display_name: land-use-transformations

spatial-planning

display_name: spatial-planning

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: LUSzoning: Land-use simulations integrating zoning regulations in Spanish functional urban areas


maintainer: James W. Kirchner

en: streamflow groundwater snowmelt diel-cycle evapotranspiration ecohydrology sap-flow diurnal-cycle

en: Daily time series

en: Daily hydrometeorological and ecohydrological time series

en: MODIS NDSI script

en: Google Earth Engine script for computing MODIS normalized difference snow index (NDSI) values and averaging them over subcatchment areas.

en: MODIS EVI2 script

en: Google Earth Engine script for computing MODIS two-band enhanced vegetation index (EVI2) values and averaging them over subcatchments.

en: Subcatchment polygons

en: Subcatchment polygons for use in the Google Earth Engine scripts.

en: Metadata

en: Column descriptions for both data files, and map coordinates for all measurement locations.

en: 30-minute time series

en: 30-minute hydrometeorological and ecohydrological time series.

en:
Hydrometerological and ecohydrological time series from Sagehen Creek and Independence Creek, Sierra Nevada, USA, illustrating hydrological responses to daily cycles in snowmelt and evapotranspiration forcing.

Data include 30-minute time series of

- weather variables,

- sap flow fluxes,

- groundwater levels (in two riparian transects of shallow groundwater wells),

- and stream stages (at 12 sites spanning a 500-meter elevation gradient),

and daily time series of

- temperature, precipitation, and snow water equivalent at three nearby snow telemetry stations

- diel cycle index values for groundwater levels and stream stages,

- and MODIS normalized difference snow index (NDSI) and enhanced vegetation index (EVI2) values averaged over selected subcatchments.

Google Earth Engine scripts for extracting the MODIS data are also provided.

diel-cycle

display_name: diel-cycle

diurnal-cycle

display_name: diurnal-cycle

ecohydrology

display_name: ecohydrology

evapotranspiration

display_name: evapotranspiration

groundwater

display_name: groundwater

sap-flow

display_name: sap-flow

snowmelt

display_name: snowmelt

streamflow

display_name: streamflow

en: Daily cycles in solar flux, snowmelt, transpiration, groundwater, and streamflow at Sagehen and Independence Creeks, Sierra Nevada, USA


sensitivity-of-modeled-snow-instability

maintainer: Bettina Richter

title_for_slug: sensitivity-of-modeled-snow-instability

en: snow-instability numerical-avalanche-forecasting global-sensitivity-analysis snow-cover-modeling snowpack

en: Case WL

media_type: application/zip

en: Extracted output data for case ALL. Here biases were introduced to meteorological input data during the period of weak layer formation. Data include quasi random biases, which were introduced, extracted output of simulated snow profiles and sobol indices for each output variable.

mimetype: application/zip

en: Case SL

en: Extracted output data for case SL. Here biases were introduced to meteorological input data during the period of slab formation. Data include quasi random biases, which were introduced, extracted output of simulated snow profiles and sobol indices for each output variable.

en: Case ALL

en: Extracted output data for case ALL. Here biases were introduced to meteorological input data during the whole simulation period. Data include quasi random biases, which were introduced, extracted output of simulated snow profiles and sobol indices for each output variable.

en: Reference run

en: Reference run for the sensitivity analysis at Weissfluhjoch field site for winter season 2016-2017. Meteorological data from the automatic weather stations are used. No biases were introduced to the input data.

en: Manually observed snow profiles

en: Manually observed snow profiles at Weissfluhjoch field site for winter season 2016-2017, including layer depth, hand hardness, grain size and grain shape for each layer.

en: We investigated the sensitivity of modeled snow instability to meteorological input data using SNOWPACK. We therefore used input data from the automatic weather station at the Weissfluhjoch field site for the year 2016-2017. We investigated three scenarios and performed 14'000 simulations for each scenario. The dataset contains extracted output data from modeled SNOWPACK simulations, including setup files to reproduce the simulations. For further information read the README file.

global-sensitivity-analysis

display_name: global-sensitivity-analysis

numerical-avalanche-forecasting

display_name: numerical-avalanche-forecasting

snow-cover-modeling

display_name: snow-cover-modeling

snow-instability

display_name: snow-instability

snowpack

display_name: snowpack

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: EnviDat is the WSL data portal providing unified and managed access to environmental monitoring and research data. The portal has the capability to host and publish data sets. Through the sharing of unique and high-value data sets worldwide, EnviDat fosters research and contributes to advancing environmental science.

en: Sensitivity of modeled snow instability


maintainer: Michael Lehning

en: Description

en: Full Data Description

en: Data Source

media_type: R

en: Coordinates of Grid Points

en: Hourly Gridded Wind Power Time Series

en:
This dataset consist of simulated hourly power production from an Enercon E82 Turbine at 100 m hub-height. It describes the hourly power output a 1MW turbine would produce in each 0.01° grid cell for the years 2016 and 2017.

100 m wind speed data was taken from the COSMO-1 model (Consortium for Small-scale Modeling 2017), which has a 0.01° horizontal resolution. The domain covered is the whole of Switzerland, with the exclusion of lakes. As such, the number of 0.01◦ pixels within Switzerland amounts to 48657.
Conversion to power output was done based on the power curve of the Enercon E82 Turbine. As power output is lower at altitude due to lower air density, we corrected for this effect as described in (Kruyt et al. 2017).

Please cite the following paper in connection with the dataset:

Paper Citation:
 > _Bert Kruyt, Jérôme Dujardin, and Michael Lehning: Improvement of wind power assessment in complex terrain: The case of COSMO-1 in the Swiss Alps, Front. Energy Res., [doi:10.3389/fenrg.2018.00102] (https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00102)_

mountain-wind-potential

display_name: mountain-wind-potential

topography

display_name: topography

wind-energy

display_name: wind-energy

en: Dataset on Cosmo-1 based Energy Potential in Swiss Alps


maintainer: Marcia Phillips

en: borehole permafrost permos temperature gemsstock

en: PERMOS DATA POLICY

media_type: PDF

en: Map of PERMOS borehole network

en: DATASET & PLOTS

media_type: URL

en: Data visualiser and download service provided by PERMOS.

en:
Processed ground temperature measurements at the Gemsstock permafrost borehole in canton Uri, Switzerland. The borehole is located at 2940 m asl on a steep (50°) North-West slope (315°). The surface material is bedrock and borehole depth is 40 m. Thermistors used YSI 44008. Year of drilling 2006. This borehole is part of the Swiss Permafrost network, PERMOS (www.permos.ch). Contact phillips@slf.ch for details of processing applied.

Publications

1. A. Haberkorn, M. Phillips, R. Kenner, H. Rhyner, M. Bavay, S.P. Galos, M. Hoelzle. Thermal regime of rock and its relation to snow cover in steep Alpine rock walls: Gemsstock, central Swiss Alps. 2015. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography. Volume 97. Issue 3. 579–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geoa.12101. 10.1111/geoa.12101.

2. R. Kenner, M. Phillips, C. Danioth, C. Denier, P. Thee, A. Zgraggen. Investigation of rock and ice loss in a recently deglaciated mountain rock wall using terrestrial laser scanning: Gemsstock, Swiss Alps. 2011. Cold Regions Science and Technology. Volume 67. Issue 3. 157–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.04.006. 10.1016/j.coldregions.2011.04.006.

borehole

display_name: borehole

gemsstock

display_name: gemsstock

permafrost

display_name: permafrost

permos

display_name: permos

temperature

display_name: temperature

en: Processed permafrost borehole data (2940 m asl), Gemsstock, Switzerland


restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

title_for_slug: restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

en: grassland restoration plants fungi mineralization biodiversity ecosystem-multifunctionality nematodes soil-biodiversity bacteria

format: XLS

media_type: XLSX

en: Please note that C.sto and Corg have been corrected.

en: Functional diversity above_belowground fauna

en: Please note that EMF, MF.below, MF.abio and Soil.hetero have been corrected.

en:
Please cite this paper together with the citation for the datafile.

Resch, M. C., Schütz, M., Buchmann, N., Frey, B., Graf, U., van der Putten, W. H., Zimmermann, S., Risch, A. C. 2021. Evaluating long-term success in grassland restoration – an ecosystem multifunctionality approach. Ecological Applications 31, e02271.

 Study area

The study was conducted in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, in and around two nature reserves Eigental and Altläufe der Glatt (47°27’ to 47°29’ N, 8°37’ to 8°32’ E, 417 to 572 m a.s.l.). All studied grasslands were located with a radius of approximately 4 km. Average monthly temperatures range from 0.7 ± 2.0 °C (January) to 19.0 ± 1.5 °C (July), and monthly precipitation range from 60 ± 42 mm (January) to 118 ± 46 mm (July [maxima]; 1989-2017; MeteoSchweiz 2018). In our study, we focused on semi-dry and semi-wet oligo- to mesotrophic grasslands characterized by high plant species richness and groundwater fluctuations throughout the year (Delarze et al. 2015, see also Resch et al. 2019).

 Experimental design and sampling

A large-scale restoration experiment to expand and reconnect isolated remnants of species-rich grasslands was initiated in the nature reserve Eigental in 1990. Twenty hectares of adjacent intensive grasslands were chosen for restoration. In 1995, three restoration methods of increasing intervention intensities were implemented. The goal of all three methods was to lower the availability of soil nutrients and hence, facilitate ecosystem development towards the targeted nutrient-poor grasslands. These methods were: Harvest only (hay harvest twice a year), Topsoil (removal of the nutrient-rich topsoil), and Topsoil+Propagules (topsoil removal combined with the application of hay from target vegetation). Plant biomass harvest (once a year in late summer/early autumn) commenced in Topsoil and Topsoil+Propagules five years after the soils were removed and is still ongoing today. We measured restoration success by comparing the three restoration methods with intensively managed (Initial) and semi-natural grasslands (Target) 22 years after restoration. Initial grassland sites share the same agricultural history as the restored sites: mowing and subsequent fertilizing (manure) up to five times a year, as well as different tillage regimes (Resch et al. 2019). Target sites were the sites from which hay for seeding the Topsoil+Propagules sites was collected. Soil conditions (i.e., soil types, soil texture) were comparable to those found in the restored grasslands (Resch et al. 2019). Additionally, Target sites were selected to represent a variety of semi-natural grasslands, including semi-dry to semi-wet conditions. In Target grasslands, biomass is harvested once a year in late summer or early autumn. Eleven 5 m x 5 m (25 m2) plots were randomly established in each of the five treatments (in total 55 plots; for a detailed map see Neff et al. 2020). An additional 2 m x 2 m (4 m2) subplot was randomly established at least 2 m away from each 25 m2 plot for destructive sampling. Data sampling took place between June and September 2017.

Vegetation properties

All plant species were identified within the 25 m2 plots (nomenclature: Lauber and Wagner 1996) in mid-June 2017 (in total 250 species). Vegetation structure and plant biomass were assessed diagonally on a transect of 2 m x 10 cm within the 25 m2 plot in early July 2017. We measured the maximum and mean height of the vegetation at the start, middle and end of the transect and calculated the standard deviation of these measures to describe vegetation structural heterogeneity (Schuldt et al. 2019). Thereafter, biomass was clipped on the entire transect to 1 cm height, sorted into five functional groups (graminoids, forbs, legumes, litter, and woody species), dried at 60 °C for 48 h, and weighed (Meyer et al. 2015).

 Aboveground arthropods

Aboveground arthropods were sampled at two locations in each 25 m2 plot in early July 2017 (see also Neff et al. 2020). Briefly, two cylindrical baskets (50 cm diameter, 67 cm height; woven fabric) were thrown simultaneously from outside the plot into two opposite corners. A closable mosquito mesh sleeve was mounted to the top of the baskets and an integrated metal ring at the bottom was fixed to the ground with metal stakes to assure that insects could not escape. A suction sampler (Vortis, Burkhard Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Hertfordshire, England) was then inserted into one of the baskets through the opening of the sleeve and the plot was “vacuumed" twice for 105 seconds with a 30 seconds break. The collected animals were immediately transferred into 70% ethanol. Arthropods were sorted and assigned to 23 taxonomic groups. Holometabolic larvae were lumped into one category while hemimetabolic larvae were grouped separately from adults in the respective taxonomic rank. We used mean values of individuals per plot for total abundance. Aboveground arthropod richness was defined by the number of different taxa to lowest taxonomic level (in total 23 taxa). All taxa were assigned to one of five trophic levels: 1) primary producers, 2) primary consumers, 3) secondary consumers, 4) tertiary consumers, and 5) quaternary consumers.

 Belowground fauna

Sampling of all belowground fauna took place in mid-July 2017. Earthworms were sampled in two 30 cm x 30 cm x 20 cm soil monoliths at two opposite corners of the 25 m2 plot (opposite to aboveground arthropod sampling). The excavated soil monolith was broken by hand, all earthworms collected and immediately transferred in a 4% formaldehyde solution. Thereafter, earthworm individuals were identified to species level (in total 10 taxa; Christian and Zicsi 1999) and species assigned to three functional groups (Bouché 1977).
To assess soil arthropod communities, we randomly collected one undisturbed soil core (5 cm diameter, 12 cm depth) in each 4 m2 subplot with a slide hammer corer lined with a plastic sleeve (AMS Samplers, American Falls, Idaho, USA). Soil arthropods were extracted using Berlese-Tullgren funnels (3 mm mesh), starting the day of sampling and lasting 14 days. Individuals were stored in 70% ethanol. Soil arthropods were assigned to 41 taxonomic groups and 4 feeding types. Holometabolic and hemimetabolic larvae were treated as previously described for aboveground arthropods. Belowground arthropod richness refers to the 41 taxonomic groups.

For soil nematode sampling, we randomly collected eight soil cores of 2.2 cm diameter (Giddings Machine Company, Windsor, CO, USA) within each 4 m2 subplot to a depth of 12 cm. The eight cores were combined, gently homogenized, placed in coolers, kept at 4 °C and transported to the laboratory at NIOO in Wageningen (NL) within one week after collection. Free-living nematodes were extracted from 200 g of fresh soil using Oostenbrink elutriator (Oostenbrink 1960) and prepared for morphological identification and quantification as described by Resch et al. (2019). Nematodes were identified to family level (39 taxa) according to Bongers (1988), assigned to 17 functional groups, 5 feeding types and 5 colonizer-persister (C-P) classes (Yeates et al. 1993, Bongers 1990, Resch et al. 2019).

We randomly collected two more soil cores (2.2 cm diameter x 12 cm depth) within each 4 m2 subplot to determine soil microbial communities. Again, the soil cores were combined, homogenized, placed in coolers and transported to the laboratory at WSL in Birmensdorf (Switzerland) where the metagenomic DNA was extracted from 8 g sieved soil (2 mm) using the DNeasy PowerMax Soil Kit (Quiagen, Hilden, NRW, GER) according to the manufacturer`s instructions. PCR amplification of the V3-V4 region of the prokaryotic small-subunit (16S) and the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer region (ITS2) of eukaryotes was performed with 1 ng of template DNA utilizing PCR primers and conditions as previously described (Frey et al., 2016). PCRs were run in triplicates and pooled. The pooled amplicons were sent to the Genome Quebec Innovation Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada) for barcoding using the Fluidigm Access Array technology (Fluidigm) and paired-end sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq v3 platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Quality filtering, clustering into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and taxonomic assignment were performed as described by Frey et al. (2016) and Adamczyk et al. (2019). We used a customised pipeline largely based on UPARSE (Edgar 2013) implemented in USEARCH v. 9.2 (Edgar 2010). After discarding singletons of dereplicated sequences, clustering into OTUs with 97% sequence similarity was performed (Edgar 2013). Quality-filtered reads were mapped on the filtered set of centroid sequences. Taxonomic classification of prokaryotic and fungal sequences was conducted querying against most recent versions of SILVA (v.132, Quast et al. 2013) and UNITE (v.8, Nilsson et al. 2018). Only taxonomic assignments with confidence rankings equal or higher than 0.8 were accepted (assignments below 0.8 set to unclassified). Prokaryotic OTUs assigned to mitochondria or chloroplasts as well as eukaryotic OTUs assigned other than fungi were removed prior to data analysis. In addition, prokaryotic and fungal datasets were filtered to discard singletons and doubletons. Thereafter, OTU abundance matrices were rarefied to the lowest number of sequences per community, to normalize the total number of reads and achieve parity between samples (Prokaryota: 29,843 reads; Fungi: 26,690 reads). Finally, prokaryotic and fungal observed richness (number of OTUs) were estimated (Prokaryota: 14,010 OTUs; Fungi: 5,813 OTUs). For prokaryotes, we distinguished five and for fungi six functional types based on lowest taxonomic resolution (Nguyen et al. 2016, Tedersoo et al. 2014). Belowground taxon richness was defined by the total number of earthworm, arthropod, nematode, fungi, and prokaryote taxa assigned to lowest taxonomic level. Finally, all belowground taxa were assigned to the same five trophic levels as the aboveground arthropods.

 Soil chemical and physical properties, soil nitrogen mineralization

We randomly collected three 5 cm diameter x 12 cm depth soil samples in each 4 m2 subplot with a slide hammer corer (AMS Samplers, American Falls, Idaho, USA), pooled them and then made two subsamples. One was field-fresh and stored at 3 °C until analysis, the other was dried for 48 h at 60 °C and passed through a 4 mm mesh. From the dried sample, we measured soil pH potentiometrically in 0.01 M CaCl2 (soil:solution ratio=1:2; 30 minutes equilibration time). Total and organic carbon content were measured on fine-ground samples (≤ 0.5 mm) by dry combustion using a CN analyzer NC 2500 (CE Instruments, Wigan, United Kingdom). Inorganic carbon of samples with a pH > 6.5 was removed with acid vapor prior to analysis of organic carbon (Walthert et al. 2010). We calculated total soil carbon (C) storage after correcting its content for soil depth, stone content and density of fine earth (see below). Exchangeable cations were determined on another 5 g dry soil sample with 50 mL unbuffered 1 M NH4Cl solution (soil:solution ratio=1:10, end-over-end shaker for 1.5 hours) and measured by an ICP-OES (Optima 7300 DV, Perkin-Elmer, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). Thereafter, cation exchange capacity (CEC) was calculated as the sum of exchangeable cations and protons (and expressed as mmolc per 1 kg soil) and used to describe nutrient retention capacity in our plots. Concentrations of exchangeable protons were calculated as the difference between total and Al-induced exchangeable acidity as determined by the KCl-method (Thomas 1982).

Ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3−) were extracted from a 20 g fresh subsample with 80 mL 1M KCl for 1.5 hours on an end-over-end shaker and filtered through ashless folded filter paper (DF 5895 150, ALBET LabScience, Hahnemühle FineArt GmbH, Dassel, Germany). NH4+ concentrations were determined colorimetrically by automated flow injection analysis (FIAS 300, Perkin-Elmer, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). NO3− concentrations were measured colorimetrically according to Norman and Stucki (1981). Potential soil net nitrogen (N) mineralization was assessed during an 8-week incubation period under controlled moisture (60% of field capacity), temperature (20 °C) and light conditions (dark) in the laboratory. We weighed duplicate samples of fresh soil equivalent to 8 g dry soil (24 h at 104 °C) into 50 mL Falcon tubes. Soil samples were extracted for NH4+ and NO3− at the beginning and after eight weeks as described above. Soil net N mineralization was calculated as the difference between the inorganic nitrogen (NH4+ and NO3−) before and after the incubation (Hart et al. 1994), corrected for the total incubation time and represented per day values expressed as mg N kg-1 soil d-1.

To assess soil physical properties, we randomly collected one undisturbed soil core per 4 m2 subplot (5 cm diameter, 12 cm depth) in a steel cylinder that fit into the slide hammer (AMS Samplers, American Falls, Idaho, USA). The cylinder was capped in the field to avoid disturbance. We then measured field capacity in the laboratory. For this purpose, the cylinder and soil therein were saturated in a water bath and drained on a sand/silt-bed with a suction corresponding to 60 cm hydrostatic head. The moist soil was dried at 105 °C to constant weight. Field capacity was calculated by dividing the mass of water by the total mass of wet soil contained at 60 cm hydrostatic head and used to describe water holding capacity. Thereafter, samples were passed through a 4 mm mesh. Fine-earth and skeleton fractions were weighed separately to assess bulk soil density (fine-earth plus skeleton), density of fine earth, and proportion of skeleton. Particle density was determined with the pycnometer method (Blake and Hartge 1986), and total porosity and proportion of fine pores were calculated (Danielson and Sutherland 1986). Clay, silt, and sand contents were quantified with the sediment method (Gee and Bauder 1986).

Surface and soil temperature (12 cm depth, water-resistant digital pocket thermometer; IP65, H-B Instrument, Trappe, Pennsylvania, USA) as well as volumetric soil moisture content (12 cm depth, time domain reflectometry; Field-Scout TDR 300, Spectrum Technologies, Aurora, Illinois, USA) were measured at five random locations within the 4 m2 subplots every month from June to September. We calculated the standard deviation of each temperature and moisture measure over four months to describe seasonal variations. Slope inclination was determined at plot-level via GPS measurements (GPS 1200, Leica Geosystem, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) and categorized into slope gradient classes according to FAO standards (1990). Thickness of the topsoil horizon (equivalent to Ah or Aa horizon) was determined at one soil monolith (30 x 30 x 30 cm3) per 4 m2 subplot in cm and rounded to next integer.

 References

Adamczyk, M., F. Hagedorn, S. Wipf, J. Donhauser, P. Vittoz, C. Rixen, A. Frossard, J. Theurillat, and B. Frey. 2019. The soil microbiome of GLORIA mountain summits in the Swiss Alps. Frontiers in Microbiology 10:1080-1101.

Blake, G.R., and K. H. Hartge. 1986. Particle Density. Pages 377-382 in A. Klute, editor. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1—Physical and mineralogical methods. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Bongers, T. 1988. De nematoden van Nederland. Stichting Uitgeverij van de Koniklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Verenigung (KNNV), Utrecht.

Bongers, T. 1990. The maturity index: an ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition. Oecologia 83:14-19.

Bouché, M. B. 1977. Strategies lombriciennes. Ecological Bulletins 25:122-132.

Christian, E., and A. Zicsi. 1999. Ein synoptischer Bestimmungsschlüssel der Regenwürmer Österreichs (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae). Die Bodenkultur 50:121-131.

Danielson, R. E., and P. L. Sutherland. 1986. Porosity. Pages 443-461 in A. Klute, editor. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1—Physical and mineralogical methods. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Delarze, R., Y. Gonseth, S. Eggenberg, and M. Vust. 2015. Lebensräume der Schweiz: Ökologie ‐ Gefährdung ‐ Kennarten, Ott Verlag, Bern.

Edgar, R. C. 2010. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26:2460–2461.

Edgar, R. C. 2013. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods 10:996–998.

FAO. 1990. Guidelines for soil description, third ed. Land and Water Development Division at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

Frey, B., T. Rime, M. Phillips, B. Stierli, I. Hajdas, F. Widmer, and M. Hartmann. 2016. Microbial diversity in European alpine permafrost and active layers. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 92:fiw018.

Gee, G.W., and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size analysis. Pages 383-411 in A. Klute, editor. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1—Physical and mineralogical methods. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Hart, S. C, J. M. Stark, E. A. Davidson, and M. K. Firestone. 1994. Nitrogen mineralization, immobilization, and nitrification. Pages 985-1016 in R. W. Weaver, S. Angle, P. Bottomley, D. Bezdicek, S. Smith, A. Tabatabai, and A. Wollum, editors. Methods of soil analysis: Part 2—Microbiological and biochemical properties. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Lauber, K., Wagner, G., 1996. Flora Helvetica. Flora der Schweiz. Haupt Verlag, Bern.

MeteoSchweiz, 2018. Klimabulletin Jahr 2017. MeteoSchweiz, Zürich.

Meyer, S. T., C. Koch, and W. W. Weisser. 2015. Towards a standardized rapid ecosystem function assessment (REFA). Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30:390-397.

Neff, F., M. C. Resch, A. Marty, J. Rolley, M. Schütz, A. C. Risch, and M. M. Gossner. 2020. Long-term restoration success of insect herbivore communities in semi-natural grasslands – a functional approach. Ecological Applications 0:e02133

Nguyen, N.H., Z. W. Song, S. T. Bates, S. Branco, L. Tedersoo, J. Menke, J. S. Schilling, and P. G. Kennedy. 2016. FUNGuild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecology 20:241–248.

Nilsson, R. H., K.-H. Larsson, A. F. S. Taylor, J. Bengtsson-Palme, T. S. Jeppesen, D. Schigel, P. G. Kennedy, K. Picard, F. O. Glöckner, L. Tedersoo, I. Saar, U. Kõljalg, and K. Abarenkov. 2018. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Research 47:259–264.

Norman, R. J., and J. W. Stucki. 1981. The Determination of Nitrate and Nitrite in Soil Extracts by Ultraviolet Spectrophotometry. Soil Science Society of America Journal 45:347-353.

Oostenbrink, M. 1960. Estimating nematode populations by some selected methods. Pages 81-101 in J. J. Sasser, and W. R. Jenkins, editors. Nematology. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Quast, C., E. Pruesse, P. Yilmaz, J. Gerken, T. Schweer, P. Yarza, J. Peplies, and F. O. Glöckner. 2013. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Research 41:590-596.

Resch, M. C., M. Schütz, U. Graf, R. Wagenaar, W.H. van der Putten, and A. C. Risch. 2019. Does topsoil removal in grassland restoration benefit both soil nematode and plant communities? Journal of Applied Ecology 56:1782-1793.

Schuldt, A., A. Ebeling, M. Kunz, M. Staab, C. Guimarães-Steinicke, D. Bachmann, N. Buchmann, W. Durka, A. Fichtner, F. Fornoff, W. Härdtle, L. R. Hertzog, A-N. Klein, C. Roscher, J. Schaller, von G. Oheimb, A. Weigelt, W. Weisser, C.Wirth, J. Zhang, H. Bruelheide, and N. Eisenhauer. 2019. Multiple plant diversity components drive consumer communities across ecosystems. Nature Communications 10:1460.

Tedersoo, L., M. Bahram, S. Põlme, U. Kõljalg, N. S. Yorou, R. Wijesundera, L. Villarreal Ruiz, A. M. Vasco-Palacios, P. Q. Thu, A. Suija, M. E. Smith, C. Sharp, E. Saluveer, A. Saitta, M. Rosas, T. Riit, D. Ratkowsky, K. Pritsch, K. Põldmaa, M. Piepenbring, C. Phosri, M. Peterson, K. Parts, K. Pärtel, E. Otsing, E. Nouhra, A. L. Njouonkou, R. H. Nilsson, L. N. Morgado, J. Mayor, T. W. May, L. Majuakim, D. J. Lodge, S. See Lee, K.-H. Larsson, P. Kohout, K. Hosaka, I. Hiiesalu, T. W. Henkel, H. Harend, L.-D. Guo, A. Greslebin, G. Grelet, J. Geml, G. Gates, W. Dunstan, C. Dunk, R. Frenkhan, L. Dearnaley, A. De Kesel, T. Dang, X. Chen, F. Buegger, F. Q. Brearley, G. Bonito, S. Anslan, S. Abell, and K. Abarenkov. 2014. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346:1256688.

Thomas, G.W. 1982. Exchangeable cations. Pages 159-165 in A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney, editors. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2—Chemical and microbiological properties. Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) Inc., Madison.

Walthert, L., U. Graf, A. Kammer, J. Luster, D. Pezzotta, S. Zimmermann, and F. Hagedorn. 2010. Determination of organic and inorganic carbon, δ13C, and nitrogen in soils containing carbonates after acid fumigation with HCl. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Sciences 173:207-216.

Yeates, G. W., T. Bongers, R. G. M. de Goede, D. W. Freckman, and S. S. Georgieva. 1993. Feeding habits in soil nematode families and genera – an outline for soil ecologists. Journal of Nematology 25:315-331.

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

mineralization

display_name: mineralization

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Restoring grassland multifunctionality