maintainer: Anita Risch

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

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

grassland

display_name: grassland

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

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: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


maintainer: Elisabeth Hafner

en: avalanche-hazard-mapping snow avalanche satellite validation

state: active

type: dataset

en: Satellite Avalanche Mapping Validation data and data description

media_type: ZIP

en: 14 shapefiles to be used only together with the data description also provided as a pdf.

format: ZIP

en:
Validation points, validation area, ground truth coverage, SPOT 6 avalanche outlines, Sentinel-1 avalanche outlines, Sentinel-2 avalanche outlines, Davos avalanche mapping (DAvalMap) avalanche outlines as shapefiles and a detailed attribute description (DataDescription_EvalSatMappingMethods.pdf).

Coordinate system: CH1903+_LV95

The generation of this dataset is described in detail in:

Hafner, E. D., Techel, F., Leinss, S., and Bühler, Y.: Mapping avalanches with satellites – evaluation of performance and completeness, The Cryosphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2020-272, 2021.

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

avalanche-hazard-mapping

display_name: avalanche-hazard-mapping

satellite

display_name: satellite

snow

display_name: snow

validation

display_name: validation

education

fr: Education, science

de: Bildung, Wissenschaft

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.

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: Satellite avalanche mapping validation data


maintainer: Daniela Brito Melo

en: large-eddy-simulations mixed-grain-transport saltation drifting-snow snow-cohesion

en: LES-LSM code

en: Source code used to perform the analysis presented at the research article "Modeling snow saltation: the effect of grain size and interparticle cohesion". The source code is also available at the WSL/SLF GitLab Repository (https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/atmospheric-models/les-lsm).

format: SERVICE

en: Data in Figures

media_type: zip-compressed folder of csv

en: Simulation results presented in Figures 1 to 11 of the research article "Modeling snow saltattion: the effect of grain size and interparticle cohesion" in csv format.

en:
This dataset includes the parallel application and the main results supporting the research article "Modeling snow saltation: the effect of grain size and interparticle cohesion" published at the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
The code is a flow solver based on the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) technique coupled with a Lagrangian Stochastic Model (LSM). The interaction of snow particles with the bed is modeled with statistical and physically-based models for aerodynamic entrainment, rebound and splash, following the works of Groot Zwaaftink et al. (2014), Comola and Lehning (2017) and Sharma et al. (2018). This algorithm was also used by Sigmund et al. (2021) to model snow sublimation.

drifting-snow

display_name: drifting-snow

large-eddy-simulations

display_name: large-eddy-simulations

mixed-grain-transport

display_name: mixed-grain-transport

saltation

display_name: saltation

snow-cohesion

display_name: snow-cohesion


maintainer: EnviDat Support

en: snow first-order-catchment alptal runoff meteorological-data subalpine

en: Daily runoff data from three steep torrents in the Alptal (1968-2019)

media_type: XLSX

en: Runoff, water temperature and electrical conductivity have been measured since 1968 at the outlet of three torrential catchments (with an area of approximately 1 km2 each) located in the Alptal valley: Erlenbach, Lümpenenbach and Vogelbach. This data set provides daily mean values; data at 10-min resolution can be provided on request for the period 1984-2020 (contact: alptal@wsl.ch).

format: XLS

en: Daily meteorological and snow data (1968-2019) Alptal

en:
Air temperature, dew point temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, precipitation and global radiation have been measured (since 1981) on a meadow (Erlenhöhe) in the Erlenbach catchment. It is located at 1'220 m a.s.l. with an exposure towards west. In order to assess the spatial variability of precipiation, two additional rain gauges have been running in the Vogelbach and Lümpenenbach catchment, respectively.
For the period before 1981, meteorological variables have been extrapolated from the nearby MeteoSwiss station Einsiedeln (ca. 15 km north) to the WSL station Erlenhöhe using a linear correction factor for air temperature, wind speed and precipitation.
Snow depth has been recorded automatically since 2003.

en: Manual snow measurements Alptal (1968-2020)

en:
Snow depth, snow density and snow water equivalent have been measured since winter 1968/69 along more than 15 transects distributed across the Alptal valley representing different altitudes, aspects and land use (closed forest and open meadows). Length of the snow courses: 20 to 30 m. The measurement interval has been weekly to monthly.
More details about the locations and methods can be found in Stähli, M.; Gustafsson, D., (2006). Long-term investigations of the snow cover in a subalpine semi-forested catchment. Hydrological Processes, 20, 411-428. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6058.

en:
This data set includes 52 years of hydrometeorological measurements from small (first-order) catchments in the pre-alpine valley Alptal. Here we provide daily mean values; values in sub-daily resolution can be provided on demand.
Runoff has been measured at the outlet of three small (first-order) catchments of approximately 1 km2 area: Erlenbach (two independent runoff measurements), Vogelbach and Lümpenenbach. The catchments are similar with regard to geology (Flysch) and soil conditions (clay soils), but differ in forest coverage (20 to 60%). A detailed description of the catchments can be found at https://www.wsl.ch/alptal .
Runoff in these small catchments is typically very dynamic and can temporally carry large amounts of sediment and large wood. Thus, the accuracy of the measurements at very large flow is limited.
Meteorological variables have been measured on a meadow (Erlenhöhe) located in the Erlenbach catchment at 1220 m a.s.l. using a standard meteorological station (incl. ventilated air temperature and heated rain gauges). In addition, precipitation has also been recorded at two other locations (in the Vogelbach and Lümpenenbach catchments).
Snow measurements have been conducted weekly to monthly since 1968 at more than 15 locations (30-m transects) representing different altitudes, aspects and land uses (meadow, forest). In addition, snow depth has been recorded continuously since 2003 at Erlenhöhe, and for this location we also include a simulation of snow depth and SWE (using the numerical model COUP) that assimilates the manual weekly snow-course measurements. Details on these snow measurements can be found in Stähli, M. and Gustafsson, D. 2006. Hydrol. Proc., 20, 411-428. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6058.

Further information on the methods and sensors can be found at https://www.wsl.ch/alptal .

A first version of this data set (for the period 1968-2017) was uploaded in June 2018 at the occasion of the 50-year anniversary. This original data set was updated in February 2021 (with data from 2018 and 2019), and this data set was used for a longterm trend analysis, submitted for publication in a special issue of Hydrological Processes.

alptal

display_name: alptal

first-order-catchment

display_name: first-order-catchment

meteorological-data

display_name: meteorological-data

runoff

display_name: runoff

en: Longterm hydrological observatory Alptal (central Switzerland)


mountain-permafrost-hydrology

maintainer: Jeannette Noetzli

title_for_slug: mountain-permafrost-hydrology

en: mountain-permafrost-hydrology monitoring-techniques permafrost-degradation mass-movements ice-rich-permafrost climate-change-impacts

en: Synthesis report chapter of the Hydro-CH2018 project of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)

media_type: PDF

format: PDF

en: DORA Persistent URL

en: This report was prepared as one of the synthesis report chapters of the Hydro-CH2018 project of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). In earlier reports such as the CH2014-IMPACTS report (CH-Impacts 2014), the topic of mountain permafrost hydrology was not addressed. Here, we provide a baseline of the available knowledge of mountain permafrost in the Swiss Alps for future reference. We compile an overview of the current understanding of mountain permafrost in the Swiss Alps, its distribution and characteristics, observed and projected changes, and expected impacts on slope stability, infrastructure and hydrological aspects. We also briefly describe the measurement techniques and modelling approaches applied. The chapter closes with a summary of the most important open research questions. The literature cited mainly includes studies on mountain permafrost published in scientific journals and assessments of long-term observation data. We focus on permafrost hydrology interactions wherever information is available. However, systematic studies on permafrost hydrology in mountain areas are still limited.

climate-change-impacts

display_name: climate-change-impacts

ice-rich-permafrost

display_name: ice-rich-permafrost

mass-movements

display_name: mass-movements

monitoring-techniques

display_name: monitoring-techniques

mountain-permafrost-hydrology

display_name: mountain-permafrost-hydrology

permafrost-degradation

display_name: permafrost-degradation

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: Mountain Permafrost Hydrology


en: European Snow Booklet unpublished metadata

en: The entire station metadata of all European institutions that contributed data is stored in METADATA_unpublished.xlsx. This file, however, cannot be accessed, since not all institutions gave permission to publish their station metadata. If you wish to access the metadata, please send a request to marty@slf.ch stating clearly why you want to access these metadata. NOTE: in this file ONLY station metadata (Lat/Lon/Altitude) is given, NO measured snow depth data.

en: COST European Snow Booklet (ESB)

media_type: application/pdf

en: Please find here the web version of the COST European Snow Booklet (ESB).

mimetype: application/pdf

en: List of authors and list of the editorial board of the European Snow Booklet

en:
Here you can find the list of all lead authors of the different chapters of the European Snow Booklet (ESB).
In addition a list of the editorial board that reviewed the ESB is given.

en: COST European Snow Booklet (ESB) - DORA Link

media_type: HTML

en: DORA Link of the COST European Snow Booklet (ESB).

format: HTML

en: European Snow Booklet public metadata

en:
The core of the European Snow Booklet (ESB), the country reports of 38 European countries, are based on information and metadata on snow measurements collected through a comprehensive survey, the ESB Questionnaire, between August 2017 and March 2018. The station metadata (for example location, elevation, measurement start date) from each country was provided by one or several institutions responsible for snow observations. By answering the questionnaire the contacts agreed that the information and metadata provided could be presented in the ESB. For cases where institutions indicated that information on station locations could be made publicly available, the metadata for the variables snow depth (HS), depth of snowfall (HN) and water equivalent of the snow cover (SWE), is additionally provided here for download (METADATA.xlsx).
Please note that not all institutions gave permission to publish their station metadata. This metadata has to be requested from the non-personal institution contacts provided in the METADATA.xlsx file. In some cases, however, no institutional contact is available and thus the contact of the country representative who filled in the questionnaire is used.
For current, updated station metadata we refer to the (non-personal) institutional contacts provided in METADATA.xlsx and/or the institution webpages. Note, however, that we cannot guarantee for completeness of the dataset for all countries because operational networks are prone to changes.

en:
The European Snow Booklet (ESB) is a book of reference for snow measurements that has been produced through collaboration with many European snow practitioners and snow scientists in the framework of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action ES1404 “A European network for a harmonised monitoring of snow for the benefit of climate change scenarios, hydrology and numerical weather prediction (HarmoSnow)”. The ESB provides a unique collection of information about operational snow observations in the European countries and the methods used to perform basic measurements of snow on the ground: snow depth (HS), depth of snowfall (HN), water equivalent of the snow cover (SWE) and presence of snow on the ground (PSG). Information and station metadata (for example location, elevation) for these basic snow variables were collected through a comprehensive survey, the ESB questionnaire between August 2017 and March 2018. Numerous institutions of 38 European countries provided detailed information describing the status of the operational snow observations and the methods used at the time of the survey. Based on the information provided, a country report was written for each European country. Similarities and differences among the countries, that is, the choice of snow variables to be measured, the measurement principles applied, the number of stations, or the spatial and elevational station distribution are pointed out. Thus the collection of country reports demonstrates the relevance of snow measurements for each country. Thus, the intention of the ESB is to foster better knowledge transfer regarding snow measurements between the snow science and operational communities and to improve the communication of information to the general public.

For detailed information on the European countries, we refer to the ESB, which can be downloaded here (envidat.ch). Please note that the ESB is not a living document and information and station metadata are from August 2017 till March 2018, except for Latvia (metadata updated in December 2018).

depth-of-snowfall

display_name: depth-of-snowfall

harmonisation-of-snow-measurements

display_name: harmonisation-of-snow-measurements

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-measurement-methods

display_name: snow-measurement-methods

water-equivalent-of-the-snow-cover

display_name: water-equivalent-of-the-snow-cover

en: European Snow Booklet – an Inventory of Snow Measurements in Europe


en: fungi grassland plants soil-chemistry soil restoration soil-biology topsoil-removal nematodes bacteria biodiversity soil-biodiversity

en: Networks

en:
Treatment	Treatment groups; Y.4-18 = restored grasslands; Initial = intensively managed grasslands; Target = species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
Correlation	non-parametric Spearman rank correlations
Vertex.1+2	Comparison between network components; N.pool = total soil nitrogen pool [kg ha-1 12 cm-1]; Corg.pool = soil organic carbon pool [kg ha-1 12 cm-1], pH = soil pH [CaCl2]; BD = bulk density [g cm-3]; FC = field capacity [%]
	PCoA 1 + 2 biotic communities [Veg = vegetation; Nem = nematoda; Fun = fungi; Prok = prokaryota]
Type	Interactions type; A.A = abiotic.abiotic; A.B = abiotic.biotic; B.B = biotic.biotic

en: Ecosystem coupling_interactions

en:
Treatment	Treatment groups; Y.4-18 = restored grasslands; Initial = intensively managed grasslands; Target = species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
Type	Interactions type; A.A = abiotic.abiotic; A.B = abiotic.biotic; B.B = biotic.biotic
Correlation	non-parametric Spearman rank correlations between biotic and abiotic parameters (ecological interactions)

en: Soil properties

en:
Plot.ID	consecutive numbers for plots (in total 36 plots)
Treatment	One restoration treatment and two reference treatments. Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Target= species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
treat.yr	Treatment abbreviation. For restored grasslands: Treatment abbreviation + time since restoration; Initial + Target = NA
yr.trt	year when topsoil was removed; Initial + Target = NA
Age	time since restoration (sampling year 2018 - yr.trt); Initial + Target = NA
Age.class	restored sites of similar age grouped into four age classes. Y.4 = Year 3+4 (recently restored); Y.18 = Year 17+19 (mid-term); Y.24 = Year 23+25 (long-term); Y.30 = Year 27+32 (long-term); Initial + Target = NA
Cluster	clustered spatial arrangment of sites in the field (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
Site	clustered spatial arrangment (replicates) of plots per site (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
N.pool	Soil nitrogen pool (June 2017); corrected for bulk density and 12 cm sampling depth [kg ha-1 12cm-1]
Corg.pool	Soil organic carbon pool (June 2017); corrected for bulk density and 12 cm sampling depth [kg ha-1 12cm-1]
pH	soil pH [CaCl2]
BD	Bulk density [g cm-3]
FC	Field capacity [%]
Veg.1	principle coordinate axis 1 (vegetation)
Veg.1	principle coordinate axis 2 (vegetation)
Nem.1	principle coordinate axis 1 (nematoda)
Nem.2	principle coordinate axis 2 (nematoda)
Fun.1	principle coordinate axis 1 (fungi)
Fun.2	principle coordinate axis 2 (fungi)
Prok.1	principle coordinate axis 1 (prokaryota)
Prok.2	principle coordinate axis 2 (prokaryota)
Veg.H	Shannon diversity (vegetation)
Nem.H	Shannon diversity (nematoda)
Fun.H	Shannon diversity (fungi)
Prok.H	Shannon diversity (prokaryota)

en: Distance to target results

en:
Community	biotic community (vegetation, nematoda, fungi, prokaryota)
Treatment	Treatment groups; Y.4-30= restored grasslands (time since restoration); Initial=intensively managed grasslands (I)
Comparison	within- or between-community Bray-Curtis dissimilarity distance comparison
Label	within-community distances of initial/restored grasslands: treatment abbreviation; between-communities distances of initial/restored-to-target grasslands: treatment abbreviation plus Target (T; species-rich grasslands)
mean	Mean distance to Target (6 plots per treatment group)
sd	Standard deviation of distances to Target (6 plots per treatment group)

en: Nematode data

en:
Sample.data
Plot.ID	consecutive numbers for plots (in total 36 plots)
Treatment	One restoration treatment and two reference treatments. Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Target= species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
treat.yr	Treatment abbreviation. For restored grasslands: Treatment abbreviation + time since restoration; Initial + Target = NA
yr.trt	year when topsoil was removed; Initial + Target = NA
Age	time since restoration (sampling year 2018 - yr.trt); Initial + Target = NA
Age.class	restored sites of similar age grouped into four age classes. Y.4 = Year 3+4 (recently restored); Y.18 = Year 17+19 (mid-term); Y.24 = Year 23+25 (long-term); Y.30 = Year 27+32 (long-term); Initial + Target = NA
Cluster	clustered spatial arrangment of sites in the field (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
Site	clustered spatial arrangment (replicates) of plots per site (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)

Taxonomy
ASV.ID	unit number.letter code per amplicon sequence variant (in total 904)
Taxonomic rank	Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

Abundance
columns	Plot.ID (see Sample.data)
rows	ASV.ID (see Taxonomy)

en: Vegetation data

en:
Plot.ID	consecutive numbers for plots (in total 36 plots)
Treatment	One restoration treatment and two reference treatments. Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Target= species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
treat.yr	Treatment abbreviation. For restored grasslands: Treatment abbreviation + time since restoration; Initial + Target = NA
yr.trt	year when topsoil was removed; Initial + Target = NA
Age	time since restoration (sampling year 2018 - yr.trt); Initial + Target = NA
Age.class	restored sites of similar age grouped into four age classes. Y.4 = Year 3+4 (recently restored); Y.18 = Year 17+19 (mid-term); Y.24 = Year 23+25 (long-term); Y.30 = Year 27+32 (long-term); Initial + Target = NA
Cluster	clustered spatial arrangment of sites in the field (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
Site	clustered spatial arrangment (replicates) of plots per site (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
column I-LW	Plant abundance per species (in total 327 plant species) expressed as cover percentage estimation according to van der Maarel (vdM 1979; 7 classes: 1-7); nomenclature according to Lauber & Wagner (1996)

en: Fungi data

en:
Sample.data
Plot.ID	consecutive numbers for plots (in total 36 plots)
Treatment	One restoration treatment and two reference treatments. Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Target= species-rich semi-wet to semi-dry grasslands
treat.yr	Treatment abbreviation. For restored grasslands: Treatment abbreviation + time since restoration; Initial + Target = NA
yr.trt	year when topsoil was removed; Initial + Target = NA
Age	time since restoration (sampling year 2018 - yr.trt); Initial + Target = NA
Age.class	restored sites of similar age grouped into four age classes. Y.4 = Year 3+4 (recently restored); Y.18 = Year 17+19 (mid-term); Y.24 = Year 23+25 (long-term); Y.30 = Year 27+32 (long-term); Initial + Target = NA
Cluster	clustered spatial arrangment of sites in the field (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)
Site	clustered spatial arrangment (replicates) of plots per site (see Supporting Information Fig. S1)

Taxonomy
OTU.ID	consecutive numbers for operational taxonomic units (OTUe 1-7794)
Taxonomic rank	Domain, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species

Abundance
columns	Plot.ID (see Sample.data)
rows	OTU.ID (see Taxonomy)

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

Paper Citation:

_Resch, M.C., Schütz, M., Ochoa-Hueso, R., Buchmann, N., Frey, B., Graf, U., van der Putten, W.H., Zimmermann, S., Risch, A.C. (in review). Long-term recovery of above- and belowground interactions in restored grassland after topsoil removal and seed addition. Journal of Applied Ecology_

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

Study area and experimental design
The study was conducted in and around two nature reserves, Eigental and Altläufe der Glatt, which were located approximately 5 km apart (47°27´ to 47°29´ N, 8°37´ to 8°32´ E, 417 to 572 m a.s.l., Canton of Zurich, Switzerland; Figure S1 and S2, Table S1). Mean annual temperature and precipitation are 9.8 ± 0.6 °C and 990 ± 168 mm (Kloten climate station 1988-2018; MeteoSchweiz, 2019). TFor this study, we used a space-for-time approach based on eight restoration sites that were between 3 and 32 years old. We measured recovery and restoration success by comparing the restored grasslands with intensively managed and semi-natural grasslands. Using a space-for-time approach requires high similarities in historical properties of the site, such as soil conditions and management regimes, to assure that temporal processes are appropriately represented by spatial patterns (Walker et al., 2010). This was the case in our study. The restored sites had similar soil conditions (i.e., soil type, structure, water availability) as the targeted semi-natural grasslands, while they shared the same agricultural legacy with intensively managed grasslands, i.e., biomass harvest and fertilization (manure and/or slurry) three to five times a year as well as tillage. We randomly established three 5 m x 5 m (25-m2) plots for plant identification and three 2 m x 2 m (4-m2) subplots for soil biotic and abiotic data collection at least 2 m away from the 25-m2 plots in each restoration site. Sites of similar age were grouped into four age classes: Y.4 (3 & 4 years after restoration), Y.18 (17 & 19 years), Y.24 (23 & 25 years), and Y.30 (27 & 32 years). Six intensively managed (Initial) and six semi-natural grassland (Target) sites complemented the experimental set-up, for a total of 36 plots. All plots were sampled under similar conditions, i.e., day of the year, air temperature, soil moisture, and time since last rain event, in June/July 2017 (intensively managed and semi-natural plots) and 2018 (restored plots).

Collection of plants and selected soil biota data
Plant species cover (in %) was visually estimated in each 25-m2 plot in mid-June (Braun-Blanquet, 1964; nomenclature: Lauber & Wagner, 1996). We calculated Shannon diversity and assessed plant community structure. We included soil microbial (fungi, procaryotes) and nematodes in our study as they represent the majority of soil biotic diversity and abundance (Bardgett & van der Putten, 2014), cover various trophic levels of the soil food web (Bongers & Ferris, 1999), and play key roles in soil functioning and ecosystem processes (Bardgett & van der Putten, 2014). In particular, soil nematodes were found to be well suited belowground indicators to evaluate recovery/development after restoration (e.g. Frouz, et al. 2008; Kardol et al., 2009; Resch et al., 2019). We randomly collected ten soil cores (2.2 cm diameter x 12 cm depths; sampler from Giddings Machine Company, Windsor, USA) in the 4-m2 subplots to assess soil nematode and microbial (fungal, prokaryotic) diversities and community structures. For soil nematodes, eight of the soil cores were combined and gently homogenized, placed in coolers and stored at 4 °C and transported to the laboratory (Netherlands Institute of Ecology, NIOO, Wageningen, Netherlands) within three days after collection. Free-living nematodes were extracted from 200 g of fresh soil using Oostenbrink elutriators (Oostenbrink, 1960). After extraction, each sample was divided into three subsamples, two for molecular identification and one to determine nematode abundance (see Resch et al., 2019). For the molecular work, two subsamples were stored in 70% ethanol (final volume 10 mL each) and transported to the laboratory at the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL (Birmensdorf, Switzerland). Each subsample was reduced to roughly 200 μL by centrifugation and removal of the supernatant. The remaining ethanol was vaporized (65 °C for 3 h). Thereafter, 180 μL ATL buffer solution (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) was immediately added and samples were stored at 4 °C until further processing. From these samples, nematode metagenomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer`s protocol, except for the incubation step which was run at 56 °C for 4 h. PCR amplification of the V6-V8 region of the eukaryotic small-subunit (18S) was performed with 7.5 μL of genomic DNA template (ca. 1 ng/μL) in 25 μL reactions containing 5 μL PCR reaction buffer, 2.5 mM MgCL2, 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.8 μM of each primer (NemF: Sapkota & Nicolaisen, 2015; 18Sr2b: Porazinska et al., 2009), 0.5 μL BSA, and 0.25 μL GoTaq G2 Hot Start Polymerase (Promega Corporation, Madison, USA). Amplification was using an initial DNA denaturation step of 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 35 cycles at 94 °C for 40 sec, 58 °C for 40 sec, 72 °C for 1 min, and a final elongation step at 72 °C for 10 min. Filtering, dereplication, sample inference, chimera identification, and merging of paired-end reads was implemented using the DADA2 pipeline (v.1.12; Callahan et al., 2016) to finally assign amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) as taxonomic units.
We combined and homogenized the remaining two soil cores to assess soil microbes, placed them in coolers (4 °C) and transported them to the laboratory at WSL. Metagenomic DNA was extracted from 8 g sieved soil (2 mm) using the DNAeasy PowerMax Soil Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer´s protocol. PCR amplification of the V3-V4 region of the small-subunit (16S) of prokaryotes (i.e., bacteria and archaea) and the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer region (ITS2) of fungi was performed with 1 ng of template DNA using PCR primers and conditions as previously described (Frey et al., 2016). PCRs were run in triplicates, pooled and 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, USA). Quality filtering, clustering into operational taxonomic units (OTUs, 97% similarity cutoffs) and taxonomic assignment were performed as previously described (Resch et al., 2021).Taxonomic classification of nematode, prokaryotic and fungal sequences was conducted querying against the most recent versions of PR2 (v.4.11.1; Guillou et al., 2013), SILVA (v.132; Quast et al., 2013), and UNITE (v.8; Nilsson et al., 2019) reference sequence databases. Taxonomic assignment cutoffs were set to confidence rankings ≥ 0.8 (below ranked as unclassified). Prokaryotic OTUs assigned to mitochondria or chloroplasts as well as OTUs or ASVs assigned to other than Fungi or Nematoda were manually removed prior to data analysis. The three datasets were filtered to discard singletons and doubletons. Taxonomic abundance matrices were rarefied to the lowest number of sequences per community to achieve parity of the total number of reads between samples (Prokaryotes: 10,929 reads; Fungi: 18,337 reads; Nematodes: 6,662 reads). We calculated Shannon diversity and assessed community structures for soil nematodes, prokaryotes and fungi based on their relative abundances of ASV or OTU at the taxon level.

Collection of soil physical and chemical properties
We randomly collected one undisturbed soil core (5 cm diameter, 12 cm depth) per 4-m2 subplot using a steel cylinder that fit into the soil corer. The cylinders were capped to avoid disturbance during transport and used to measure field capacity, rock content and fine earth density as previously described (Resch et al., 2021). We randomly collected another three soil cores (5 cm diameter, 12 cm depths) in each 4-m2 subplot to determine soil chemical properties. The cores were pooled, dried at 60 °C for 48 h and passed through a 2 mm sieve. We measured soil pH (CaCl2) on dried samples, total nitrogen (N) and organic carbon (C) concentration on dried and fine-ground samples (≤ 0.5 mm; for details see Resch et al., 2021). We calculated total N and organic C pools after correcting its concentration for soil depth, rock content and fine earth density.

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil

display_name: soil

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

soil-biology

display_name: soil-biology

soil-chemistry

display_name: soil-chemistry

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

en: Long-term recovery of above-and belowground interactions in restored grasslands


en: frost-change-velocity soil sdms precipitation aridity ground-temperature

media_type: tif

en: Precipitation of driest quarter modified from CHELSA

media_type: TIFF

en: Mean diurnal range modified from CHELSA

format: TIFF

en: Mean annual temperature modified from CHELSA

en: Frost change frequency modified from CHELSA

en: Precipitation seasonality from CHELSA

en: Soil pH modified from SoilGrids

en: Soil organic carbon content modified from SoilGrids

en: Soil clay content modified from SoilGrids

en: The dataset contains seven environmental layers (average annual temperature, aridity [annual precipitation divided by annual potential evapotranspiration], frost change frequency, precipitation in the driest quarter, mean diurnal temperature range, and precipitation seasonality) modified from CHELSA (https://chelsa-climate.org/) and three soil layers (soil organic matter content, pH water, and clay content) modified from SoilGrids (https://soilgrids.org/).

aridity

display_name: aridity

frost-change-velocity

display_name: frost-change-velocity

ground-temperature

display_name: ground-temperature

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

sdms

display_name: sdms

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: Environmental layers for SDM simulations (GDPlants)


snow-drift-station-micro-rain-radar

title_for_slug: snow-drift-station-micro-rain-radar

en: precipitation mountain rain snow radar raclets

en: Parameter MRR

en: The PDF contains additional information on parameters which were set for the certain time periods (time in UTC).

en: MMR Data Period 1

media_type: application/zip

en: The dataset contains measurements between March 1 and March 5, 2019, with time in UTC. The parameters and specifications are given in MRR_parameters.pdf. The zip folder contains hourly data files in netCDF format and a log file, reporting the instrument status.

mimetype: application/zip

en: MRR data of period 3

en: The dataset contains measurements between March 8 and March 13, 2019, with time in UTC. The parameters and specifications are given in MRR_parameters.pdf. The zip folder contains hourly data files in netCDF format and a log file, reporting the instrument status.

en: MRR data of period 4

en: The dataset contains measurements between March 13 and March 22, 2019, with time in UTC. The parameters and specifications are given in MRR_parameters.pdf. The zip folder contains hourly data files in netCDF format and a log file, reporting the instrument status.

en: MRR data Period 2

en: The dataset contains measurements between March 5 and March 8, 2019, with time in UTC. The parameters and specifications are given in MRR_parameters.pdf. The zip folder contains hourly data files in netCDF format and a log file, reporting the instrument status.

en: The instrument (MRR, Metek) was mounted at Gotschnagrat (LON: 46.859 LAT: 9.849) at a height of 1 m above snow surface (at the beginning of the campaign) with an orientation of 22° with respect to North and a horizontal viewing direction. The sampling time was either 5 s or 10 s, depending on the settings at the specific period. The MRR produces standard outputs like radar reflectivity, doppler velocity, etc., and additional information can be found [here](https://metek.de/de/product/mrr-2/).

mountain

display_name: mountain

raclets

display_name: raclets

radar

display_name: radar

rain

display_name: rain

snow

display_name: snow

en: Snow Drift Station - Micro Rain Radar


en: decision-making hydropower gis integral-water-management ecosystem-protection

en: Indicators

media_type: text/markdown

en: The indicators capture supporting ecosystem functions.

media_type: SHP

format: SHP

en:
 A spatial dataset and tool to simultaneously assess hydropower potential and ecological potential of the Swiss river network (Version 2016)

 Introduction
The steadily growing demand for energy and the simultaneous pursuit of decarbonisation are increasing interest in the expansion of renewable energies worldwide. In Switzerland, various funding projects have been launched to promote technologies in the field of renewable energies and their application as quickly as possible. With the introduction of a funding instrument in 2009, the number of projects submitted to produce renewable energies increased rapidly. The applications for small hydropower plants (≤ 10 MW) were correspondingly numerous. However, the assessment of the environmental impact and its comparison with hydropower importance is still not standardized.
To provide a basis for decision-making, a methodology was developed to determine the overall hydropower potential of a region. A detailed assessment of each river reach, and the systematic and holistic assessment of small hydropower projects at a regional scale are combined here. The assessment of a river reach is conducted at the river space (i.e., the river and adjacent areas) and at the surrounding landscape level. The HYDROpot_integral methodology was developed as part of Carol Hemund's dissertation (2012) at the University of Bern. It allows the evaluation of river reaches holistically, regarding ecological, social, economic and cultural criteria. As a second part of the overall project, the theoretical hydropower (or hydraulic) potential was calculated for the entire river network, which complemnets the spatial assessment. In particular, it is possible to classify river reaches into those that are more suitable for hydropower production (=”use”) and those that are more suitable for protection.

 Material and method
The HYDROpot_Integral method was developed and tested on the basis of cantonal and national data (Hirschi et al. 2013). The method relies on 73 geodata sets. This holistic assessment is the key element of the entire assessment procedure. Its aim is to quantify the importance of the ecosystem functions in terms of services. The river network (GWN07) is divided into reaches of about 450m and for each reach two study units are defined. The river space (RS) records the ecosystem functions of the water body and the nearby riparian area. The length of the RS is 315 m on average in Switzerland and a maximum of 450 m, whereas the width is based on the FOEN definition (BWG 2001: 18f) and varies between 7-107 m. The surrounding landscape (SLS) is the second survey unit that records the ecosystem functions of the surrounding area over a range of 21 m to 321 m. The SLS is calculated over three times the RS width. The length of the SLS is identical to the length of the RS. The ecosystem functions are divided into three types: regulating (service A), cultural (service B) and provisioning (service C) functions. Accordingly, the assessment of the functions is divided into three parts and three values are assigned to each river reach. The more functions there are and the greater their performance, the higher these values are and the more important the corresponding functions are. Hence, these values quantify the importance of the ecosystem functions and the ecological, cultural and economic ecosystem services of each river reach. The concatenation of ecosystem services results in a value (ABC) that can occur in 125 different versions due to the chosen five-level value scale; i.e. each digit of the three-digit number sequence can be assigned a value between 1 and 5. Each of the 125 combinations, and thus each river reach, has its own characteristics determined by the assessments of the three function types. To record the suitability, the combinations are ranked according to their ecological, cultural and economic ecosystem services. These rules mean that the combination that is most suitable for hydropower production at minimum cost in terms of ecological and cultural ecosystem services and has a high economic potential is ranked first; rank 125 indicates the highest ecological and cultural ecosystem services and the lowest economic services and is therefore most suitable for protection. A river reach that is excluded from hydropower use due to legislation, a so-called priority reach, is given rank 126 from the outset and specially marked. A more detailed description of the methods can be found in Hirschi et al. 2013 [Link]. The dataset presented here presents the latest state of the HYDROpot_integral methodology applied at the national level. Only national data that is easily accessible was used in the preparation of the dataset. The cantonal data, such as renaturation and revitalization, would have to be requested by each canton individually and was excluded here. The nationwide value synthesis was made with R.
A list of data sources can be found here [link to text file]
A list of all parameters can be downloaded here [link to PDF and text files]

 Dataset description
Data is presented as a single shapefile. It contains the river network and all assessment results obtained with HYDROpot_Integral.

 Changes in the methodology compared to the original method (Hirschi et. al 2013)

 * RS_A11 Ecomorphology: recorded for the whole of Switzerland and zero values equated with NA;
individual cantons such as Zug and St. Gallen have no mapped values according to the modular
concept of the federal government, Valais and Graubünden only the main valleys, Ticino and Fribourg not
completely (BAFU 2009).
 * RS_A14 Renaturation and revitalization data: not centrally available at the time of data collection.
centrally available, therefore values in GR were equated with NA.
 * RS_A15 Dilution ratio at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for discharges: Zero values
equal to NA.
 * RS_A20 Water flow: use WASTA (2013) with hydroelectric power plants (> 300 kW) under
Federal control and dams serving hydroelectricity (Dam, as of 2013).
 * RS_C05 Synoptic hazard maps: are cantonally managed at the time of data collection,
Values in GR are marked with a 5 so that the systematics in the decision tree is not affected.
is affected.
 * Water quality (RS_A15, RS_A16, RS_A17, RS_A18, RS_A19): for the evaluation of the function type.
A Nature, it is important whether the median of the five values is less than or equal to 3 in total. This
evaluation is based on the decision tree for evaluating GR (Hirschi et al. 2013:22).
Therefore, an evaluation of the station data is made where critical and possible river segments
with poor quality (median less than 3) exist. Only two longer and one short
sections in Switzerland receive a lower median than 3 for water quality.
 * SLS_B06 Visibility: For 99 percent of the river segments (30,733 of 31,062) in the canton of
Bern (2015 reduced version), the landscape area is considered to be visible. Due to this high number
of sections, a large number of viewpoints in the layer of Swisstopo and
the computation time and computability in ArcGIS, the landscape area is classified as generally viewable
(equal to 1).
16 Method
Additional indicators were added (see Appendix B.2):
 * SLS_A21 Dissection
 * SLS_A22 Forest areas
 * SLS_B03 Hiking trails
 * SLS_B10 Residential and vacation homes
 * SLS_B11 Tourist infrastructure
 * SLS_C01 Landfill
 * SLS_C03 Infrastructure
 * SLS_C05 Industry
 * SLS_C06 Agricultural land
Not to be added, although present to some extent:
 * SLS_B06 Cultural assets of national importance: here, too, the calculability of the visibility analysis is
for the whole of Switzerland is limited
 * SLS_A15 Legally binding protection and land use planning: the individual river sections are not
clearly designated, i.e. no geodata exist
The following data are also not supplemented, as they are cantonal data:
 * SLS_A10 Cantonal nature reserves
 * SLS_A16 Forest reserves
 * SLS_A17 Cantonal inventories and contractually protected areas

decision-making

display_name: decision-making

ecosystem-protection

display_name: ecosystem-protection

gis

display_name: gis

hydropower

display_name: hydropower

integral-water-management

display_name: integral-water-management

education

en: Education and science


aerosol-data-weissfluhjoch

title_for_slug: aerosol-data-weissfluhjoch

en: inp ice-nucleation particles linda raclets aerosol

en: OPC-GT526S Dataset Weissfluhjoch

media_type: text/csv

en: Particle counts were recorded in six size channels (0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.5, 2.5 and 5 μm) in a resolution of 20 seconds (time in UTC) by a particle counter (GT-526S, Met One Instruments, Inc.).

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en: APS Dataset Weissfluhjoch

media_type: application/x-netcdf

en: The APS file contains aerosol data (total number concentration, median, mean, geometric mean, mode and geometric standard deviation of the size distribution) for aerodynamic diameters between 0.5 μm and ~20 μm as well as instrument characteristics, in a temporal resolution of 20 seconds, with time in UTC, measured at Weissfluhjoch.

mimetype: application/x-netcdf

en: OPC-N3 Dataset Weissfluhjoch

en: Particle concentrations in a size range of 0.35 μm to 40 μm were measured with an OPC-N3 (Alphasense, Inc.) in a resolution of 20 seconds (time in UTC). PM₁, PM₂,₅ and PM₁₀ were directly derived.

en: LINDA Dataset Weissfluhjoch

en: The LINDA file contains information on temperature (in °C) dependent frozen fractions, number of Ice Nuleating Particles (INP, per standard liter) and differential INP concentrations (per standard liter and Kelvin).

en: SMPS Dataset Weissfluhjoch

en: The SMPS file contains aerosol data (particle concentration, total number concentration, median, mean, geometric mean, mode and geometric standard deviation of the size distribution) in a size range between 12 and 460 nm (electrical mobility diameter) as well as instrument characteristics (sample temperature, pressure, relative humidity, mean free path and gas viscosity) in a temporal resolution of 2 minutes, with time in UTC, measured at Weissfluhjoch.

en:
Aerosol properties were measured between February 8 and March 31 2019 at the measurement site Weissfluhjoch (LON: 9.806475, LAT: 46.832964). Optical and aerodynamic particle counters, as well as a scanning mobility particle size spectrometer and an ice nuclei counter were deployed to report particle concentrations and size distributions in fine (10-1000 nm) and coarse mode (> 1000 nm), cloud condensation nuclei concentrations (CCNCs), and ice nuclei particle concentrations (ICNCs). The ambient particles were transported via a heated inlet to be distributed to the particle detecting devices inside the setup room.

Optical Particle Counter (OPC): Light scattering of a diode laser beam caused by travelling particles is used in the both, the OPC-N3 (0.41 - 38.5 μm) and GT-526S (0.3 – 5 μm), to determine their size and number concentration. For the OPC-N3, particle size spectra and concentration data are used afterwards to calculate PM₁, PM₂,₅ and PM₁₀ (assumptions: particle density: 1.65 g cmˉ³, refractive index: 1.5+i0).

Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS): The APS (3321, TSI Inc.) measured the particle size distribution for aerodynamic diameters between 0.5 μm and ~20 μm by the particle’s time-of-flight and light-scattering intensity (assumptions: particle density 1 g cmˉ³).

Scanning Mobility Particle Size Spectrometer (SMPS): Particle number concentrations in a size range between 12 and 460 nm (electrical mobility diameter) were measured at Davos Wolfgang, using a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Spectrometer (SMPS 3938, TSI Inc.). The classifier (3082, TSI Inc.) was equipped with a neutralizer (3088, TSI Inc.) and a differential mobility analyzer working with negative polarity (3081, TSI Inc.). The size selected particles were counted by a water-based condensation particle counter (3787 TSI Inc.). The TSI AIM software was used to provide particle size distributions by applying multiple charge and diffusion loss corrections (assumptions: particle density 1 g cmˉ³).

Coriolis μ and LINDA: A microbial air sampler (Coriolis μ, bertin Instruments) was used to collect airborne particles for investigating their ice nucleating ability with a droplet freezing device. Particles larger than 0.5 μm were drawn with an air flow rate of up to 300 l min‾¹ into the cone and centrifuged into the wall of the cone due to the forming vortex. The liquid sample was transferred into the LED based Ice Nucleation Detection Apparatus (LINDA, University of Basel) to study heterogeneous ice formation (immersion freezing mode) of ambient airborne particles.

aerosol

display_name: aerosol

ice-nucleation

display_name: ice-nucleation

inp

display_name: inp

linda

display_name: linda

particles

display_name: particles

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: Aerosol Data Weissfluhjoch


maintainer: Michael Lehning

en: winter-tourism terrestrial-laser-scanning snow-conservation snowpack snow snow-farming

en: HS Fluela autumn 2015

media_type: text/plain

en:
Snow depth/ height of snow heap in autumn 2015 obtained by terrestrial laserscanning
cell size: 10 cm
spatial reference: CH1903
Nodata: -9999

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en: Fluela .sno

media_type: SNO

en: Input snow profile (.sno file) used for SNOWPACK simulations of the Flüela heap

en: HS Martell spring 2015

en:
Snow depth/ height of snow heap in spring 2015 obtained by terrestrial laserscanning
cell size: 10 cm
spatial reference: European Datum 1950 UTM
Nodata: -9999

en: Martell .sno

en: Input snow profile (.sno file) used for SNOWPACK simulations of the Martell heap

en: Fluela .smet

media_type: SMET

en: Meteodata used as input for SNOWAPCK simulations, orginating from Station Windtunnel and DAV.

en: HS Fluela spring 2015

en:
Snow depth/ height of snow heap in spring 2015 obtained by terrrestrial laserscanning
cell size: 10 cm
spatial reference: CH1903

en: Martell .smet

en: Meteodata used as input for SNOWAPCK simulations, orginating from Station Hintermartell.

en: HS Martell autumn 2015

en:
Snow depth/ height of snow heap in autumn 2015 obtained by terrestrial laserscanning
cell size: 10 cm
spatial reference: European Datum 1950 UTM
Nodata: -9999

en:
Two data sets obtained for snow farming projects (Fluela, Davos, CH and Martell, IT) in 2015.

The data set contains for each site:

* 10 cm GIS raster of snow depth calculated from terrestrial laserscanning surveys (TLS) in the end of winter season (April/May)

* 10 cm GIS raster of snow depth calculated from TLS in the end of summer season (October)

Input files for SNOWPACK model:

* .sno: snow profile at the end of winter

* .smet: meteorological data measured by weather stations in the area

For more details see Grünewald, T., Lehning, M., and Wolfsperger, F.: Snow farming: Conserving snow over the summer season, The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2017-93, in review, 2017.

snow-conservation

display_name: snow-conservation

snow-farming

display_name: snow-farming

snowpack

display_name: snowpack

terrestrial-laser-scanning

display_name: terrestrial-laser-scanning

winter-tourism

display_name: winter-tourism

en: Snowfarming data set Davos and Martell 2015


en: avalanche-accident-statistics avalanche-fatalities number-of-caught-persons number-of-dead-persons avalanche-accidents

en: Fatal avalanche accidents in Switzerland since 1995-1996

media_type: CSV

en:
This data collection contains information concerning all accidents by snow avalanches causing at least one fatality in Switzerland. The data set commences on 01/10/1995. After the completion of a hydrological year, the new data is added.

The following information is provided:

 * avalanche identifier
 * date of the accident
 * accuracy of the date in range of days before and after
 * canton
 * name of the locality
 * start zone of the avalanche
  * coordinates (Swiss coordinate system, approximately in middle of start zone)
  * accuracy of the coordinates in meters
 * elevation (in meteres above sea level, app. in middle of start zone)
 * slope aspect (main orientation of start zone)
 * slope inclination (in degree, steepest point within start zone)
 * number of dead persons
 * number of caught persons
 * number of fully buried persons
 * forecasted avalanche danger level
 * activity/location of the accident party at the time of the incident

avalanche-accident-statistics

display_name: avalanche-accident-statistics

avalanche-accidents

display_name: avalanche-accidents

avalanche-fatalities

display_name: avalanche-fatalities

number-of-caught-persons

display_name: number-of-caught-persons

number-of-dead-persons

display_name: number-of-dead-persons

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.


causal-effect-of-mfoz

title_for_slug: causal-effect-of-mfoz

en: propensity-score-matching built-up-land-change causality selection-bias the-major-function-oriented-zone fujian-province

en: Data and Stata code for repeating the results

media_type: ZIP

en:
Data.xlsx is the variables of 952 townships
Table 1-2 NN(1-1)_noreplace_caliper(0.01).do is STATA code to produce the results in Table 1 and 2
Figure 5 Distribution of the propensity scores.R is R code rto produce Figure 5
Figure 5 Standard mean difference.R is R code rto produce Figure 5

en:
Title: Closer to causality: How effective is spatial planning in governing built-up land expansion in Fujian Province, China?

Research objective: The Major Function Oriented Zone (MFOZ), the first strategic spatial plan in China, is developed to achieve a coordinated regional development, through spatial regulation and zoning of development. The MFOZ he MFOZ divided land into four major function-oriented zones: The development-optimized zone, the development-prioritised zone, the development-restricted zone, and the development-prohibited zone. We used propensity score marching to evaluate the effect of the MFOZ on built-up land expansion in Fujian Province over three time intervals (2013–2015, 2013–2018 and 2013–2020).

Data: Data.xlsx contains the variables of 954 towns in Fujian Province.
Town_ID is the town unique ID;
County_ID is the county unique ID;
City_ID is the city unique ID;
MFOZ is the the development-prioritised zone and the development-restricted zone (The development-optimized zone and the development-prohibited zone are excluded);
Builtup_13_15 is the built-up land expansion from 2013 to 2015;
Builtup_13_18 is the built-up land expansion from 2013 to 2018;
Builtup_13_20 is the built-up land expansion from 2013 to 2020;
Dis2water is the Euclidean distance from the town to the nearest waterbody;
Slope is the the average slope within the town;
GDP is the average GDP in 2010 within the town;
Pop is the average population in 2010 within the town;
Road is the average population in 2010 within the town;
Dis2city is the Euclidean distance from the town to the nearest prefectural city centre;
Nei_Arable, Nei_Forest, and Nei_Built.up are the area of arable land, forest land, and built-up land neighbouring town i in 2010.

Method: we used the propensity score matching to compare the changes in the amount of built-up land in the towns of the development-prioritised zone with the matched towns of the development-restricted zone. Additionally, we used three evaluation intervals (2013–2015, 2013–2018 and 2013–2020) to evaluate temporal variation in the causal effect of the MFOZ on built-up land expansion.

built-up-land-change

display_name: built-up-land-change

causality

display_name: causality

fujian-province

display_name: fujian-province

propensity-score-matching

display_name: propensity-score-matching

selection-bias

display_name: selection-bias

the-major-function-oriented-zone

display_name: the-major-function-oriented-zone

en: Causal effect of MFOZ


en: bioenergy review manure switzerland biogas

en: Production de biogaz à partir d’engrais de ferme en Suisse

en: L'objectif de ce livre blanc est de fournir aux décideurs, aux administrations et aux parties prenantes les résultats de recherche les plus récents afin de promouvoir l'utilisation optimale de la bioénergie issue des engrais de ferme dans la transition énergétique suisse. A cette fin, les résultats du centre de compétence suisse pour la recherche en bioénergie - SCCER BIOSWEET - sont résumés et présentés dans un contexte plus large. Si rien d'autre n'est mentionné, les résultats se réfèrent à la Suisse et, dans le cas de la matière première, aux potentiels nationaux de biomasse.

bioenergy

display_name: bioenergy

biogas

display_name: biogas

manure

display_name: manure

review

display_name: review

switzerland

display_name: switzerland


maintainer: Robert Pazúr

en: remote-sensing grassland sentinel-2 habitat phenology machine-learning cropland switzerland agriculture vegetation-indices

en: (current version) Mask of unsealed surfaces of Switzerland based on 3 years Sentinel-2 NDVI 95th percentile threshold value: 0.6 (v1.5)

media_type: geotiff

en: Assuming that sealed surfaces have little or no phenological response we calculated a mask of unsealed surfaces based on the 3 years (2017-2019) Sentinel-2 NDVI 95th percentile threshold value: 0.6.

format: GeoTIFF

en: (current version) Cropland, grassland, and shrubland map of Switzerland (v.1.5)

en: Cropland, grassland, and shrubland map of Switzerland (v1.0)

en: !!! Please check out the newer version in this repository !!! (1) cropland; (2) grassland; (3) shrubland; other LC classes are masked out from the map

en: Cropland and grassland map of Switzerland  (v.1.0)

en: !!! Please check out the newer version in this repository !!! (1) cropland; (2) grassland; other LC classes are masked out from the map

en: (current version) Mask of unsealed surfaces of Switzerland based on 3 years Sentinel-2 NDVI 95th percentile threshold value: 0.7 (v1.5)

en: Mask of unsealed surfaces of Switzerland based on 3 years Sentinel-2 NDVI 95th percentile threshold value: 0.7 (v1.0)

en: !!! Please check out the newer version in this repository !!! Assuming that sealed surfaces have little or no phenological response we calculated a mask of unsealed surfaces based on the 3 years (2017-2019) Sentinel-2 NDVI 95th percentile threshold value: 0.7.

en: Mask of unsealed surfaces of Switzerland based on 3 years Sentinel-2 NDVI 95th percentile threshold value: 0.6  (v1.0)

en:
!!! Please check out the newer version in the repository !!!
Mask of unsealed surfaces of Switzerland based on 3 years (2017-2019) Sentinel-2 NDVI 95th percentile threshold value: 0.6

en: (current version) Cropland and grassland map of Switzerland (v.1.5)

en: GEE (Google Earth Engine) script (JavaScript) to derived the output map  (v1.5)

media_type: JS

en: The code used in Google Earth Engine to derive the cropland, grassland and shrubland map of Switzerland. Compare to the previous version the newer version includes the shadow masking procedure which might be important in the mountainous areas.

en: GEE (Google Earth Engine) script (JavaScript) to derived the output map  (v1.0)

en: !!! Please check out the newer version in the repository !!! The code used in Google Earth Engine to derive the cropland, grassland and shrubland map of Switzerland

en: We developed a map of cropland and grassland allocation for Switzerland based on several indices dominantly derived from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery captured over multiple growing seasons. The classification model was trained based on parcel-based data derived from landholder reporting. The mapping was conducted on Google Earth Engine platform using random forest classifier. Areas of high vegetation, shrubland, sealed surface and non-vegetated areas were masked out from the country-wide map. The resulting map has high accuracy in lowlands as well as mountainous areas.

agriculture

display_name: agriculture

cropland

display_name: cropland

grassland

display_name: grassland

habitat

display_name: habitat

machine-learning

display_name: machine-learning

phenology

display_name: phenology

remote-sensing

display_name: remote-sensing

vegetation-indices

display_name: vegetation-indices

en: Cropland and grassland map of Switzerland based on Sentinel-2 data