maintainer: Adam Winstral

en: jules-investigation-model jim snow-simulation snow snow-depth

en: DEM

en: 1-km resolution DEM used for downscaling gridded NWP data to stations and for distributing BDE evaluations at HS-stations to SWE-stations

en: File/data descriptor

en: Station forcing data

en: All forcing data need to run JIM at HS and SWE stations. These are data downscaled directly from COSMO NWP data (WY14, WY15) and further enhanced by additional station observations of snow depth (HS) and air temperature (Ta) in WY17. Further information can be found in README file. Note that in WY14 and WY15, shortwave radiation was not split into direct and diffuse (not necessary for JIM) and that the default method in JIM for splitting precipitation phase was used. In WY 17, direct and diffuse were combined as input to JIM and JIM was forced with pre-processed liquid and solid precipitation phases.

en: HS and SWE observations

en: Automated (HS) and manual (SWE) data used to evaluate model simulations

en: These data were used to drive and evaluate Jules Investigation Model (JIM) snow simulations. The data provided are the forcing data used for the "deterministic" runs as described in Winstral et al., 2019. The bias-detecting ensemble (Winstral et al., 2019) used observed snow depths (HS) to detect biases in these deterministic simulations related to precipitation and energy inputs to JIM. Simulations that included the BDE evaluations substantially improved JIM simulations.

jim

display_name: jim

jules-investigation-model

display_name: jules-investigation-model

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-simulation

display_name: snow-simulation

education

en: Education and science

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Meteorological data used to develop and validate the bias-detecting ensemble (BDE)


intratrait

maintainer: Christian Rixen

title_for_slug: intratrait

en: elevation-range climate-change elevation-gradient neighbour-interactions plant-traits cold-adapted-plants

state: active

type: dataset

media_type: R

format: SERVICE

media_type: CSV

en: Plant trait data along elevation gradients on mountains

format: CSV

en:
This data set was used to test whether species specialized to high elevations or with narrow elevational ranges show more conservative (i.e. less variable) trait responses across their elevational distribution, or in response to neighbours, than species from lower elevations or with wider elevational ranges. We did so by studying intraspecific trait variation of 66 species along 40 elevational gradients in four countries (Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, China) in both hemispheres. As an indication of potential neighbour interactions that could drive trait variation, we also analysed plant species’ height ratio, its height relative to its nearest neighbour.
The following traits and parameters were measured and are available in this data set:
As an indication of plant stature, we measured vegetative and generative height, where vegetative height was distance from soil to highest vegetative leaf and generative height was distance to the highest point on the reproductive shoot. As a measure of reproductive investment, we noted the presence of flowers on the randomly chosen individuals (see below). As a measure of individual and genet basal area, we measured individual plant and patch diameters, in two dimensions (along the largest diameter and perpendicular to it). In clonal plant species, plant diameter was equivalent to an individual rosette, whereas patch diameter referred to the whole genet and could represent the size of a tuft, tussock or cushion. For genera with more singular growth forms (e.g., some Gentiana species) plant and patch diameter were the same. The two diameter measurements were made at right angles, allowing estimates of patch and plant areas to be calculated as an ellipse (i.e., area = 0.5 a 0.5 b Π). All traits were measured on ten randomly selected individuals per site. Flower count data was considered in a binary fashion on a per individual basis (because for some species individuals only produce one flower when flowering) so that the presence or absence of flower(s) was a nominal value between 0 and 10 for each species at each site. We then collected at least three leaves (up to 30 for small and light leaves) from each of the first three individuals selected from each species for determination of leaf dry matter content (LDMC) and specific leaf area (SLA). For calculations of LDMC and SLA, fresh leaves were scanned on a flatbed scanner to determine leaf area. Leaves were then weighed on a balance to a precision of +/- 0.001g, prior to being air dried and reweighed with a balance to a precision of +/- 0.0001g. LDMC was calculated by dividing dry leaf mass by fresh leaf mass. SLA was calculated by dividing leaf area by dry leaf mass. Additionally, within an area of 10 cm diameter around the target individual, we determined the tallest neighbouring species and measured its vegetative and generative height, and estimated the percent cover of the target species, other vegetation, rock, and bare soil.
For more details see Rixen et al. 2022, Journal of Ecology.

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

cold-adapted-plants

display_name: cold-adapted-plants

elevation-gradient

display_name: elevation-gradient

elevation-range

display_name: elevation-range

neighbour-interactions

display_name: neighbour-interactions

plant-traits

display_name: plant-traits

fr: Education, science

de: Bildung, Wissenschaft

it: Formazione e scienza

envidat

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

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

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

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

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

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester

en: intratrait


maintainer: Robert Pazúr

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

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

media_type: geotiff

format: GeoTIFF

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

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.

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

media_type: TIFF

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

format: TIFF

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

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

switzerland

display_name: switzerland

vegetation-indices

display_name: vegetation-indices

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


maintainer: EnviDat Support

en: temperature wind-speed long-term climate-change meteo par precipitation swiss-forest-lab meteorology relative-humidity

en: Data plot of the field station (LAF)

media_type: application/pdf

en: Data overview for air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, PAR, wind speed.

format: PDF

mimetype: application/pdf

en: Field station data (LAF)

media_type: text/csv

en: Data file.

mimetype: text/csv

en: Data plot of the forest station (LAB)

en: Site aerial photo (Lausanne)

media_type: image/jpeg

en: Site aerial photo from both Lausanne stations. Source: Google. 2016. Site aerial photo from both Lausanne stations. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from https://www.google.ch/maps

mimetype: image/jpeg

en: Forest station data (LAB)

en: Site photo of the field station (LAF)

en: Site photo of the field station from the side.

en: Site photo of the forest station (LAB)

en: Site photo of the fforest station from the side.

en: High quality meteorological data are needed for long-term forest ecosystem research, particularly in the light of global change. The long-term data series published here comprises almost 20 years of measurements for two meteorological stations in Lausanne in Switzerland where one station is located within a natural mixed forest stand (LAB) with European beech (_Fagus sylvatica_; 160-170 yrs), European silver fir (_Abies alba_; 160-170 yrs) and Norway spruce (_Picea abies_; 160-170 yrs) as dominant tree species. A second station is situated in the very vicinity outside of the forest (field station, LAF). The meteorological time series are presented in hourly time resolution of air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and wind speed. Lausanne is part of the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF) established and maintained by the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL.

long-term

display_name: long-term

meteo

display_name: meteo

meteorology

display_name: meteorology

par

display_name: par

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

relative-humidity

display_name: relative-humidity

swiss-forest-lab

display_name: swiss-forest-lab

temperature

display_name: temperature

wind-speed

display_name: wind-speed

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: Lausanne, Switzerland: Long-term forest meteorological data from the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF), from 1996 onwards


en: snow snow-instability avalanche-forecasting avalanche-danger avalanche danger-level

en: Field observations of snow instabilities

en: Read-me file

media_type: PDF

en: This read-me file contains the descriptions of the variables.

en:
This data set includes 589 snow profile observations including a rutschblock test, observations of signs of instability and an assessment of the local avalanche danger level, mainly recorded in the region of Davos (eastern Swiss Alps) during the winter seasons 2001-2002 to 2018-2019.

These data were analyzed and results published by Schweizer et al. (2021). They characterized the avalanche danger levels based on signs of instability (whumpfs, shooting cracks, recent avalanches), snow stability class and new snow height.

The data are provided in a csv file (589 records); the variables are described in the corresponding read-me file.

These data are the basis of the following publication: Schweizer, J., Mitterer, C., Reuter, B., and Techel, F.: Avalanche danger level characteristics from field observations of snow instability, Cryosphere, 15, in review, 2021.

 Acknowlegements
Many of the data were recorded by SLF observers and staff members, among those Roland Meister, Stephan Harvey, Lukas Dürr, Marcia Phillips, Christine Pielmeier and Thomas Stucki. Their contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

avalanche-danger

display_name: avalanche-danger

avalanche-forecasting

display_name: avalanche-forecasting

danger-level

display_name: danger-level

snow

display_name: snow

snow-instability

display_name: snow-instability


en: ice arctic antarctica sea-salt-aerosol snow

en: Code

media_type: m

en: Matlab code to read and plot the data

en: Fig 1E

media_type: text/plain

en: Data to Figure 1E

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en: This table lists all data files in chronological order. "SampleTemp" refers to the reading of the PT-1000 at the side of the sample holder. "cellPressure" is the water vapour pressure during the measurements. From this, in presence of ice, the temperature of the ice sample can be calculated which is given in the column "iceTemp". "dT" is the difference, or temperature offset, between sensor's reading and the ice samples temperature. The offset is due to the sensor being mounted away from the cooled spot of the sample were it experiences heating from warmer parts of the sample holder. The off-set is used to calibrate the temperature sensor and the resulting temperature during the experiments is given in the column "temperature". "relHum" is the relative humidity above (supercooled) liquid and "concBrine" is the concentration of a NaCl solution in mol/l in equilibrium with ice at the experimental temperature. "Area" is the integrated PE signal.

en: Table 2

en: This table lists all NEXAFS data files in chronological order with PE carbon to oxygen signal intensity ratios -from which the atomic ratio were calculated in the paper - before ("preCtoO") and after ("postCtoO") each NEXAFS measurement. Also listed is the change in Na ("lossSodi"), O ("lossOxy"), Cl ("lossChlor"), and C ("lossCarb") signal intensity after the NEXAFS measurement compared to prior to the NEXAFS measurement.

en: Fig 1B

en: Data in Figure 1B

en: Fib 1B_3

en: Individual data to mean shown in Figure 1B

en: Fig 1A

en: Data Figure 1A

en: Fig 1D

en: Data to Figure 1D

en: Fig 1C

en: Data to Figure 1C

en: Fig 1F_2

en: Individual data to mean shown in Figure 1F

en: Fig 1F

en: Data to Figure 1F

en: Fig 1B_1

en: Fig 1B_2

en: Fig 1F_1

en: Laboratory experiments are presented on the phase change at the surface of sodium chloride – water mixtures at temperatures between 259 K and 240 K. High selectivity to the upper few nanometres of the frozen solution – air interface is achieved by using electron yield near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) spectroscopy. We present the NEXAFS spectrum of the hydrohalite.

en: Data set on interfacial supercooling and the precipitation of hydrohalite in frozen NaCl solutions by X-ray absorption spectroscopy


maintainer: Ana Beatriz Pierri Daunt

en: resilience multifunctionality sense-of-place socio-ecological-system landscape-perception literature-review green-infrastructure landscape-ecology ecosystem-services decision-making landscape-planning landscape-services planning pdfsearch

en: 6. Protocol

media_type: XLSX

format: XLS

en: 3. Use of any early concept.

en: 4. Use of any additional concept.

en: 2. Frequency of additional concepts.

en: 5. Planning steps.

en: 1. Frequency of early concepts.

en:
Table of content: 1. Frequency of early concepts; 2. Frequency of additional concepts; 3. Use of any early concept; 4. Use of any additional concept, 5. Planning steps; 6. Protocol.

The present dataset is part of the published scientific paper entitled “Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments” (Hersperger et al., 2021). The goal of this research was to review recent publications to assess the use of landscape ecological concepts in planning. Specifically, we address the following research questions: Q1. Landscape ecological concepts: What are they? How frequently are they mentioned in current research? Q2. How are landscape ecological concepts integrated in landscape planning?

We analysed all empirical and overview papers that have been published in four key academic journals in the field of landscape ecology and landscape planning in the years 2015–2019 (n = 1918). Four key journals in the field of landscape ecology were selected to conduct the analysis, respectively Landscape Ecology (LE), Landscape Online (LO), Current Landscape Ecology Reports (CLER), and Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP). The title, abstract and keywords of all papers were read in order to identify landscape ecological concepts. Then, all 1918 papers went through a keyword search to identify the use of early and additional concepts. We used the “pdfsearch” package in R programming language and searched for singular and plural forms and different variations of the concepts (see Supplementary material 1, Table A). As a result, we provided four outputs:

  1. Frequency of early concepts. This data provides the total number of times each article used each early concept (Q1). This data was used to produce the Figure 2a at the original publication.

  2. Frequency of additional concepts. This data provides the total number of times each article used each additional concept (Q1). This data was used to produce the Figure 2b at the original publication.

  3. Use of any early concept. This data provides the total number of times each article used any early concept (Q1).
This data was used to produce the Figure 3a at the original publication.

  4. Use of any additional concept. This data provides the total number of times each article used any additional concept (Q1). This data was used to produce the Figure 3b at the original publication.

To address the second question (Q2), the title, abstract and keywords of the papers included in our sample (n=1918 articles) were screened to identify papers that might show how landscape ecological concepts are integrated into planning. We selected 52 empirical papers (see Supplementary material – 4 Integration of landscape ecological concepts into planning), and we provided two outputs:

  5. Planning steps. This data provides the number of times landscape ecological concepts were addressed in each
planning steps in 52 empirical papers analysed in detail (Q2). This data was used to produce the Figure 4 at the
original publication.

  6. Protocol for assessing the integration of landscape ecological concepts into planning. To systematically collect the
data, we used this protocol which addressed the following questions: (a) which type of planning is addressed by the
paper? (b) to which planning level does the paper refer to? (c) which concepts are integrated in any of the planning
steps described above?

decision-making

display_name: decision-making

ecosystem-services

display_name: ecosystem-services

green-infrastructure

display_name: green-infrastructure

landscape-ecology

display_name: landscape-ecology

landscape-perception

display_name: landscape-perception

landscape-planning

display_name: landscape-planning

landscape-services

display_name: landscape-services

literature-review

display_name: literature-review

multifunctionality

display_name: multifunctionality

pdfsearch

display_name: pdfsearch

planning

display_name: planning

resilience

display_name: resilience

sense-of-place

display_name: sense-of-place

socio-ecological-system

display_name: socio-ecological-system

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: The usage of landscape ecological concepts in the planning literature


data-analysis-toolkits

title_for_slug: data-analysis-toolkits

en: uncertainty hypothesis-testing error-propagation bayesian-inference statistics data-analysis

en: Toolkit 8: Hodges-Lehmann estimators

en: A quick introduction to Hodges-Lehmann estimators (nonparametric measures of effect size)

en: Toolkit 2: quantifying data distributions using descriptive statistics

en: Toolkit 5: uncertainty analysis and error propagation

en: Gaussian error propagation, monte carlo methods, and first-order, second-moment error propagation

en: Toolkit 7: hypothesis testing, significance, and power

en: An overview of basic concepts -- and common pitfalls -- in statistical hypothesis testing, statistical significance, and power analysis

en: Toolkit 1: graphically displaying data distributions

en: Toolkit 4: confidence intervals

en: Toolkit 11: serial correlation

en: Tools for detecting and correcting for serial correlation in analyses of time series

en: Toolkit 12: weighted averages and their uncertainties

en: There are two different ways to calculate the uncertainty of a weighted average. Software packages often don't tell you which one they are reporting, and the resulting errors can be huge.

en: toolkit 6: averaging in nonlinear functions

en: The average of a nonlinear function will not equal the function evaluated at its average inputs (the mean of the function will differ from from the function of the mean). This toolkit shows how to estimate that averaging bias.

en: Toolkit 3: tools for transforming data

en: The ladder of powers and a few other cool transformations

en: Toolkit 10: linear regression

en: An overview of the math, logic, and pitfalls of ordinary least-squares linear regression

en: Toolkit 9: Experimentwise error rates and statistical fishing expeditions

media_type: .pdf

en: Statistical fishing expeditions, and how to avoid being misled by them

en:
These are condensed notes covering selected key points in data analysis and statistics. They were developed by James Kirchner for the course "Analysis of Environmental Data" at Berkeley in the 1990's and 2000's. They are not intended to be comprehensive, and thus are not a substitute for a good textbook or a good education!

License: These notes are released by James Kirchner under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

bayesian-inference

display_name: bayesian-inference

data-analysis

display_name: data-analysis

error-propagation

display_name: error-propagation

hypothesis-testing

display_name: hypothesis-testing

statistics

display_name: statistics

uncertainty

display_name: uncertainty


soil-respiration-exclosure-experiment

title_for_slug: soil-respiration-exclosure-experiment

en: grassland ungulates subalpine soil-respiration grazing

en: Soil respiration Switzerland

en:
ID: Fence number

Year	:Year of sampling

mean.CO2: soil respiration measured with PP-systems SRC-1 soil respriation chamber attached to a EGM-4 infrared gas analyser; units CO2 g m-2 h-1

Grassland: Grasslands where fences were errected. Note that on large grasslands (STAB, GRIM, MING) 2 pairs of fences were errected (2 in short, 2 in tall-grass vegetation), on small grasslands (DADA, MARG, BOTS) only one pair of fences was errected (1 short-grass; one-tallgrass vegetation)

Fence: Fence number; un-even numbers on short-grass vegetation (1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17), even numbers on tall-grass vegetation (2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18)

Vegetation:	1 = shortgrass vegetation, 2 = tall-grass vegetation (9 replicate fences on each vegetation type)

Treatment	: 1 = all herbivores grazing, 2 = large ungulates (red deer, chamois) excluded

en:
Location of data collection
The Swiss National Park (SNP) is located in the southeastern part of Switzerland, and covers an area of 170 km2, 50 km2 of which is forested, 33 km2 is occupied by alpine and 3 km2 by subalpine grasslands. Elevations range from 1350 to 3170 m a.s.l., and mean annual precipitation and temperature are 871 mm and 0.6°C measured at the Park’s weather station in Buffalora (1980 m a.s.l.) between 1960 and 2009 (MeteoSchweiz 2011). Founded in 1914, the SNP received minimal human disturbance for almost 100 years (no hunting, fishing, or camping, visitors are not allowed to leave the trails). Large (> 1 ha) homogeneous patches of short- and tall-grass vegetation characterize the subalpine grasslands. The average vegetation height of short-grass vegetation is 2 to 5 cm. Red fescue (Festuca rubra L.), quaking grass (Briza media L.) and common bent grass (Agrostis tenuis Sipthrob) are the predominating plant species in this vegetation type. Tussocks of evergreen sedge (Carex sempervirens Vill.) and mat grass (Nardus stricta L.) are predominant in the tall-grass vegetation, which averages 20 cm in vegetation height (Schütz and others 2006). Short-grass vegetation developed in areas where cattle and sheep rested (high nutrient input) during agricultural land-use (from 14th century until 1914); tall-grass vegetation developed in areas where cattle and sheep used to graze, but did not rest (Schütz and others 2003, 2006). Herbivores were shown to consume > 60% of the biomass in short-grass compared to < 20% in tall-grass vegetation (Schütz and others 2006). The herbivore community present in the SNP can be divided into four groups based on body size/weight: large [red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) and chamois (Rupricapra rupricapra L.); 30 - 150 kg], medium [marmot (Marmota marmota L.) and snow hare (Lepus timidus L.); 3 – 6 kg], and small vertebrate herbivores (small rodents: e.g. Clethrionomys spp., Microtus spp., Apodemus spp.; 30 – 100 g) as well as invertebrates (e.g. grasshoppers, caterpillars, cicadas, < 5 g).

Experimental design
We selected 18 subalpine grassland sites (9 short-grass, 9 tall-grass vegetation). The sites were spread across the entire park on dolomite parent material at altitudes of 1975 to 2300 meters. At each site we established an exclosure network (fences) in spring 2009 (early June), immediately after snowmelt. Each exclosure network consisted of a total of five 2 × 3 m sized plots that progressively excluded the different herbivores listed above (further labeled according to the herbivore guilds that had access to the respective plots “All”, “Marmot/Mice/Invertebrates”, “Mice/Invertebrates”, “Invertebrates”, “None”). The “All” treatment was thus accessible to all herbivores, was not fenced and was located at least 5 m away from a 2.1 m tall and 7 × 9 m main fence that enclosed the other four treatments. This fence was constructed of 10 × 10 cm wooden posts and electrical equestrian tape (AGRARO ECO, Landi, Bern, Switzerland; 20 mm width) mounted at 0.7 m, 0.95 m, 1.2 m, 1.5 m and 2.1 m above the ground that were connected to a solar charged battery (AGRARO Sunpower S250, Landi, Bern, Switzerland). We also mounted non-electrically charged equestrian tape at 0.5 m to help exclude deer and chamois, yet allow marmots and hares to enter safely. Within each main fenced area we randomly established four 2 × 3 m plots: (1) The “Marmot/Mice/Invertebrates” plot remained unfenced, thus, with the exception of red deer and chamois, all herbivores were able to access the plot, (2) The “Mice/Invertebrates” plot consisted of a 90 cm high electric sheep fence (AGRARO Weidezaunnetz ECO, Landi, Bern, Switzerland; mesh size 10 × 10 cm) connected to the solar panel and excluded all medium sized mammals (marmots, hares), but provided access for small mammals and invertebrates, (3) The “Invertebrates” plot provided access for invertebrates only and was surrounded by 1 m high metal mesh (Hortima AG, Hausen, Schweiz; mesh size 2 × 2 cm), (4) The “None” plot was surrounded by a 1 m tall mosquito net (Sala Ferramenta AG, Biasca, Switzerland; mesh size 1.5 × 2 mm) to exclude all herbivores. This plot was covered with a roof constructed of a wooden frame lined with mosquito mesh that was mounted on the wooden corner posts. We also treated this plot with a biocompatible insecticide (Clean kill original, Eco Belle GmbH, Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany) when needed to remove insects that might have entered during data collection or that hatched from the soil.

!!! The here published data set only contains data for “All”, and “Marmot/Mice/Invertebrates” (= ungulates excluded) plots !!!

Data collection
In-situ soil CO2 emissions were measured with a PP-Systems SRC-1 soil respiration chamber (closed circuit) attached to a PP-Systems EGM-4 infrared gas analyzer (PP-Systems, Amesbury, MA, USA) on two randomly selected locations on one subplot within each of the 90 plots. For each measurement the soil chamber (15 cm high; 10 cm diameter) was placed on a permanently installed PVC collar (10 cm diameter) driven five centimeters into the soil at the beginning of the study (June 2009). The measurements were conducted between 0900 and 1700 hours every two weeks from early to early September 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013. Freshly germinated plants growing within the PVC collars were removed prior to each measurement to avoid measuring plant respiration/photosynthesis. The two measurements collected per plot every two weeks were averaged.

Please acknowledge the funding of the study: funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, SNF grant-no 31003A_122009/1 to Anita C. Risch, Martin Schütz and Flurin Filli

grassland

display_name: grassland

grazing

display_name: grazing

soil-respiration

display_name: soil-respiration

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

ungulates

display_name: ungulates

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: Soil respiration - exclosure experiment


maintainer: Paraskevi Georgakaki

en: liquid-water-content secondary-ice-production swiss-alps wrf ice-water-content blowing-snow ice-crystal-number-concentration jungfraujoch

en: WRF outputs

media_type: zip-compressed folder of NetCDF files

en:
The .zip file contains all the NetCDF outputs produced by the mesoscale Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (version: 4.0.1). Two case studies were simulated in this study, between 25-28 January 2014 (00:00 UTC) and 29 January - 1 February 2014 (00:00 UTC), respectively. The former is denoted as "NW" and the latter as "SE", owing to the prevailing wind conditions at the Jungfraujoch (JFJ) station.

The outputs come from the innermost domain of the simulations with a spatial resolution of 1 km and are extracted from the nearest to JFJ model grid point (46.55°N 7.98°E). The dimensions of each model variable is [145,100], which corresponds to time and height, respectively. The frequency of the outputs is 30 min. Note that the first 24 hours of each simulation (i.e., the first 48 outputs) were considered spin up time.

The following sets of sensitivity simulations were presented in this study:

* CNTRL_NW.nc, CNTRL_SE.nc : Sensitivity simulations performed with the default version of WRF
* DS_PHILL_NW.nc, DS_PHILL_SE.nc : Sensitivity simulations including a description of the droplet shattering process following Phillips et al. (2018)
* DS_SULL_NW.nc, DS_SULL_SE.nc : Sensitivity simulations including a description of the droplet shattering process following Sullivan et al. (2018)
* PHILL_NW.nc, PHILL_SE.nc : Sensitivity simulations including a description of the ice-ice collisional break-up process following Phillips et al. (2017)
* TAKAH_NW.nc, TAKAH_SE.nc : Sensitivity simulations including a description of the ice-ice collisional break-up process following Sullivan et al. (2018) based on Takahashi et al. (1995)
* TAKAHrim_NW.nc, TAKAHrim_SE.nc : Same set-up as before but applied only to collisions between rimed ice particles
* BIPS_Xk0_DY_NW.nc, BIPS_Xk0_DY_SE.nc : Sensitivity simulations including a source of Xk0 (either 10.0 or 100.0 L⁻¹) ice crystals with sizes of DY (either 10 or 100 μm) in the first atmospheric level of the model
* BIPS100_PHILL_NW.nc, BIPS100_PHILL_SE.nc : Sensitivity simulations where the combined effect of blowing snow and ice-ice collisional break-up is examined

en: Observational data

media_type: zip-compressed folder of csv

en:
The .zip file contains 6 .csv files including all microphysical measurements taken at the Jungfraujoch station during the two periods of interest:

* 25-28 January 2014 : northwesterly-winds (NW)
* 29 January - 1 February 2014 : southeasterly-winds (SE)

The total Ice Crystal Number Concentration (ICNC; reported in L⁻¹) is measured by the two-dimensional stereo hydrometeor spectrometer (2D-S; Lawson et al., 2006) over the size range 10-1280 μm. The total ice water content (IWC; reported in gm⁻³) is also derived by the 2D-S data using the Brown and Francis (1995) mass-diameter relationship. Finally, the quantification of the liquid water content (LWC; reported in gm⁻³) is based on the liquid droplet size distribution data derived from a DMT cloud droplet probe (CDP; Lance et al., 2010) over the size range 2-50 μm. The frequency of the measurements in the .csv files is 30 min, to match the output frequency of the model. Datetime is also reported in the files (DD/MM/YYYY h:mm) in UTC.

Acknowledgment: Collection and pre-processing of the microphysical measurements has been performed by Gary Lloyd (gary.lloyd@manchester.ac.uk). More details about the instrumentation during the CLACE2014 campaign can be found in Lloyd et al. (2015).

en:
This repository contains all WRF model outputs and observational data sets used for the paper:
Georgakaki, P., Sotiropoulou, G., Vignon, É., Billault-Roux, A.-C., Berne, A., and Nenes, A.: Secondary ice production processes in wintertime alpine mixed-phase clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2021-760, in review, 2021.

blowing-snow

display_name: blowing-snow

ice-crystal-number-concentration

display_name: ice-crystal-number-concentration

ice-water-content

display_name: ice-water-content

jungfraujoch

display_name: jungfraujoch

liquid-water-content

display_name: liquid-water-content

secondary-ice-production

display_name: secondary-ice-production

swiss-alps

display_name: swiss-alps

wrf

display_name: wrf

en: Data for the publication "Secondary ice production processes in wintertime alpine mixed-phase clouds"


greenland-shrubs-and-microclimate

maintainer: Nathalie Chardon

title_for_slug: greenland-shrubs-and-microclimate

en: accessible-shrub-forest validation sdm arctic climate field-data

en: Kangerluarsunnguaq

media_type: .csv

en:
 Collected August 2020 (PI: Nathalie Isabelle Chardon)

These data collected August 2020 (PI: Nathalie Isabelle Chardon). Please contact N. I. Chardon (nathalie.chardon_at_gmail.com) for individual quadrat (i.e. 1 m x 1 m) data, which are averaged at the 90 m spatial grid here.

 COLUMN ABBREVIATIONS

 Metadata for 90 m spatial grid

id: sampling zone and unique 90 m grid identifier

long: WGS84 longitude

lat: WGS84 latitude

x_stere: longitude in Polar Stereographic (EPSG 4326)

y_stere: latitude in Polar Stereographic (EPSG 4326)

date: sampling day.month.year

 Species presence [1] or absence [0] at grid level

alcr: _Alnus crispa_

bena: _Betula nana_

dila: _Diapensia lapponica_

emni: _Empetrum nigrum_

hahy: _Harimanella hypoides_

lopr: _Loiseleuria procumbens_

oxpa: _Oxycoccus palustre_

phca: _Phyllodoce caerulea_

rhod: _Rhododendron_ sp.

saar: _Salix arctica_

sagl: _Salix glauca_

sahe: _Salix herbacea_

vaul: _Vaccinium uliginosum_

drin: _Dryas integrifolia_

thpr: _Thymus praecox_

 Habitat characteristics [% cover]

shrub: all shrub species

gram: graminoids

forb: forbs

bryo: bryophytes

lich: lichens

litt: litter

bare: bare ground

stone: stones (> 2 cm)

org: organic crust

 Shrub species height (maximum vegetative height) [mm] and cover (estimated in 1x1 m quadrat) [%]

alcr_c: _Alnus crispa_ cover

alcr_h: _Alnus crispa_ height

bena_c: _Betula nana_ cover

bena_h: _Betula nana_ height

dila_c: _Diapensia lapponica_ cover

dila_h: _Diapensia lapponica_ height

emni_c: _Empetrum nigrum_ cover

emni_h: _Empetrum nigrum_ height

hahy_c: _Harimanella hypoides_ cover

hahy_h: _Harimanella hypoides_ height

lopr_c: _Loiseleuria procumbens_ cover

lopr_h: _Loiseleuria procumbens_ height

oxpa_c: _Oxycoccus palustre_ cover

oxpa_h: _Oxycoccus palustre_ height

phca_c: _Phyllodoce caerulea_ cover

phca_height: _Phyllodoce caerulea_ height

rhod_c: _Rhododendron_ sp. cover

rhod_h: _Rhododendron_ sp. height

saar_c: _Salix arctica_ cover

saar_h: _Salix arctica_ height

sagl_c: _Salix glauca_ cover

sagl_h: _Salix glauca_ height

sahe_c: _Salix herbacea_ cover

sahe_h: _Salix herbacea_ height

vaul_c: _Vaccinium uliginosum_ cover

vaul_h: _Vaccinium uliginosum_ height

drin_c: _Dryas integrifolia_ cover

drin_h: _Dryas integrifolia_ height

 Community characteristics

rich_pa: shrub species richness at grid level

rich: shrub species richness averaged across 3 1x1 m sampling quadrats per grid

shan: Shannon diversity (‘vegan’ package; Oksanen et al. 2019)

comp_bena: shrub competition on _Betula nana_ (i.e. summed cover of non-_B. nana_ species) [% cover]

comp_sagl: shrub competition on _Salix glauca_ (i.e. summed cover of non-_S. glauca_ species) [% cover]

ht_cwm: maximum shrub canopy height (i.e. community weighted mean by abundance of maximum shrub height) [mm]

 Topography and terrain wetness (calculated from)

tcws: Tasseled Cap Wetness component (Sentinal images)

slope: slope angle (MEaSUREs Greenland Ice Mapping Project Digital Elevation Model v. 1; Howat et al., 2014, 2015) [º]

twi: SAGA wetness index (MEaSUREs Greenland Ice Mapping Project Digital Elevation Model v. 1; Howat et al., 2014, 2015)

asp: aspect (MEaSUREs Greenland Ice Mapping Project Digital Elevation Model v. 1; Howat et al., 2014, 2015) [º]

 Downscaled climate (time series 1984 – 2013)

insoljja: average June-August insolation [MJ cm-2 yr-1]

precipmam: cumulative March-May precipitation [mm]

tempcont: yearly maximum – minimum temperature [ºC]

tempmin: yearly minimum temperature [ºC]

precipjja: cumulative June-August precipitation [mm]

tempjja: average maximum June-August temperature [ºC]

tempmax: yearly maximum temperature [ºC]

en: GitLab Repository

media_type: .zip

en: Zip drive of GitLab repository contents (https://gitlab.com/nathaliechardon/gl_microclim).

en: Nuup Kangerlua

en:
 Collected July-August 2011-2013 (PI: Jacob Nabe-Nielsen)

These data collected July-August 2011-2013 (PI: Jacob Nabe-Nielsen). Please contact J. Nabe-Nielsen (jnn_at_ecos.au.dk) to request access to data on all surveyed shrub species. Available here are only data used in Chardon et al. 2022.

 COLUMN ABBREVIATIONS

 Metadata for 90 m spatial grid

year: sampling year

alt: average altitude of grid as recorded during field surveys [m]

long: WGS84 longitude

lat: WGS84 latitude

x_stere: longitude in Polar Stereographic (EPSG 4326)

y_stere: latitude in Polar Stereographic (EPSG 4326)

 Species presence [1] or absence [0] at grid level

pa_bena: _Betula nana_

pa_sagl: _Salix glauca_

 Shrub species cover (calculated from pin hits in 0.7 x 0.7 m frame, based on total of 25 hits) [%]

cov_bena: _Betula nana_ cover

cov_sagl: _Salix glauca_ cover

 Downscaled climate (time series 1984 – 2013)

tempjja: average maximum June-August temperature [ºC]

tempmax: yearly maximum temperature [ºC]

tempmin: yearly minimum temperature [ºC]

tempcont: yearly maximum – minimum temperature [ºC]

precipmam: cumulative March-May precipitation [mm]

precipjja: cumulative June-August precipitation [mm]

insoljja: average June-August insolation [MJ cm-2 yr-1]

 Topography and terrain wetness (calculated from)

twi: SAGA wetness index (MEaSUREs Greenland Ice Mapping Project Digital Elevation Model v. 1; Howat et al., 2014, 2015)

slope: slope angle (MEaSUREs Greenland Ice Mapping Project Digital Elevation Model v. 1; Howat et al., 2014, 2015) [º]

asp: aspect (MEaSUREs Greenland Ice Mapping Project Digital Elevation Model v. 1; Howat et al., 2014, 2015) [º]

tcws: Tasseled Cap Wetness component (Sentinal images)

 Community characteristics

rich: shrub species richness averaged across pin-point frames per grid

shan: Shannon diversity (‘vegan’ package; Oksanen et al. 2019)

comp_bena: shrub competition on Betula nana (i.e. summed cover of non-_B. nana_ species) [% cover]

comp_sagl: shrub competition on Salix glauca (i.e. summed cover of non-_S. glauca_ species) [% cover]

en:
 Study Aim

We collected these data to alternatively train and validate high resolution (~ 90 m) Species Distribution Models (SDMs) and Species Abundance Models (SAMs) for _Betula nana_ L. (dwarf birch, Betulaceae) and _Salix glauca_ L. (grey willow, Salicaceae) in Southwest Greenland to assess how well such models can predict local-scale patterns.

 Data Description

Individual (presence-absence, abundance, maximum vegetative height) and community (species composition, maximum canopy height) shrub data for two fjords near Nuuk, Southwest Greenland. Also provided are corresponding downscaled climate data as well as calculated topographic and terrain wetness indicator variables.

 Nuup Kangerlua (Godthåbsfjord)

_Betula nana_ and _Salix glauca_ presence-absence, abundance, community species richness

 Kangerluarsunnguaq (Kobbefjord)

Shrub presence-absence, abundance, maximum vegetative height, community composition, maximum shrub canopy height

 Methods

 Field survey in Nuup Kangerlua

We conducted a stratified systematic plant survey along the length of Nuup Kangerlua (NK) fjord in Soutwesth Greenland (Fig. 1 in Chardon et al. 2022; following Nabe-Nielsen et al., 2017). At five distinct sites, we sampled along elevational gradients to collect data on presences, absences, abundance, and species composition of all woody species using a 0.7 x 0.7 m pin-point frame (Fig. 1e in Chardon et al. 2022). For model training, we converted these pin-point data to percent cover estimates based on the number of pins dropped (n = 25 per plot) and averaged them across the 119 spatio-climatic grids (see next section) corresponding to the plot locations (for details see Appendix S2 in Chardon et al. 2022).

 Field survey in Kangerluarsunnguaq

We conducted a random stratified plant survey in Kangerluarsunnguaq (K) fjord in Southwest Greenland. We used a preliminary Species Abundance Model trained with summed pin counts of _Betula nana_ in NK fjord (see Fig. S1.3 in Chardon et al. 2022) to stratify the ~ 27 x 17 km fjord landscape into low, medium, and high abundances classes. We randomly selected 90 x 90 m spatio-climatic grids to survey in each class for a total of 200 grids, ensuring that they were accessible by foot or boat (for details see Appendix S2 in Chardon et al. 2022). Within each grid, we sampled within three 1 m2 quadrats arranged in a randomly rotated equilateral triangle centered on the mid-point of the cell. We used a gridded sampling quadrat with 1% delineations (Fig. 1h in Chardon et al. 2022) to record woody species presences, absences, and composition, estimated percent cover, and measured maximum shrub species vegetatitve height. At every plot, we also visually scanned the area in a 20 m radius from the plot and recorded the presence of any additional shrub species to estimate grid-level species richness. As in NK fjord, we averaged these data at the grid level (for details see Appendix S2 in Chardon et al. 2022).

 Biotic variables

We calculated biotic microscale variables from the plant survey data collected in NK and K fjords. We calculated shrub species richness, diversity, and competition (i.e. sum of non-B. nana or non-S. glauca pin hits or percent cover). In K fjord, we also calculated canopy height as the community weighted mean (by abundance) of maximum vegetative shrub height.

 Climate variables

We computed high resolution temperature, precipitation, and insolation for local scale data for the study area by statistically downscaling climate time series (1982 - 2013) from the monthly CHELSA data (Karger et al. 2017). We downscaled these data from 30 arc sec (~ 400 m at the latitude of our study) to our target grid size of ~ 90 m with geographic weighted regression and using the MEaSUREs Greenland Ice Mapping Project (GIMP) Digital Elevation Model (DEM) v. 1 (Howat et al., 2014, 2015). We then calculated 30-year averages of the climate parameters: average summer (June – August) maximum temperature, yearly maximum temperature, yearly minimum temperature, temperature continentality (yearly max. - min. temperatures), cumulative Spring (March – May) precipitation, cumulative summer precipitation, and average summer incident solar radiation (henceforth, insolation) (for calculation details see Appendices S2, S3 in Chardon et al. 2022 and Appendix S2 in von Oppen et al. 2021).

 Topography and terrain wetness indicator variables

We calculated several topographic and terrain wetness indices at a local scale. We derived slope, aspect, and the SAGA wetness index (hereafter TWI; Boehner et al., 2002; Boehner and Selige, 2006) from the GIMP DEM. TWI is a measure of how ‘wet’ an area is, based on water drainage from the surrounding landscape. We also calculated the tasseled cap wetness component (hereafter TCW, Crist and Cicone 1984) from satellite images (for details see Appendices S2, S3 in Chardon et al. 2022) as an alternative measure of wetness.

 Computer code

Attached as zip file and available on GitLab (https://gitlab.com/nathaliechardon/gl_microclim)

 Third-party data

Data used to calculate climate, topography, and terrain wetness indicator variables are publicly available (see Appendix S2 in Chardon et al. 2022 for all data references).

accessible-shrub-forest

display_name: accessible-shrub-forest

arctic

display_name: arctic

climate

display_name: climate

field-data

display_name: field-data

sdm

display_name: sdm

validation

display_name: validation

en: Greenland shrubs and microclimate


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

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

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).

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: 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:
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

snow

display_name: snow

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: Longterm hydrological observatory Alptal (central Switzerland)


maintainer: Roksolana Petrovska

en: lar dominance acer regeneration mortality-rate fagus shade-tolerance

media_type: r script (flat-ascii text)

en: The R-script of survival analysis for accelerated failure time model

en: Mortality of regeneration

en: Acer platanoides, Acer pseudoplatanus and Fagus sylvatica living and dead juveniles (0-500 cm in height) grown in the deep shade of a prime beech-dominated forest.

en:
 One individual per species, vitality class (low and high) and height class (eight classes: 0–10, 11–20, 21–35, 36–60, 61–90, 91–130, 131–200 and 201–500 cm) was randomly selected and harvested in each of the six plots. This resulted in a sample of 82, 80 and 89 living individuals of A. platanoides, A. pseudoplatanus and F. sylvatica, respectively.

 Additionally stems of dead Acer spp. and F. sylvatica trees that had died within the last three years (2015–2018) were randomly harvested, matching the height classes of the harvested living trees wherever possible. In total, 179 dead young trees (60 A. platanoides, 72 A. pseudoplatanus and 47 F. sylvatica) were collected.

 Variables:
* species_code: a_pla - Acer platanoides, a_pse - Acer pseudoplatanus, f_syl - Fagus sylvatica
* species: as above
* dummy: 0 - living individual, 1 - dead individual
* LAR_cm2_g: leaf area ratio or ratio of leaf area to total plant biomass, [cm2/g]
* tree_age: in years
* avg_ring_micron: average width of the last 5 rings in tree life excluding the last ring
* dry_mass_g: aboveground and belowground biomass
* DLI: direct light index (measured only under living individuals)
* BLI: diffuse light index (measured only under living individuals)
* GLI: global light index

acer

display_name: acer

dominance

display_name: dominance

fagus

display_name: fagus

lar

display_name: lar

mortality-rate

display_name: mortality-rate

regeneration

display_name: regeneration

shade-tolerance

display_name: shade-tolerance

en: Mortality of regeneration: Acer spp. and Fagus sylvatica


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

en: Soil organic carbon content modified from SoilGrids

en: Mean diurnal range modified from CHELSA

media_type: tif

en: Precipitation of driest quarter modified from CHELSA

en: Soil pH modified from SoilGrids

en: Precipitation seasonality from CHELSA

en: Soil clay content modified from SoilGrids

en: Frost change frequency modified from CHELSA

en: Mean annual temperature modified from CHELSA

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

soil

display_name: soil

en: Environmental layers for SDM simulations (GDPlants)


snow-drift-station-micro-rain-radar

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

en: rain raclets radar precipitation snow mountain

en: MRR data of period 4

media_type: application/zip

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.

format: ZIP

mimetype: application/zip

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: Parameter MRR

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

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: MMR Data Period 1

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.

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

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: Snow Drift Station - Micro Rain Radar


en: blowing-snow cryowrf surface-mass-balance reproducibility antarctica

media_type: ZIP

en: Python scripts to reproduces figures in Gerber et al., 2022, submitted.

en: Static input data from the WRF simulations (used in the python scripts in Scripts_Reproducibility).

en: Processed WRF output (run with Noah-MP land surface model) used for the analysis and the figures in the paper.

en: Processed CRYOWRF output used for the analysis and the figures in the paper.

en: Namelist and input files and information to run the WRF and CRYOWRF simulations used in the paper.

en:
This dataset contains data and scripts for "CRYOWRF - a validation and the effect of blowing snow on the Antarctic SMB" (Gerber et al., submitted).

* Simulation_setup: Namelists and input information to run the simulation. Some input files need to be downloaded from Sharma et a., 2021.
* Static_input: Static topography input file of WRF (geo_em.d01).
* WRF_27km_NoahMP: Preprocessed WRF output of the simulation run with the WRF using the surface parameterization Noah-MP to reproduce the figures and results in the paper.
* WRF_27km_CRYOWRF: Preprocessed WRF output of the simulation run with CRYOWRF to reproduce the figures and results in the paper.
* Scripts_Reproducibility: Python scripts to reproduce the figures and results in the paper.

Note:

* To run some of the scripts Atmospheric Weather station data needs to be prepared using Gerber and Lehning, 2022.
* AWS data is not provided and needs to be downloaded from the corresponding databases. Please make sure to comply with the respective terms and conditions.

antarctica

display_name: antarctica

blowing-snow

display_name: blowing-snow

cryowrf

display_name: cryowrf

reproducibility

display_name: reproducibility

surface-mass-balance

display_name: surface-mass-balance

en: Reproducibility dataset for CRYOWRF validation


maintainer: Anita Risch

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

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

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment