soil-respiration-exclosure-experiment

title_for_slug: soil-respiration-exclosure-experiment

en: ungulates grazing soil-respiration grassland subalpine

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

grazing

display_name: grazing

soil-respiration

display_name: soil-respiration

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

ungulates

display_name: ungulates

education

en: Education and science

en: Soil respiration - exclosure experiment


en: conservation species-observations range-maps synonyms r-package flags filtering species-distribution accepted-name ecoregions large-scale gbif occurrence-records taxonomy landsca hard-limit

state: active

type: dataset

en: gbif.range R package version 0.2 (deprecated)

media_type: ZIP

format: ZIP

en: wsl.gbif R package version 0.1 (deprecated)

en: Test version, not to be used.

en: gbif.range R package version 1.1 (current)

en: GitHub URL

media_type: R

format: SERVICE

en: Although species range may be obtained using expert maps or modeling methods, expert data is often species-limited and statistical models need more technical expertise as well as many species observations. When unavailable, such information may be extracted from the Global Biodiversity Information facility (GBIF), the largest public data repository inventorying georeferenced species observations worldwide. However, retrieving GBIF records at large scale may be tedious if users are unaware of specific tools and functions that need to be employed. Here we present *gbif.range*, an R library that contains automated methods to generate species range maps from scratch using in-house ecoregions shapefiles and an easy-to-use GBIF download wrapper. Finally, this library also offers a set of additional very useful parameters and functions for large GBIF datasets (generate doi, extract GBIF taxonomy, records filtering...). [gbif.range R project](https://github.com/8Ginette8/gbif.range)

accepted-name

display_name: accepted-name

conservation

display_name: conservation

ecoregions

display_name: ecoregions

filtering

display_name: filtering

flags

display_name: flags

gbif

display_name: gbif

hard-limit

display_name: hard-limit

landsca

display_name: landsca

large-scale

display_name: large-scale

occurrence-records

display_name: occurrence-records

r-package

display_name: r-package

range-maps

display_name: range-maps

species-distribution

display_name: species-distribution

species-observations

display_name: species-observations

synonyms

display_name: synonyms

taxonomy

display_name: taxonomy

education

fr: Education, science

de: Bildung, Wissenschaft

it: Formazione e scienza

envidat

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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: gbif.range - An R package to generate species range maps based on ecoregions and a user-friendly GBIF wrapper


maintainer: EnviDat Support

en: co2 face nitrogen soil forest picea-abies

en: Water analyses

media_type: text/csv

en: Analyses of water, especially soil solution

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en: Soil C and N

en: Analyses of C, N and their stable isotopes in the soil, and soil pH

en: Gross N mineralisation and nitrification

en: Gross rates of N mineralisation and nitrification (15N dilution)

en: Collection of soil solution

en: Soil solution collected by suction cups

en: Collection points

en: Collection points under the trees

en: Resin bags

en: Ammonium, nitrate and their 15N in resin bags

en: Data obtained in the free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiment at Hofstetten, NW Switzerland, between 2009 and 2016. This dataset contains analyses of the soil solution throughout the experiment, especially for nitrate, as well as different analyses done at the end of the experiment: ammonium and nitrate captured by ion-exchange resin bags and extracted from soil cores, gross N mineralisation and nitrification measured by isotope dilution.

face

display_name: face

forest

display_name: forest

nitrogen

display_name: nitrogen

picea-abies

display_name: picea-abies

soil

display_name: soil

en: Nitrogen availability under trees exposed to CO2 enrichment (FACE)


maintainer: James W. Kirchner

en: plynlimon catchment stable-water-isotopes deuterium tracer streamflow chloride precipitation

en: 7-hourly stable water istopes

media_type: text/plain

en: Data set of 7-hourly stable water isotope data measured at Carreg Wen (precipitation) and Upper Hafren (streamflow).

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en: Weekly stable water isotopes

en: Data set of weekly stable water isotope data collected at Carreg Wen (precipitation) and Lower Hafren and Tanllwyth (streamflow).

en: Data Set Documentation

media_type: application/pdf

en: This file contains a documentation of the data sets, including references to other helpful documentations.

format: PDF

mimetype: application/pdf

en: The data base contains timeseries of stable water isotopes in precipitation and streamflow at Plynlimon, Wales, UK. One data set contains weekly stable water isotope data from the Lower Hafren and Tanllwyth catchments, and the other data set contains 7-hourly stable water isotope data from Upper Hafren. Both data sets also include chloride concentrations in precipitation and streamflow.

catchment

display_name: catchment

chloride

display_name: chloride

deuterium

display_name: deuterium

plynlimon

display_name: plynlimon

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

stable-water-isotopes

display_name: stable-water-isotopes

streamflow

display_name: streamflow

tracer

display_name: tracer

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: Stable water isotopes in precipitation and streamflow at Plynlimon, Wales, UK


media_type: CSV

en:
Attention: this data is not updated after 2022 anymore.
This dataset contains the statistics on the number of avalanche fatalities per **calendar year** in Switzerland. The data collection commences with the beginning of the year 1937. After the completion of a hydrological year, which is the standard way avalanche fatalities are summarized in Switzerland and ends on the 30th of September, the new data is appended to the existing dataset.
If you require annual statistics per hydrological year, please download the data from here: [https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/avalanche-fatalities-switzerland-1936]
The following information is contained (by column and column title):
 - year
 - number of fatalities in the backcountry (=tour)
 - number of fatalities in terrain close to ski areas (=offpiste, away from open and secured ski runs)
 - number of fatalities on transportation corridors including ski runs, roads, railway lines (=transportation.corridors)
 - number of fatalities in or around buildings or in settlements (= buildings)
 - sum (of all four categories)
The definitions for these four categories, as described in the guidelines to the avalanche accident database are:
tour:
activities include back-country ski, snowboard or snow-shoe touring
offpiste:
access from ski area, generally from the top of a skilift with short hiking distances
transportation.corridors (Techel et al., 2016):
people travelling or recreating on open or temporarily closed transportation corridors (e.g. a road user or a skier on a ski run) and people working on open or closed transportation corridors (e.g. maintenance crews on roads, professional rescue teams)
buildings (Techel et al., 2016):
people inside or just outside buildings, and workers on high alpine building sites

avalanche-accident-statistics

display_name: avalanche-accident-statistics

avalanche-fatalities

display_name: avalanche-fatalities

fatalities-in-or-around-buildings

display_name: fatalities-in-or-around-buildings

fatalities-in-settlements

display_name: fatalities-in-settlements

fatalities-in-the-backcountry

display_name: fatalities-in-the-backcountry

fatalities-on-transportation-corridors

display_name: fatalities-on-transportation-corridors

en: Number of avalanche fatalities per calendar year in Switzerland since 1937


maintainer: M. Carol Resch

en: grassland nematodes restoration topsoil-removal vegetation diversity long-term-experiment

en: Nematode feeding types

en:
Plot: Plot ID combining treatment code and plot number (in total 55 plots)

Treatment: Three restoration treatments and two reference treatments. Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Harvest only= multiple hay harvest (2-3 times) per years; Topsoil= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm); Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Target= species-rich ancient grasslands

He.ecto.a: Herbivorous ectoparasite nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

He.endo.a: Herbivorous endoparasite nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Ba.a: Bacterivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Fu.a: Fungivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Om.a: Omnivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Ca.a: Carnivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

format: XLS

en: Coordinates of one research plot were wrong. This was corrected in the current version of the file.

en: Nemadotes and vegetation

en:
Plot: Plot ID combining treatment code and plot number (in total 55 plots)

Treatment: Three restoration treatments and two reference treatments. Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Harvest only= multiple hay harvest (2-3 times) per years; Topsoil= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm); Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Target= species-rich ancient grasslands

X: X-Coordinate

Y: Y-Coordinate

Ri.veg: Total number of plant species

Div.veg: Shannon diversity of plant species

Ri.nem: Total number of nematode families

Div.nem: Shannon diversity of nematode families

abund: Total nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil)

MI: Maturity index according to Bongers 1990; calculations done in online tool NINJA (Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014)

PPI: Plant parasite index according to Bongers 1990; calculations done in online tool NINJA (Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014)

PPI.MI: Plant parasite to Maturity index according to Bongers, van der Meulen, & Korthals 1997; calculations done in online tool NINJA (Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014)

CI: Channel index according to Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede 2001 (%); calculations done in online tool NINJA (Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014)

EI: Enrichment index according to Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede 2001 (%); calculations done in online tool NINJA (Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014)

SI: Structure index according to Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede 2001 (%); calculations done in online tool NINJA (Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014)

He.a: Herbivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

He.ecto.a: Herbivorous ectoparasite nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

He.endo.a: Herbivorous endoparasite nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Ba.a: Bacterivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Fu.a: Fungivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Om.a: Omnivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Ca.a: Carnivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014

Om.Ca.a	Sum of omnivorous and carnivorous nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); classification according to Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014
CP1.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 1 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990; equivalent to enrichment indicators according to Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede 2001

CP2.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 2 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990; equivalent to stress indicators according to Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede 2001

CP3.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 3 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990

CP4.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 4 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990

CP5.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 5 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990

CP3-5.a: Sum of C-P3, C-P4 and C-P5 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil) equivalent to structure indicators according to Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede 2001

protect.sp.pro: plant species categorized into species of concern based on their red list status in Switzerland as well as their protection status in Switzerland and the Canton Zurich (Moser, Gygax, Bäumler, Wyler, & Palese, 2002)

tar.sp: Number of target species (all species recorded in the eleven target plots plus propagules of species applied by hand, resulting in a total of 143 species)

Indi.moist: Plant indicator values for soil moisture according to Landolt et al. 2010

Indi.nutri: Plant indicator values for soil nutrients according to Landolt et al. 2010

Management: level of mowing and manuring frequency (35-40 kg N ha-1 application-1); intensity1 = mowing once and no manure; intensity2 = 2-3 times mowing and no manure; intensity3 = 2-3 times mowing and manuring; intensity4 = 4-5 times mowing and manuring

Tillage: last time of tillage

Land.use.history: for Initial plots = recent agricultural use; for all restored sites = agricultural use before restoration
Mowing	earliest date of biomass harvesting (excluding “Initial”) based on contracts between farmers and the Nature Protection Agency of Zurich

Soil.type: based on soil mapping survey 1991 (before restoration)

Soil.texture: determined by the sediment method (Gee & Bauder 1986) and classified into soil textural classes according to FAO (1990)

pH: soil pH (CaCl2)

Slope: slope gradient classes according to FAO (1990; %)

en: Nematode families

en:
Plot: Plot ID combining treatment code and plot number (in total 55 plots)

Treatment: Three restoration treatments and two reference treatments. Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Harvest only= multiple hay harvest (2-3 times) per years; Topsoil= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm); Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Target= species-rich ancient grasslands

column 3-41: Nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil) per family; nomenclature according to Bongers 1988

en: Nematode colonizer-persister classes

en:
Plot: Plot ID combining treatment code and plot number (in total 55 plots)

Treatment: Three restoration treatments and two reference treatments. Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Harvest only= multiple hay harvest (2-3 times) per years; Topsoil= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm); Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Target= species-rich ancient grasslands

CP1.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 1 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990; equivalent to enrichment indicators according to Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede 2001
CP2.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 2 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990; equivalent to stress indicators according to Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede 2001
CP3.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 3 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990
CP4.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 4 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990
CP5.a: C-P (colonizer-persister) class 5 nematode abundance (individuals per 100g dry soil); C-P classification according to Bongers 1990

en: Plant community composition (plant species)

en:
Plot: Plot ID combining treatment code and plot number (in total 55 plots)

Treatment: Three restoration treatments and two reference treatments. Initial=intensively managed grasslands; Harvest only= multiple hay harvest (2-3 times) per years; Topsoil= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm); Topsoil+Propagules= Topsoil removal (upper 10-30 cm) combined with introduction of target plant species; Target= species-rich ancient grasslands

column 3-252: Plant abundance per species (in total 252 plant species) expressed as cover percentage estimation according to van der Maarel (vdM 1979; 7 classes: 1-7); nomenclature according to Lauber & Wagner (1996)

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

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

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

 Methods
 Study area and experimental settings
The study was conducted in a nature reserve (Eigental: 47° 27’ to 47° 29’ N, 8° 37’ E, 461 to 507 m a.s.l.) that is located on the Swiss Central plateau close to Zurich airport (Canton Zurich, Switzerland). The mean annual temperature in this area ranges from 8.9 to 10.6 °C, mean annual precipitation from 910 to 1260 mm [10-year average (2007-2017); MeteoSchweiz, 2018]. The main soil types are calcaric to gleyic Cambisol and Gleysols. The reserve was established in 1967 to protect small remnants of oligotrophic semi-natural grasslands (roughly 12 ha). The plant community can be characterized as Molinion and Mesobromion (semi-wet to semi-dry), depending on the site-specific groundwater level and slope inclination (Delarze, Gonseth, Eggenberg, & Vust, 2015). These remnants represent species-rich islands in an otherwise intensively managed agricultural landscape. Semi-natural grasslands covered an area of 60,000 ha in the Canton Zurich in 1939, however, by 2005 only roughly 600 ha remained (Baudirektion Kanton Zürich, 2007). In 1990, the government of Canton Zurich decided to enlarge the nature reserve Eigental. The goal was to incorporate eleven patches of 20 ha adjacent intensively farmed land and transform these patches into semi-natural grasslands. The patches had a different agricultural history, ranging from permanent (no tillage for >50 years) to temporary grassland (as part of crop rotation; last tillage <5 years). On all freshly integrated patches fertilization was stopped in 1992 and from then on biomass was harvested three times a year and removed. After 5 years without noticeable effects on vegetation composition, the Nature Conservation Agency of Canton Zurich decided to increase the restoration efforts. In 1995, a large-scale experiment was initialized to evaluate if certain treatments can facilitate restoration within a reasonable timeframe of 5 to 10 years after treatment implementation.
The three restoration treatments used were:
i. “Harvest only”: Plots are being mowed two to three times a year and the biomass is removed.
ii. “Topsoil”: Topsoil was removed to a depth of 10 to 20 cm, depending on the depth of the O and A horizon, in four randomly selected areas within each of the eleven patches in late autumn 1995. The size of each topsoil removal area depended on individual patch size and was between 2700 and 7000 m2.
iii. “Topsoil+Propagules”: Propagules from target vegetation were added on half of the area where topsoil was removed, using fresh, seed-containing hay originating from a mixture of semi-dry to semi-wet species-rich grasslands of local provenance (within a radius of 7 km). Hay applications were conducted twice in 1995 and 1996. Repeated applications were chosen to account for the low quantity of available plant material per transfer, since area ratio between receptor and donor sites was roughly 1:1. In addition, hand-collected propagules from 15 selected target species of regional provenance (within a radius of 30 km) were equally applied in 1996 and 1997.
“Topsoil” and “Topsoil+Propagules” plots are mowed once a year, and the biomass is removed. Mowing on these plots started five years after the treatment was implemented.
Eleven permanent plots of 5 m x 5 m were randomly established in each treatment to monitor the vegetation development. The experiment was complemented with 11 control plots that represent the initial state of intensively managed grasslands, further referred to as “Initial”, and 11 control plots that represent the targeted state of donor sites for “Topsoil+Propagules”, further referred to as “Target”. Consequently, the experiment consists of 55 plots (5 treatments x 11 replicates). Management of intensively used grasslands includes mowing and fertilizing (manure) between two to five times a year, as well as different tillage regimes (no tillage for >50 years; last time of tillage <5 years).

 Nematode and plant sampling
Soil nematodes were sampled in 2 m x 2 m plots, randomly established at least 2 m away from the vegetation plots. We collected eight soil cores with a 2.2 cm diameter soil core sampler (Giddings Machine Company, Windsor, CO, USA) to a depth of 12 cm (representing the majority of the plant rooting system) in each plot at the beginning of July 2017. The eight cores within each replicate plot were combined, gently homogenized, placed in coolers and transported to the laboratory of NIOO in Wageningen, the Netherlands, within one week. Free-living nematodes were extracted from 200 g of fresh soil using Oostenbrink elutriator (Oostenbrink, 1960) and concentrated, resulting in 6 mL nematode solution. The nematode solution was subdivided into three subsamples, two for morphological identification and quantification, and one for molecular work (not used in this study). For morphological identification and quantification, nematodes were heat-killed at 90 °C and fixed in 4 % formaldehyde solution (final volume 10 mL per subsample). All nematodes in 1 mL of formaldehyde solution were counted, and a minimum of 150 individuals per 1 mL sample (or all if less nematodes were present) were identified to family level using Bongers (1988). We then extrapolated the numbers of each nematode taxa identified to the entire sample and expressed them per 100 g dry soil for further analyses.
We calculated number of nematode taxa and Shannon diversity and assessed nematode community composition. In addition, we classified the nematode taxa into feeding types (herbivores, bacterivores, fungivores, omni-carnivores), structural and functional guilds (Table S4). Structural guilds assign nematode taxa according to life-history traits into five colonizer-persister (C-P) classes, ranging from one (early colonizers of new resources) to five (persisters in undisturbed habitats; Bongers 1990). C-P classes can be categorized as indicators for nutrient-enriched (C-P1), stressed (C-P2) and structured (C-P3 + C-P4 + C-P5) soil conditions (Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede, 2001). Functional guilds assign nematode taxa according to their C-P classification combined with their feeding habits (Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede, 2001). Based on the structural and functional guild classification we calculated five additional indices to assess soil nutrient status, disturbance and food web characteristics using NINJA (Sieriebriennikov, Ferris, & de Goede, 2014). 1) The Maturity index indicates the degree of different environmental perturbations (e.g., tillage, nutrient enrichment, pollution) and is used to monitor colonization and subsequent succession after disturbances (Bongers, 1990). 2) The ratio between the Plant Parasite (C-P of herbivorous nematodes only) to Maturity index is used to monitor the recovery of disturbed habitats incorporating information of life-history traits for all feeding types (Bongers, van der Meulen, & Korthals, 1997). 3) The Enrichment index indicates nutrient-enriched soils and agricultural management practices (Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede, 2001). 4) The Structure index provides information about the succession stage of the soil food web and therefore correlates with the degree of maturity of an ecosystem (Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede, 2001). 5) The Channel index provides information about the predominant decomposition pathways, where higher values stand for a higher proportion of energy transformed through the slow fungal decomposition channel (Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede, 2001). In addition, the Structure and Enrichment indices can be displayed in a biplot where nematode assemblages are plotted along a structure (x-axis) and enrichment (y-axis) trajectory (increasing index values). Each biplot quadrat reflects different levels of disturbance, soil nutrient pools and decomposition pathways (Ferris, Bongers, & de Goede, 2001).
The plant surveys were conducted on the 25 m2 permanent plots in June 2017. Plant species cover was visually assessed according to the semi-quantitative cover-abundance scale of Braun-Blanquet (1964; nomenclature: Lauber & Wagner, 1996). We calculated number of species and Shannon diversity, and assessed plant community composition. We also counted the number of target species (all species recorded in the eleven target plots plus propagules of species applied by hand, resulting in a total of 143 species) and categorized plant species into species of concern based on their red list status in Switzerland as well as their protection status in Switzerland and the Canton Zurich (Moser, Gygax, Bäumler, Wyler, & Palese, 2002). Furthermore, we calculated indicator values for soil moisture and soil nutrients for each species according to Landolt et al. (2010).

 References
Baudirektion Kanton Zürich (2007). 10 Jahre Naturschutz-Gesamtkonzept für den Kanton Zürich 1995-2005 – Stand der Umsetzung. Zürich: Baudirektion Kanton Zürich.
Bongers, T. (1988). De nematoden van Nederland. Utrecht: Stichting Uitgeverij Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging.
Bongers, T. (1990). The maturity index: an ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition. Oecologia, 83, 14-19. doi:10.1007/BF00324627
Bongers, T., van der Meulen, H., & Korthals, G. (1997). Inverse relationship between the nematode maturity index and plant parasite index under enriched nutrient conditions. Applied Soil Ecology, 6, 195-199. doi:10.1016/S0929-1393(96)00136-9
Braun-Blanquet, J. (1964). Pflanzensoziologie, Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde (3rd ed.). Wien: Springer.
Delarze, R., Gonseth, Y., Eggenberg, S., & Vust, M. (2015). Lebensräume der Schweiz: Ökologie - Gefährdung - Kennarten (3rd ed.). Bern: Ott.
Ferris, H., Bongers, T., & de Goede, R.G.M. (2001). A framework for soil food web diagnostics: extension of the nematode faunal analysis concept. Applied Soil Ecology, 18, 13-29. doi:10.1016/S0929-1393(01)00152-4
Landolt, E., Bäumler, B., Erhardt, A., Hegg, O., Klötzli, F., Lämmler, W., … Wohlgemuth, T. (2010). Flora indicativa. Ecological indicator values and biological attributes of the Flora of Switzerland and the Alps (2nd ed.). Bern: Haupt.
Lauber, K., & Wagner, G. (1996). Flora Helvetica. Flora der Schweiz. Bern: Haupt.
MeteoSchweiz (2018). Klimabulletin Jahr 2017, Zürich: MeteoSchweiz.
Moser, D., Gygax, A., Bäumler, B., Wyler, N., & Palese, R. (2002) Rote Liste der gefährteten Farn- und Blütenpflanzen der Schweiz. Bern: BUWAL.
Oostenbrink, M. (1960). Estimating nematode populations by some selected methods. In N.J. Sasser & W.R. Jenkins (Eds.), Nematology (pp. 85-101). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Sieriebriennikov, B., Ferris, H., & de Goede, R.G.M (2014). NINJA: An automated calculation system for nematode-based biological monitoring. European Journal of Soil Biology, 61, 90-93. doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2014.02.004

diversity

display_name: diversity

grassland

display_name: grassland

long-term-experiment

display_name: long-term-experiment

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

restoration

display_name: restoration

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

vegetation

display_name: vegetation

en: Grassland restoration: nematodes and plant communities


en: shading shortwave-radiation longwave-radiation forest fractional-snow

en: Radiation Data 18.04.2019

en:
Spatiotemporal incoming/outgoing shortwave and longwave radiation as well as sunlit and shaded-snow view fractions below an evergreen forest stand in the Swiss alps. Data was collected on 18th of April 2018 along a 48m long, heterogeneous forest stand under full snow cover conditions.

The presented data is used and further described in the following paper: Malle et al. (2019). Shading by Trees and Fractional Snow Cover control the Subcanopy Radiation Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. DOI:10.1029/2018JD029908.

en: Seasonal sub-canopy radiation data

en:
Seasonal, spatially aggregated incoming and outgoing shortwave radiation below an evergreen forest stand collected with a cable car system.

The presented data is used and further described in the following paper: Malle et al. (2019). Shading by Trees and Fractional Snow Cover Control the Subcanopy Radiation Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. DOI:10.1029/2018JD029908.

en: Radiation Data 25.4.2018

en:
Spatiotemporal incoming/outgoing shortwave and longwave radiation as well as sunlit and shaded-snow view fractions below an evergreen forest stand in the Swiss alps. Data was collected on 25th of April 2018 along a 48m long, heterogeneous forest stand under partial snow cover conditions.

The presented data is used and further described in the following paper: Malle et al. (2019). Shading by Trees and Fractional Snow Cover control the Subcanopy Radiation Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. DOI:10.1029/2018JD029908.

en: Sky-view fraction along the cablecar transect

en: Data is used and described in the following paper: Malle et al. (2019). Shading by Trees and Fractional Snow Cover control the Subcanopy Radiation Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research. DOI:10.1029/2018JD029908.

en: This data set consists of incoming and outgoing short- and longwave radiation as well as sunlit-snow-view-fraction as described in the JGR-Atmospheres paper "Shading by trees and fractional snow cover control the sub-canopy radiation budget", by Malle et al. (2019). Data was collected along a 48m long, heterogeneous forest transect between January and June 2018 close to Davos, Switzerland.

forest

display_name: forest

fractional-snow

display_name: fractional-snow

longwave-radiation

display_name: longwave-radiation

shading

display_name: shading

shortwave-radiation

display_name: shortwave-radiation

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

media_type: ascii x, y, z

en: Legend simulated maps

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

digital-zoning-plans

display_name: digital-zoning-plans

land-use-change

display_name: land-use-change

land-use-simulations

display_name: land-use-simulations

land-use-transformations

display_name: land-use-transformations

spatial-planning

display_name: spatial-planning

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


en: environmental---history environmental--policy ecology wetlands historical-carthography switzerland

en: Wetlands 1850 - 2010 (shapefiles)

media_type: application/zip

en:
 History of wetlands - GIS-Layers
 Location of wetlands based on signatures in topographic maps
* Basis 1850: original measuring table sheets Dufour created between the years 1834 and 1863.
* Basis 1900/ Basis 1950: The Siegfried maps were updated and published at regular intervals between 1870 and 1949. This long period of time made it possible to reconstruct wetlands for two periods based on the Siegfried Maps: the first edition (hereinafter referred to as "1900") and the last edition ("1950").
* Basis 2010: Map sheets from the National Map from 2006 to 2011 were used for the most recent time period of the reconstruction.
 Location of wetlands due to reconstructions
The reconstruction **must not** be interpreted in the sense of a surface-accurate separation, but shows without claim to location accuracy the approximate extent of the areas that would have corresponded to the mapping criteria for wetlands used in today's topographic maps around 1850, 1900 and 1950. The basics can be found in Stuber & Bürgi 2019, chapter 5.4.

mimetype: application/zip

en:
Naturally, large parts of the Swiss Plateau are characterised by wetlands
and meandering rivers. That this is no longer the case today is the result
of centuries of efforts to obtain dry land. But how did this process take
place? What were the relevant actors and what were their motivations? And
what can be said about the ecological consequences of this development?

In a research project on the history of wetlands in Switzerland since 1700,
we conducted (a) a historical analysis of the development of land use in
wetlands and the actors involved, (b) a historical-cartographic
reconstruction of wetland extent since 1850 and (c) an evaluation of
ecological effects of changes in wetlands on various organisms groups.

The series of GIS layers on wetland history stem from the second part of
the project. The area reconstruction is based on digitized and homogenized
signatures from national map series, as they have been available since
about 1850. Details about the digitalization process and the homogenization
procedures applied ("Rekonstruktionen") are included in Stuber & Bürgi
2019.

Book Citation:
 > Stuber M, Bürgi M (2019) Vom «eroberten Land» zum Renaturierungsprojekt. Geschichte der Feuchtgebiete in der Schweiz seit 1700. "Bristol Schriftenreihe", Band 59. Haupt Verlag, Bern, Stuttgart, Wien. 262 Seiten.

ecology

display_name: ecology

environmental---history

display_name: environmental---history

environmental--policy

display_name: environmental--policy

historical-carthography

display_name: historical-carthography

switzerland

display_name: switzerland

wetlands

display_name: wetlands

en: History of wetlands in Switzerland since 1850


maintainer: Michael Lehning

en: snow-distribution snow alpine3d snow-cover alpine-precipitation snow-hydrology alpine3d-simulations

en: ADS datasets and simulation inputs

en: The file contains the ADS datasets of snow depth and input data used for simulations.

en:
Dataset (Model input, snow distribution and validation) for the precipitation scaling paper, which should be cited along with the data set citation.

This data is useful for distributed hydrological modelling or other tasks that involve the study of snow distribution and precipitation in the high Alpine.

The format of the data is for Alpine3D (models.slf.ch) model runs but other models could be used, too.

Please cite:

_Vögeli, C., Lehning, M., Wever, N., Bavay M., 2016: Scaling Precipitation Input to Spatially Distributed Hydrological Models by Measured Snow Distribution., Front. Earth Sci. 4: 108. doi: 10.3389/feart.2016.00108._

Dataset is provided as a single zip file.
The archive contains two directories, the valuable distributed snow depth maps for the landscape Davos and the simulation input.
The archive also contains the file: "ReadMeMetadataDataSetPrecipitationScaling" which explains the data structure.

alpine-precipitation

display_name: alpine-precipitation

snow

display_name: snow

snow-cover

display_name: snow-cover

snow-distribution

display_name: snow-distribution

snow-hydrology

display_name: snow-hydrology

en: Precipitation Scaling Data Set (Vögeli et al., Frontiers)


en: gcos snow-water-equivalent snow-profile snow snow-height

en: DATA ACCESS

en: STATION METADATA

en: Snowprofile from 11 observer sites in Switzerland compiled for the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). Height of snow (cm) and snow water equivalent (mm) are recorded every 2 weeks since the 1947 (depending on station). Attached metadata file gives details of each station.

gcos

display_name: gcos

snow-height

display_name: snow-height

snow-profile

display_name: snow-profile

snow-water-equivalent

display_name: snow-water-equivalent

education

en: Education and science

en: GCOS SWE data from 11 stations in Switzerland


maintainer: Christian G. Sommer

en: wind-crust snow kinect wind-packing wind-tunnel

en: Processing scripts

en: Contains the Matlab- and R-scripts used to process the Kinect data

en: README

en: Describes the dataset in detail

en: Kinect data

media_type: Link

en: Links to the dataset

en:
This data sets contains the Microsoft Kinect data from 15 wind tunnel experiments on wind-packing / wind crust formation. These experiments were performed in the winter 2016/17. The Kinect measures distributed snow depth.

The Kinect data is organized per experiment. Each experiment subfolder contains the processed Kinect depth images and some additional files.

Please refer to the README for more details on the data. The processing scripts are available for download as well. The scripts are mainly provided as documentation and would need to be adjusted to be used.

This dataset is the basis of the following publication:

Sommer C.G., Lehning M. & Fierz C. (2018). Wind Tunnel Experiments: Influence of Erosion and Deposition on Wind-Packing of New Snow. Front. Earth Sci. 6:4. doi: 10.3389/feart.2018.00004

kinect

display_name: kinect

wind-crust

display_name: wind-crust

wind-packing

display_name: wind-packing

wind-tunnel

display_name: wind-tunnel

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: Wind crust formation: Microsoft Kinect data


maintainer: Varun Sharma

en: alps blowing-snow antarctica snow-atmosphere-interaction mesoscale-modelling

en:
REPRODUCIBILITY_POSTPROCESSING.zip contains data and scripts used to produce all figures from for the associated manuscript submitted for peer review ( see section on Citations below )

The folders stand for the three case studies presented in the manuscript. Two case studies (case Ia and case Ib) are on simulations in Antarctica and one case study
case II is for simulations in the Alps.

The associated data in the form of netcdf files or text files were produced using CRYOWRF v1.0

Apart from reproducibility, the intention of sharing these scripts is also to make it easy for new users to adopt CRYOWRF and be efficient, in particular in processing snowpack outputs.

The scripts were tested on multiple machines (different OSes) with the attached YAML file (wrf_analysis.yml) to setup the conda environment. All scripts were run using spyder as the IDE.

en: REPRODUCIBILITY_SIMULATION.zip contains all the extraneous files required to perform the simulations in associated manuscript (see Citations 3 in README.txt). The purpose of sharing these files apart from purposes of reproducibility is to also serve as templates for users to learn the workflow of CRYOWRF and perform simulations for their own purposes.

en:
This repository contains data required for reproducibility of the results to be published in the associated manuscript.

Apart from reproducibility, the attached datasets also serve as templates for new users to adopt CRYOWRF in their research.

The datasets consist of two folders organized in zip format:

1. REPRODUCIBILITY_SIMULATION:
  Consists of namelists for WPS, WRF and SNOWPACK to reproduce simulations published in the manuscript
  Additional files include datasets (from IMAU-FDM / RACMO, see "credits" below ) as well as helper python scripts to
  produce *.sno files
  which are used as initial conditions for SNOWPACK in CRYOWRF.

2. REPRODUCIBILITY_POSTPROCESSING:
   Includes outputs of CRYOWRF and python scripts used to prepare figures in the manuscript.

Each of the folders have their own readme files for more details.

 Code
citation: Varun Sharma. (2021, July 2). vsharma-next/CRYOWRF: CRYOWRF v1.0 (Version v1.0). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5060165

location: https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/atmospheric-models/CRYOWRF   (stable releases / institutional repo)
        https://github.com/vsharma-next/CRYOWRF            (dev branches / developer repo)

 Publication
**Introducing CRYOWRF v1.0: Multiscale atmospheric flow simulations with advanced snow cover modelling.**
Varun Sharma, Fraziska Gerber and Michael Lehning, Submitted to Geoscientific Model Development

 Acknowledgements
We thank Peter Kuipers Munneke (P.KuipersMunneke@uu.nl) for preparing and sharing outputs of IMAU-FDM and RACMO used for initial conditions for case Ia. The relevant citations for the methods through which these datasets were generated are:

* Kuipers Munneke, P., S. R. M. Ligtenberg, B. P. Y. Noël, I. M. Howat, J. E. Box, E. Mosley-Thompson, J. R. McConnell, K. Steffen, J. T. Harper, S. B. Das and M. R. van den Broeke. 2015. Elevation change of the Greenland ice sheet due to surface mass balance and firn processes, 1960-2014. The Cryosphere, 9, 2009-2025. doi:10.5194/tc-9-2009-2015

 * Ligtenberg, S. R. M., P. Kuipers Munneke, B. P. Y. Noël, and M. R. van den Broeke. 2018. Brief communication: Improved simulation of the present-day Greenland firn layer (1960-2016). The Cryosphere, 12, doi:10.5194/tc-12-1643-2018

alps

display_name: alps

antarctica

display_name: antarctica

blowing-snow

display_name: blowing-snow

mesoscale-modelling

display_name: mesoscale-modelling

snow-atmosphere-interaction

display_name: snow-atmosphere-interaction

en: Reproducibility Dataset for CRYOWRF v1.0


en: swiss-geodata digital-elevation-model open-source geoinformation-system qgis-plugin cable-yarding swiss-geo-downloader digital-planning seilaplan

en: Herunterladen des DHM mit SwissGeoDownloader

en: View video on youtube!

en:
In order to use the QGIS plugin ‘Seilaplan’ for digital cable line planning, a digital terrain model (DTM) is required. The plugin ‘Swiss Geo Downloader’, which is available for the open source geoinformation software QGIS, allows freely available Swiss geodata to be downloaded and displayed directly within QGIS. It was developed in 2021 by Patricia Moll in collaboration with the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL. In this tutorial we describe how to download the high accuracy elevation model ‘swissALTI3D’ with the help of the ‘Swiss Geo Downloader’ and how to use it for digital planning of a cable line with the plugin ‘Seilaplan’. Please note that the tutorial language is German!

Link to the Swiss Geo Downloader: https://pimoll.github.io/swissgeodownloader

Link to Seilaplan website: https://seilaplan.wsl.ch

*********************

Für die Verwendung des QGIS Plugins Seilaplan zur digitalen Seillinienplanung ist ein digitales Höhenmodell (DHM) nötig. Das Plugin Swiss Geo Downloader, welches für das Open Source Geoinformationssystem QGIS zur Verfügung steht, ermöglicht frei verfügbare Schweizer Geodaten direkt innerhalb von QGIS herunterzuladen und anzuzeigen. Es wurde 2021 von Patricia Moll in Zusammenarbeit mit der eidgenössischen Forschungsanstalt Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL entwickelt. In diesem Tutorial beschreiben wir, wie man mit Hilfe des Swiss Geo Downloaders das hochgenaue Höhenmodell swissALTI3D herunterladen und für die Seillinienplanung mit dem Plugin Seilaplan verwenden kann.

Link zum Swiss Geo Downloader: https://pimoll.github.io/swissgeodownloader

Link zur Seilaplan-Webseite: https://seilaplan.wsl.ch

cable-yarding

display_name: cable-yarding

digital-elevation-model

display_name: digital-elevation-model

digital-planning

display_name: digital-planning

geoinformation-system

display_name: geoinformation-system

open-source

display_name: open-source

qgis-plugin

display_name: qgis-plugin

seilaplan

display_name: seilaplan

swiss-geo-downloader

display_name: swiss-geo-downloader

swiss-geodata

display_name: swiss-geodata

education

en: Education and science

en: Seilaplan Tutorial: DTM download with SwissGeoDownloader


restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

title_for_slug: restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

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

en: Functional diversity above_belowground fauna

media_type: XLSX

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

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

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

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

 Study area

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

 Experimental design and sampling

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

Vegetation properties

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

 Aboveground arthropods

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

 Belowground fauna

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

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

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

 Soil chemical and physical properties, soil nitrogen mineralization

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

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

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

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

 References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

mineralization

display_name: mineralization

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

en: Restoring grassland multifunctionality


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

en: Soil properties

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

en: Fungi data

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

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

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

en: Ecosystem coupling_interactions

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

en: Nematode data

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

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

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

en: Networks

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

en: Distance to target results

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

en: Vegetation data

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

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

Paper Citation:

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

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

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

Collection of plants and selected soil biota data
Plant species cover (in %) was visually estimated in each 25-m2 plot in mid-June (Braun-Blanquet, 1964; nomenclature: Lauber & Wagner, 1996). We calculated Shannon diversity and assessed plant community structure. We included soil microbial (fungi, procaryotes) and nematodes in our study as they represent the majority of soil biotic diversity and abundance (Bardgett & van der Putten, 2014), cover various trophic levels of the soil food web (Bongers & Ferris, 1999), and play key roles in soil functioning and ecosystem processes (Bardgett & van der Putten, 2014). In particular, soil nematodes were found to be well suited belowground indicators to evaluate recovery/development after restoration (e.g. Frouz, et al. 2008; Kardol et al., 2009; Resch et al., 2019). We randomly collected ten soil cores (2.2 cm diameter x 12 cm depths; sampler from Giddings Machine Company, Windsor, USA) in the 4-m2 subplots to assess soil nematode and microbial (fungal, prokaryotic) diversities and community structures. For soil nematodes, eight of the soil cores were combined and gently homogenized, placed in coolers and stored at 4 °C and transported to the laboratory (Netherlands Institute of Ecology, NIOO, Wageningen, Netherlands) within three days after collection. Free-living nematodes were extracted from 200 g of fresh soil using Oostenbrink elutriators (Oostenbrink, 1960). After extraction, each sample was divided into three subsamples, two for molecular identification and one to determine nematode abundance (see Resch et al., 2019). For the molecular work, two subsamples were stored in 70% ethanol (final volume 10 mL each) and transported to the laboratory at the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL (Birmensdorf, Switzerland). Each subsample was reduced to roughly 200 μL by centrifugation and removal of the supernatant. The remaining ethanol was vaporized (65 °C for 3 h). Thereafter, 180 μL ATL buffer solution (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) was immediately added and samples were stored at 4 °C until further processing. From these samples, nematode metagenomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer`s protocol, except for the incubation step which was run at 56 °C for 4 h. PCR amplification of the V6-V8 region of the eukaryotic small-subunit (18S) was performed with 7.5 μL of genomic DNA template (ca. 1 ng/μL) in 25 μL reactions containing 5 μL PCR reaction buffer, 2.5 mM MgCL2, 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.8 μM of each primer (NemF: Sapkota & Nicolaisen, 2015; 18Sr2b: Porazinska et al., 2009), 0.5 μL BSA, and 0.25 μL GoTaq G2 Hot Start Polymerase (Promega Corporation, Madison, USA). Amplification was using an initial DNA denaturation step of 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 35 cycles at 94 °C for 40 sec, 58 °C for 40 sec, 72 °C for 1 min, and a final elongation step at 72 °C for 10 min. Filtering, dereplication, sample inference, chimera identification, and merging of paired-end reads was implemented using the DADA2 pipeline (v.1.12; Callahan et al., 2016) to finally assign amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) as taxonomic units.
We combined and homogenized the remaining two soil cores to assess soil microbes, placed them in coolers (4 °C) and transported them to the laboratory at WSL. Metagenomic DNA was extracted from 8 g sieved soil (2 mm) using the DNAeasy PowerMax Soil Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer´s protocol. PCR amplification of the V3-V4 region of the small-subunit (16S) of prokaryotes (i.e., bacteria and archaea) and the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer region (ITS2) of fungi was performed with 1 ng of template DNA using PCR primers and conditions as previously described (Frey et al., 2016). PCRs were run in triplicates, pooled and sent to the Genome Quebec Innovation Centre (Montreal, QC, Canada) for barcoding using the Fluidigm Access Array technology (Fluidigm) and paired-end sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq v3 platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, USA). Quality filtering, clustering into operational taxonomic units (OTUs, 97% similarity cutoffs) and taxonomic assignment were performed as previously described (Resch et al., 2021).Taxonomic classification of nematode, prokaryotic and fungal sequences was conducted querying against the most recent versions of PR2 (v.4.11.1; Guillou et al., 2013), SILVA (v.132; Quast et al., 2013), and UNITE (v.8; Nilsson et al., 2019) reference sequence databases. Taxonomic assignment cutoffs were set to confidence rankings ≥ 0.8 (below ranked as unclassified). Prokaryotic OTUs assigned to mitochondria or chloroplasts as well as OTUs or ASVs assigned to other than Fungi or Nematoda were manually removed prior to data analysis. The three datasets were filtered to discard singletons and doubletons. Taxonomic abundance matrices were rarefied to the lowest number of sequences per community to achieve parity of the total number of reads between samples (Prokaryotes: 10,929 reads; Fungi: 18,337 reads; Nematodes: 6,662 reads). We calculated Shannon diversity and assessed community structures for soil nematodes, prokaryotes and fungi based on their relative abundances of ASV or OTU at the taxon level.

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

soil

display_name: soil

soil-biology

display_name: soil-biology

soil-chemistry

display_name: soil-chemistry

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

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


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

en: Fatal avalanche accidents in Switzerland since 1995-1996

en:
Attention: this data is not updated after 2022 anymore.
This data collection contains information concerning all accidents by snow avalanches causing at least one fatality in Switzerland. The data set commences on 01/10/1995. After the completion of a hydrological year, the new data is added.
The following information is provided:
 * avalanche identifier
 * date of the accident
 * accuracy of the date in range of days before and after
 * canton
 * name of the locality
 * start zone of the avalanche
  * coordinates (Swiss coordinate system, approximately in middle of start zone)
  * accuracy of the coordinates in meters
 * elevation (in meteres above sea level, app. in middle of start zone)
 * slope aspect (main orientation of start zone)
 * slope inclination (in degree, steepest point within start zone)
 * number of dead persons
 * number of caught persons
 * number of fully buried persons
 * forecasted avalanche danger level
 * activity/location of the accident party at the time of the incident

avalanche-accident-statistics

display_name: avalanche-accident-statistics

avalanche-accidents

display_name: avalanche-accidents

avalanche-fatalities

display_name: avalanche-fatalities

number-of-caught-persons

display_name: number-of-caught-persons

number-of-dead-persons

display_name: number-of-dead-persons

education

en: Education and science