restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

title_for_slug: restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

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

media_type: XLSX

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

en: Functional diversity above_belowground fauna

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

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

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

 Study area

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

 Experimental design and sampling

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

Vegetation properties

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

 Aboveground arthropods

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

 Belowground fauna

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

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

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

 Soil chemical and physical properties, soil nitrogen mineralization

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

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

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

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

 References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

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


disdrometer-data-gotschnagrat

maintainer: EnviDat Support

title_for_slug: disdrometer-data-gotschnagrat

en: disdrometer hydrometeors visibility raclets precipitation

state: active

type: dataset

en: Disdrometer Data Gotschnagrat

media_type: application/zip

en: The zip folder contains one netCDF file per day for Gotschnagrat from February 11 to March 27 2019 with a temporal resolution of 30 seconds (time in UTC). The naming convention for the files is Gotschna_YYYYMMDD.nc and the files include the following: characteristics of hydrometeors (e.g. diameter, fall velocity, amount per diameter class,...), precipitation rate, radar reflectivity, visibility range, weather codes and instrument performance.

format: ZIP

mimetype: application/zip

en: A laser optical disdrometer (Parsivel² , OTT Hydromet) was deployed at Gotschnagrat (LON: 9.849, LAT: 46.859) to measure hydrometeors by extinction when passing a laser beam. The instrument can classify eight different kinds of precipitation, including rain, hail, snow, drizzle, and hybrid forms. The dataset contains information on precipitation amount and type for the period of February 11 to March 27 2019 at Gotschnagrat.

disdrometer

display_name: disdrometer

hydrometeors

display_name: hydrometeors

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

raclets

display_name: raclets

visibility

display_name: visibility

education

fr: Education, science

de: Bildung, Wissenschaft

en: Education and science

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


backward-trajectories

maintainer: Michael Sprenger

title_for_slug: backward-trajectories

en: atmospheric-dynamics alps raclets cosmo lagrangian-analysis backward-trajectories complex-topopgraphy

en: Backward Trajectories

en: The trajectories are started from surface up to 5000 m altitude, with an equidistant vertical spacing of 200 m, and calculated 120 h backward in time. As long as the trajectories stay in the COSMO1 domain (essentially the Alpine region), as run operationally at MeteoSwiss, the COSMO analysis wind fields are used. When the trajectories leave this domain, they are extended further backward in time based on ECMWF analysis data. The following fields are traced along the trajectories: longitude, latitude, geopotential height, pressure, specific humidity, temperature and surface topography. Furthermore, it is indicated for each trajectory time instance on which model data, COSMO or ECMWF, the trajectory time is based. Finally, the trajectories are started every hour in the specified time period, and positions and fields are available every 10 min. Each day is saved as a separate file. The last 8 digits of the file names indicate the starting date of the trajectories.

en: Backward trajectories were calculated from two positions: Davos Wolfgang (LON: 9.85361, LAT: 46.83551) and Weissfluhjoch (LON: 9.80646 LAT: 46.83304) for the time period February 2 until March 27 2019 using COSMO or ECMWF, respectively.

alps

display_name: alps

atmospheric-dynamics

display_name: atmospheric-dynamics

backward-trajectories

display_name: backward-trajectories

complex-topopgraphy

display_name: complex-topopgraphy

cosmo

display_name: cosmo

lagrangian-analysis

display_name: lagrangian-analysis

en: Backward  Trajectories


automatic-classification-of-avalanches

maintainer: Alec van Herwijnen

title_for_slug: automatic-classification-of-avalanches

en: seismic monitoring avalanche machine-learning localization

media_type: application/x-tar

en:
This tar file contains classification results for two seismic geophone arrays deployed above Davos, Switzerland. The of the first array located at the Dischma Valley was used to automatically identify all seismic events produced by avalanches, whereas the classification perfomed at the second array located at the Wannengrat field site was used to identify airplanes and earthquakes.
Furthermore, this tar file also contains the median back-azimuth of all classified events at the Dischma field site.

format: SERVICE

mimetype: application/x-tar

en: This dataset contains the classification and localization results obtained during the automatic classification of avalanches during the winter season 2017.

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

localization

display_name: localization

machine-learning

display_name: machine-learning

monitoring

display_name: monitoring

seismic

display_name: seismic

en: Automatic Classification of Avalanches


maintainer: Stephan Zimmermann

en: fagus-orientalis-lipsky potassium biogeochemical-cycling calcium magnesium

en: Concentrations of Ca, Mg, K, and Na in throughfall, litterflow and soil solution of a Hyrcanian forst in Northern Iran

format: XLS

en:
Throughfall, litterflow and soil solution were sampled during one whole year under five Oriental beech trees in a mixed Hyrcanian beech forest. The amounts of Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ and Na+ in these fluxes were calculated based on their concentrations and the sampled volumes, and subsequently compared with the respective fluxes in the rainfall and soil solution of an adjacent forest gap.
In addition six soil profiles, one close to every single tree and one in the forest gap, were analyzed for pH, CaCO3, organic matter and texture.

biogeochemical-cycling

display_name: biogeochemical-cycling

calcium

display_name: calcium

fagus-orientalis-lipsky

display_name: fagus-orientalis-lipsky

magnesium

display_name: magnesium

potassium

display_name: potassium

en: Base cation dynamics in an Oriental beech forest


maintainer: Ionuț Iosifescu Enescu

en: map preview 0.5MB

media_type: image/jpeg

mimetype: image/jpeg

en: map 0.5GB

media_type: image/tiff

format: TIFF

mimetype: image/tiff

en: Bulk Data Access

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

en: map 1GB

en: huge map 100GB

en: map 2GB

en: map 0.2GB

en: large map 10GB

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

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

gis

display_name: gis

large-files

display_name: large-files

natural-earth

display_name: natural-earth

qgis

display_name: qgis

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


en: biodiversity-assessment biomonitoring dna-metabarcoding environmental-dna spatial-ecology

en: Analysis and Figures

media_type: .zip

en: This zipped file includes R scripts and the datasets required to run the analyses. A README describes the columns in each dataset.

en: Genomic data

media_type: link

en: Fastq files, primer descriptions and the final output dataset.

en: Field Metadata

media_type: .csv

en: Information concerning the locations and times of sampling, as well as the identity of the samplers and relevant comments.

en: This dataset contains the results of a five-day field excursion which the extent to which eDNA sampling can capture the diversity of a region with highly heterogeneous habitat patches across a wide elevation gradient through multiple hydrological catchments of the Swiss Alps. Using peristaltic pumps, we filtered 60 L of water at five sites per catchment for a total volume of 1 800 L. Using an eDNA metabarcoding approach focusing on vertebrates and plants, we detected 86 vertebrate taxa spanning 41 families and 263 plant taxa spanning 79 families across ten catchments. This dataset includes two sets of data. The first (Genomic data) includes all the necessary data for the bioinformatic pipeline, whereas the second (Analysis Figures) contains tidied data and scripts for the reproduction of all figures/analyses in the article describing this study.

biodiversity-assessment

display_name: biodiversity-assessment

biomonitoring

display_name: biomonitoring

dna-metabarcoding

display_name: dna-metabarcoding

environmental-dna

display_name: environmental-dna

spatial-ecology

display_name: spatial-ecology

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: Vertebrate and plant taxa recovered from 10 catchments in Vaud using an eDNA-metabarcoding approach


maintainer: Mahdi Jafari

en: numerical-simulation snow-density-profile convection-in-snow vapor-transport openfoam

en: snowpackBuoyantPimpleFoam

media_type: ZIP

en:
This zipped folder includes (1) the source code files, (2) an example case for simulation, and (3) an instruction how to compile and use the new solver.

Note that the most updated version of snowpackBuoyantPimpleFoam can be found in the WSL/SLF GitLab repository: https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/snow-models/snowpackbuoyantpimplefoam

en: snowpackBuoyantPimpleFoam is a two-phase solver implemented to model convection of water vapor with phase change in snowpacks. This new solver is based on the standard solver of buoyantPimpleFoam in the open-source fluid dynamics software, OpenFOAM 5.0 (www.openfoam.org).

convection-in-snow

display_name: convection-in-snow

numerical-simulation

display_name: numerical-simulation

openfoam

display_name: openfoam

snow-density-profile

display_name: snow-density-profile

vapor-transport

display_name: vapor-transport

en: snowpackBuoyantPimpleFoam: an OpenFOAM Eulerian–Eulerian two-phase solver for modelling convection of water vapor in snowpacks


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

en: Data plot of the field station (SCF)

media_type: PDF

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

format: PDF

en: Site photo of the field station (SCF)

media_type: JPEG

en: Site photo of the field station from above (viewing downwards the slope).

en: Data plot of the forest station (SCB)

en: Further details on the data repository

en: Meta data documentation.

en: Site photo of the forest station (SCB)

en: Site photo of the forest station from below (viewing upwards the slope).

en: Site aerial photo (Schänis)

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

en: Field station data (SCF)

media_type: text/csv

en: Data file.

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en: Forest station data (SCB)

media_type: CSV

en: High quality meteorological data are needed for long-term forest ecosystem research, particularly in the light of global change. The long-term data series published here comprises almost 20 years of measurements for two meteorological stations in Schänis in Switzerland where one station is located within a natural mixed forest stand (SCB) with European beech (_Fagus sylvatica_; 130-150 yrs), European silver fir (_Abies alba_; 130-150 yrs) and European ash (_Fraxinus excelsior_; 130-150 yrs) as dominant tree species. A second station is situated in the very vicinity outside of the forest (field station, SCF). The meteorological time series are presented in hourly time resolution of air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and wind speed. Schänis is part of the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF) established and maintained by the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL.

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

long-term

display_name: long-term

meteo

display_name: meteo

meteorology

display_name: meteorology

par

display_name: par

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

relative-humidity

display_name: relative-humidity

swiss-forest-lab

display_name: swiss-forest-lab

temperature

display_name: temperature

wind-speed

display_name: wind-speed

en: Schänis, Switzerland: Long-term forest meteorological data from the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF), from 1998 onwards


en: snow hazard-mapping avalanche satellite natural-hazard

en: SPOT6 Avalanche outlines 24 January 2018

media_type: SHP

en: Shapefile of the manually mapped avalanche outlines. Please only use this data together with the example key document provided with this dataset.

format: SHP

en:
Outlines of 18'737 avalanches mapped from SPOT6 satellite data over the Swiss Alps on 24 January 2018. The outlines have different attributes described in the data example key (ExampleKey_AvalMapping.pdf)

The generation of the data is described in:

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

Abstract.
Accurate and timely information on avalanche occurrence are key for avalanche warning, crisis management and avalanche documentation. Today such information is mainly available at isolated locations provided by observers in the field. The achieved reliability considering accuracy, completeness and reliability of the reported avalanche events is limited. In this study we present the spatial continuous mapping of a large avalanche period in January 2018 covering the majority of the Swiss Alps (12’500 km2).

We tested different satellite sensors available for rapid mapping during a first avalanche period. Based on these experiences, we tasked SPOT6/7 data for data acquisition to cover the second, much larger avalanche period. We manually mapped the outlines of 18’737 individual avalanche events, applying image enhancement techniques to analyze regions in cast shadow as well as brightly illuminated ones. The resulting dataset of mapped avalanche outlines, having a unique completeness and reliability, is evaluated to produce maps of avalanche occurrence and avalanche size. We validated the mapping of the avalanche outlines using photographs acquired from helicopters just after the avalanche period.

This study demonstrates the applicability of optical, very high spatial resolution satellite data to map an exceptional avalanche period with very high completeness, accuracy and reliability over a large region. The generated avalanche data is of great value to validate avalanche bulletins, complete existing avalanche databases and for research applications by enabling meaningful statistics on important avalanche parameters.

Koordinate System: CH1903+ LV95 LN02

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

hazard-mapping

display_name: hazard-mapping

natural-hazard

display_name: natural-hazard

satellite

display_name: satellite

snow

display_name: snow

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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


en: permafrost permos ground-temperature ritigraben borehole

en: PERMOS DATA POLICY

en: Map of PERMOS borehole network

media_type: URL

en: DATA ACCESS

en:
_ENVIDAT NOTE: Data currently unvailable and measures are being taken to recover and restore the data files._

Processed ground temperature measurements at the Ritigraben permafrost borehole (RIT_0102) in canton Valais, Switzerland. The borehole is located at 2690 m asl on a flat site. The surface material is coarse blocks and borehole depth is 30 m. Thermistors used YSI 44006. Year of drilling 2002. This borehole is part of the Swiss Permafrost network, PERMOS (www.permos.ch). Contact phillips@slf.ch for details of processing applied.

borehole

display_name: borehole

ground-temperature

display_name: ground-temperature

permafrost

display_name: permafrost

permos

display_name: permos

ritigraben

display_name: ritigraben

en: RIT1: Processed permafrost borehole data (2690  m asl), Ritigraben, Switzerland


maintainer: Anita Risch

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

en: Datafile

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

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

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

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

Soil.moist	: Soil moisture (%)

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

pH: Soil pH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant.richness: Plant species richness

Plant.N: Plant tissue nitrogen content (%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#References

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

ecosystem-coupling

display_name: ecosystem-coupling

ecosystem-functions

display_name: ecosystem-functions

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

exclusion

display_name: exclusion

grassland

display_name: grassland

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


maintainer: Elisabeth Hafner

en: avalanche-hazard-mapping satellite validation avalanche snow

en: Satellite Avalanche Mapping Validation data and data description

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

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

Coordinate system: CH1903+_LV95

The generation of this dataset is described in detail in:

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

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

avalanche-hazard-mapping

display_name: avalanche-hazard-mapping

satellite

display_name: satellite

validation

display_name: validation

en: Satellite avalanche mapping validation data


en: backward-trajectories snow-sublimation antarctica isotopic-distillation lagrangian-analysis stable-water-isotopes evaporation

en: Python scripts for data visualization

en: Scripts for generating the figures of the related research article and generating the data files (csv) from the model output

en: Readme

media_type: TXT

en: Meta data

format: TXT

en: Model code

en: Model Sublimation and Model Air Parcel (python scripts)

en: Data

media_type: zip-compressed folder of csv

en: Modeled data including the data shown in the figures of the related research article

en:
 Summary

This data set contains Python programming code and modeled data discussed in a related research article. We developed a simple isotope model to study the drivers of the particularly depleted vapour isotopic composition measured on the ship of the Antarctic Circumnavigation Expedition close to the outlet of the Mertz glacier, East Antarctica, in the 6-day period from 27 January 2017 to 1 February 2017. The model considers the stable water isotopologues H2(16O), H2(18O), and HD(16O). It uses data from the ERA5 reanalysis product with a spatial resolution of 0.25° x 0.25° (Hersbach et al., 2018) and 10-day backward trajectories for the location of the ship, published by Thurnherr et al. (2020a). Our data set includes the model code, Python scripts for visualizing the results, and data produced by the model including the results shown in the figures of the related research article. Here, we summarize the most important model characteristics while further details can be found in the readme.txt file and the related research article including its supporting information.

 Main model characteristics

The modeling approach consists of two steps called *Model Sublimation* and *Model Air Parcel*. The former estimates the isotopic compositions of the snow and sublimation flux across the Antarctic Ice Sheet using an Eulerian frame of reference while the latter models the vapour isotopic composition and specific humidity along air parcel trajectories using a Lagrangian frame of reference. The isotope effects of most phase changes are represented by equilibrium fractionation. Only for ocean evaporation, kinetic fractionation is additionally taken into account (original Craig-Gordon formula). For snow sublimation, two assumptions are tested: *Run E* assumes that sublimation is associated with equilibrium fractionation while *Run N* assumes that sublimation occurs without isotopic fractionation.

 Model Sublimation
Model Sublimation uses a simple one-dimensional mass-balance approach in each grid cell, considering snow accumulation due to snowfall and vapour deposition and snow ablation due to sublimation. The snowpack is represented by 100 layers of equal thickness (e.g., 1 cm) and density (350 kg m-3). The isotopic composition of snowfall is parameterized by generalizing a site-specific, empirical relationship between the daily mean air temperature and snowfall isotopic composition. In the case of vapour deposition, Model Sublimation assumes equilibrium fractionation and estimates the isotopic composition of the atmospheric vapour as the average value for two idealized situations: (i) locally sourced vapour which has the same isotopic composition as the sublimation flux; (ii) non-locally sourced vapour in isotopic equilibrium with snowfall. Model Sublimation is run with a time step of 1 h, independently of Model Air Parcel.

 Model Air Parcel
Every hour, an ensemble of trajectories arrives at different heights in the ABL above the ship. For each of these trajectories, we consider an air parcel with a constant volume of 1 x 1 x 1 m3. The air parcels are initialized at the first suitable time when the trajectories are located in the ABL, either over the ice-free ocean in conditions of evaporation or over snow (Antarctic Ice Sheet or sea ice). Subsequently, the masses of the water isotopologues in the air parcels are simulated with a time step of 3 h, considering vapour uptake or removal due to the moisture flux at the snow or liquid ocean surface (only if the parcel is in the ABL) and cloud/precipitation formation (if the saturation specific humidity is reached). Sea ice is taken into account in a very simplified way. We represent the sea ice by grid cells with a sea-ice cover of more than 90% and assume the isotopic composition of the sublimation flux to be identical to that in the nearest grid cell of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The isotopic composition of the sublimation flux is taken from Model Sublimation whereas the isotopic composition of the vapour deposition flux (over snow) and condensation flux (over ice-free ocean) is simulated assuming an isotopic equilibrium with the air parcel. Isotope effects of cloud/precipitation formation are represented using the classic Rayleigh distillation model with equilibrium fractionation, where the cloud water is assumed to precipitate immediately after formation.

 References

Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horanyi, A., Munoz Sabater, J.,... others (2018). *ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1979 to present. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS)*. doi: 10.24381/cds.bd0915c6

Thurnherr, I., Wernli, H., & Aemisegger, F. (2020a). *10-day backward trajectories from ECMWF analysis data along the ship track of the Antarctic Circumnavigation Expedition in austral summer 2016/2017*. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4031705

antarctica

display_name: antarctica

backward-trajectories

display_name: backward-trajectories

evaporation

display_name: evaporation

isotopic-distillation

display_name: isotopic-distillation

lagrangian-analysis

display_name: lagrangian-analysis

snow-sublimation

display_name: snow-sublimation

stable-water-isotopes

display_name: stable-water-isotopes

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: Modeled Isotopic Composition of Water Vapour Along Air Parcel Trajectories in the Antarctic


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

en: View video on youtube!

en: Herunterladen des DHM mit SwissGeoDownloader

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

en: Seilaplan Tutorial: DTM download with SwissGeoDownloader


maintainer: James W. Kirchner

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

en: Data Set Documentation

media_type: application/pdf

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

mimetype: application/pdf

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).

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: 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

streamflow

display_name: streamflow

tracer

display_name: tracer

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


radar-wind-profiler-davos-wolfgang

maintainer: Maxim Hervo

title_for_slug: radar-wind-profiler-davos-wolfgang

en: wolfgangpass wind-direction radar raclets wind-speed

en: Radar Wind Profiler Data

media_type: application/zip

en: A Vaisala Lap3000 was installed at Davos Wolfgang to record wind profiles. The time format is number of days fom January 0, 0000 in UTC with a 10 minute resolution.

en: The RADAR wind profiler from Meteoswiss was installed at Davos Wolfgang (LON: 9.853594, LAT: 46.835577) and measured from 2171 m above sea level to 11079 m, with a temporal resolution of 10 minutes.

raclets

display_name: raclets

radar

display_name: radar

wind-direction

display_name: wind-direction

wind-speed

display_name: wind-speed

wolfgangpass

display_name: wolfgangpass

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: RADAR Wind profiler Davos Wolfgang


en: face soil picea-abies forest nitrogen co2

en: Collection of soil solution

en: Soil solution collected by suction cups

en: Gross N mineralisation and nitrification

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

en: Collection points

en: Collection points under the trees

en: Resin bags

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

en: Soil C and N

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

en: Water analyses

en: Analyses of water, especially soil solution

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

envidat

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

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


maintainer: Anita C. Risch

en: grassland non-native-plant weed-management herbivory native-plant

en: Correction: Data file native and non-native plant interactions in Australian grasslands

media_type: XLSX

en:
taxa tab:	list and overview of all the recorded species

* family:                 family of the plant

* genus:                genus of the plant

* species:                plant species name

* origin:                indicates whether the plant is native to Australia or not (non-native)

* common name:	        common name of the plant species

* functional group:	        functional group of the plant species: forb, graminoid, fern, tree

* functional group detailed:	gives more detail about the type of graminoid and forb: legume, forb (non-leguminous),
                        grass, sedge, rush, fern, tree

* lifeform:                annual or perennial lifeform (species which can have both of these lifeforms where
                        considered as annuals)

plot tab:	list of species found in each plot and their cover (%)

* sampling.session:        provides information about the sampling time:
                        May2020 = data that was collected in May 2020
                        Nov2020 = data that was collected in November 2020

* farm.name:	            name of the farms where the sampling took place:
                        SF = farm of the Southern group
                        NF = farm of the Northern group
                        numbers 1-3 = randomly allocated to the Southern group of farms
                        numbers 4-6 = randomly allocated to the Northern group of farms

* site.type:	                KG: Kangaroo grass dominated site
                        ALG: ALG+KG site (Kangarooo grass and African lovegrass co-dominated site)

* plot.no:                plot number: 9-12

* scientific.name:	        scientific name of the plant species found in a certain plot

* functional group:	        indicates whether the species found is a tree, forb, graminoid or fern

* functional group detailed:	indicates whether the species found is a tree, legume, forb (non-leguminous),
                        grass, sedge, rush, fern

* lifeform:                specifies the lifeform of the species: annual or perennial lifeform
                        (species which can have both of these lifeforms where considered as annuals)

corrections tab:	Detailed description of corrections made in plot.data tab

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

Paper Citation:

_Schlierenzauer, C., Risch, A.C., Schütz, M., Firn, J. 2021. Non-native Eragrostis curvula reduces plant species diversity in pastures of South-eastern Australia even when native Themeda triandra remains co-dominant. Plants 10, 596._

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

Study area
The study was conducted in the lowland grassy woodlands of the Bega Valley Region, which is located in the south-east corner of New South Wales, Australia. Embedded between the Pacific Ocean and the Australian Alps, the lowland grassy woodlands are mostly located on granitic substrates and reach elevations of roughly 500 m above sea level. Typically, these grassy woodlands receive less precipitation (mean annual precipitation between 700-1100 mm) compared to the more elevated areas that surround them (NSW Government - Office of Environment and Heritage 2017).
The vegetation is dominated by an open tree canopy layer consisting of Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm, Angophora floribunda Sm. (Sweet) and a range of other eucalypt species. Sometimes shrub or small trees are also present, whereas grasses and forbs form the ground-cover. In areas without intensive agricultural history, this layer is dominated by perennial, tussock grasses such as Themeda triandra Forssk, Microlaena stipoides R.Br (Weeping Grass), Eragrostis leptostachya Steud. (Paddock Lovegrass) and Echinopogon ovatus P.Beauv (Forest Hedgehog Grass). The remaining inter-tussock spaces are occupied by a diversity of growth-restricted grasses and herbaceous forbs (NSW - Department of Planing, Industries and Environment 2019; NSW Government - Office of Environment and Heritage 2017).
Clearing, pasture sowing, fertilizer application and livestock grazing resulted in a dramatic decrease in the extent of these natural woodlands, with less than five percent within conservation reserves and overall, with only about 20% of their original extent in New South Wales still existing (Tozer et al. 2010). The remaining areas outside of reserves are threatened by altered fire frequencies, habitat clearing, livestock grazing and especially by non-native plant invasion, particularly Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees. For this reason, the grassy woodlands are listed as an endangered ecological community in the NSW state legislation. Additionally, they are considered as critically endangered by the Commonwealth of Australia (Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) 2013).

Experimental design and sampling
The study was conducted on six farms and in each of them two sites were chosen, representing a paired design. One of the sites at each farm is dominated by native Themeda triandra, the other one co-dominated by non-native Eragrostis curvula and Themeda triandra. All farms are within a radius of approximately 10 km from the town Candelo. Three of the farms are located North (36°40’ to 36°42’ S and 149°38’ to 149°42’ E) and three of them are located South (36°51’ to 36°49’ S and 149°38’ to 149°42’ E) of Candelo.
Non-native herbivores (mainly cattle, sheep and rabbits) and native herbivorous marsupials (mainly kangaroos, wallabies and wombats) are present in the area of these sites. On each site, data was collected within four plots (each 1 x 1 m) in May and November 2020. All plant species found within a plot were recorded and their relative abundance was estimated.

References
NSW - Department of Planing, Industries and Environment. 2019. “Lowland Grassy Woodland in the South East Corner Bioregion - Endangered Ecological Community Listing.” https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/threatened-species/nsw-threatened-species-scientific-committee/determinations/final-determinations/2004-2007/lowland-grassy-woodland-south-east-corner-bioregion-endangered-ecological-community-l (February 18, 2021).
NSW Government - Office of Environment and Heritage. 2017. “Lowland Grassy Woodland in the South East Corner Bioregion - Profile.” https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=20070 (January 31, 2021).
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC). 2013. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Conservation Advice for Lowland Grassy Woodland in the South East Corner Bioregion. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/82-conservation-advice.pdf.
Tozer, Mark et al. 2010. “Native Vegetation of Southeast NSW: A Revised Classification and Map for the Coast and Eastern Tablelands.” Cunninghamia : a journal of plant ecology for eastern Australia 11(3): 359–406.

grassland

display_name: grassland

herbivory

display_name: herbivory

native-plant

display_name: native-plant

non-native-plant

display_name: non-native-plant

weed-management

display_name: weed-management

education

en: Education and science

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Native and no-native plant interactions in Australian grasslands