maintainer: Anita Risch

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

en: Datafile

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

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

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

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

Soil.moist	: Soil moisture (%)

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

pH: Soil pH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant.richness: Plant species richness

Plant.N: Plant tissue nitrogen content (%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#References

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

ecosystem-coupling

display_name: ecosystem-coupling

ecosystem-functions

display_name: ecosystem-functions

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

exclusion

display_name: exclusion

grassland

display_name: grassland

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


en: alptal groundwater stable-water-isotopes streamflow runoff

state: active

type: dataset

en: Precipitation and discharge event A

media_type: text/csv

en:
This data is collected at the Studibach catchment (Alptal, Switzerland) by Leonie Kiewiet (University of Zürich)
With any questions about the data, please contact leonie.kiewiet@geo.uzh.ch or leoniekiewiet@gmail.com

datetime: Date (year-month-day) and time (hours:minutes:seconds) in UTC
Q: Discharge in mm per hour at catchment outlet (697234,210472)
P: Rainfall in mm per hour averaged for two rain gauges (697494,210675) and (698004, 210680)

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en: Deuterium rainfall event C

en:
This data is collected at the Studibach catchment (Alptal, Switzerland) by Leonie Kiewiet (University of Zürich)
For any questions about the data, please contact leonie.kiewiet@geo.uzh.ch or leoniekiewiet@gmail.com

datetime: Date (year-month-day) and time (hours:minutes:seconds) in UTC
P d.D: Deuterium composition of the rainfall samples (per mil)
X: X coordinate (CH1903 LV03)
Y: Y coordinate (CH1903 LV03)

en: Deuterium streamwater event B

en:
This data is collected at the Studibach catchment (Alptal, Switzerland) by Leonie Kiewiet (University of Zürich)
For any questions about the data, please contact leonie.kiewiet@geo.uzh.ch or leoniekiewiet@gmail.com

datetime: Date and time of sample collection (UTC; year-month-day, hours:minutes)
Q d.D: Deuterium composition (per mil) of streamwater sampled at the catchment outlet (697234,210472); the first sample is used as pre-event streamflow sample

en: Deuterium rainfall event A

en: Precipitation and discharge event B

en: Precipitation and discharge extra event

en: Deuterium streamwater event C

en: Precipitation and discharge event C

en: Deuterium streamwater event A

en: Deuterium groundwater and baseflow October 2017

en:
This data is collected at the Studibach catchment (Alptal, Switzerland) by Leonie Kiewiet (University of Zürich)
For any questions about the data, please contact leonie.kiewiet@geo.uzh.ch or leoniekiewiet@gmail.com

Date: Date (year-month-day)
Location: Well number or outlet
X: X coordinate (CH1903 LV03)
Y: Y coordinate (CH1903 LV03)
riparian: riparian wells (i.e. from the riparian-like cluster as presented in Kiewiet et al. (2019)) are marked a one, all other wells are marked a zero
d.D (per mil): Deuterium composition (per mil)

en: Deuterium rainfall extra event

en: Deuterium rainfall event B

en: Deuterium groundwater and baseflow October 2016

en: Deuterium groundwater and baseflow August 2017

en: Deuterium streamwater extra event

en:
This dataset includes discharge and rainfall measurements and deuterium compositions of streamflow, rainfall and groundwater, for four rainfall events and three baseflow snapshot campaigns in the Studibach (Alptal, Switzerland). More specifically, we present the following data:

- Specific discharge at the catchment outlet at 5-minute resolution (mm per hour);
- Rainfall at 5-minute resolution (mm per hour);
- Rainfall deuterium composition (‰);
- Stormflow deuterium composition (‰);
- Groundwater and baseflow deuterium compositions (‰).

For the files containing rainfall and discharge timeseries (QP), and rainfall and streamwater deuterium compositions ("Deuterium_Rainfall" and "Deuterium_Streamwater"), we added the corresponding event identifier (A, B, C or extra) to the file names. For the files containing the groundwater and baseflow deuterium values ("Deuterium_Snapshot") we added the sample collection date to the file name. We included the X and Y coordinates for each data point (coordinate system: CH1903 LV3) as well as the date and time (UTC).

More information on the data collection and preparation can be found in Kiewiet et al. (in review). A detailed description of the baseflow snapshot campaigns can also be found in Kiewiet et al., 2019.

alptal

display_name: alptal

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

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

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

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

en: Discharge, rainfall, and deuterium compositions of streamwater, rainwater and groundwater, for four rainfall events in the Studibach, Alptal, Switzerland


en: avalanche-mapping avalanche-size-estimation remote-sensing reliability avalanche

en: AvalancheReliabilityData

media_type: application/x-zip-compressed

en: The .zip contains all data used to conduct the reliability study as well as the results, a detailed description of the included files is contained in the included pdf. All geospatial data is provided in the Swiss Coordinate System: CH1903+ / LV95 (EPSG 2056). For any use of the data the proper citation provided is obligatory!

format: SERVICE

mimetype: application/x-zip-compressed

en:
This dataset contains the data used and collected to investigate the reliability of avalanche size estimates and avalanche outlines (see related publications). Namely this is

 Avalanche size estimates

* the 10 pictures depicting avalanches
* the survey results from the 170 participants

 Avalanche outlines mapped from oblique photographs
* the pictures of the six avalanches
* the avalanche outlines mapped by the 10 participants
* the reference mapped from the georeferenced photographs

 Avalanche outlines from remotely-sensed imagery
* the orthophotos in the four different resolutions (2m, 1m, 50cm, 25cm)
* the area of interest (AoI) delimiting the research area
* the avalanche mappings in each resolution for all five participants
* the shade masks used to separate illuminated and shaded areas

The acquisition of the orthophotos has been partially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF; Grant N°200021_172800).

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

avalanche-mapping

display_name: avalanche-mapping

avalanche-size-estimation

display_name: avalanche-size-estimation

reliability

display_name: reliability

remote-sensing

display_name: remote-sensing

education

fr: Education, science

de: Bildung, Wissenschaft

en: Education and science

it: Formazione e scienza

envidat

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

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.

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester

en: Data reliability study: avalanche size estimates and outlines


maintainer: Anita C. Risch

en: soil soil-biology grassland nutrient-network soil-chemistry global mineralization worldwide

en:
site.code: Site code

Continent: Continent

sampleID: Sample ID

nn.latitude: Lattitude

nn.longitude: Longitude

bioclim.T.ann: Mean annual temperature (°C)

bioclim.T.var: Temperature variability (°C)

bioclim.T.q.wet: Temperature of the wettest quarter (°C)

bioclim.T.q.dry: Temperature of the driest quarter (°C)

bioclim.T.q.warm: Temperature of the warmest quarter (°C)

bioclim.P.ann: Mean annual preciptiation (mm)

bioclim.P.q.wet: Precipitation of the wettest quarter (mm)

ch.pH: pH

ch.WSK.vol: Water holding capacity (vol%)

ch.bulkdensity.gcm3: Bulk density (g cm-3)

ch.porespace: Pore space (vol%)

ch.sand.perc: Soil texture: sand (%)

ch.silt.perc: Soil texture: silt (%)

ch.clay.perc: Soil texture: clay (%)

ch.NO3start.mgg: NO3 at the beginning of the incubation (mgkg)

ch.Ntot.perc: Total soil N (%)

ch.Ctot.perc: Total soil C (%)

ch.Corg.perc: Soil organic C (%)

ch.netNminfield.mgkgd: Realised soil net N mineralisation (mg kg-1 d-1)

ch.netNminlab.mgkgd: Potential soil ne N mineralisation (mg kg-1 d-1)

archaea.cpg.log: Ammonia oxidising archaea (archaeal amoA gene copies g-1 soil)

bacteria.cpg.log: Ammonia oxidising bacteria (bacterial amoA gene copies g-1 soil)

micr.biom: Microbial biomass (ug g-1 soil)

ch.CtoN: C to N ratio

ch.netNnitriffield.mgkgd.sqrt: Realised soil net nitrification, transformed (mg kg-1 d-1)

ch.netNammoniffield.mgkgd.sqrt: Realised soil net ammonification, transformed (mg kg-1 d-1)

ch.netNnitriflab.mgkgd.sqrt: Potential soil net nitrification, transformed (mg kg-1 d-1)

ch.netNammoniflab.mgkgd.sqrt: Potential soil net ammonifiation, transformed (mg kg-1 d-1)

format: XLS

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

Paper Citation:

Risch, A. C.; Zimmermann, S.; Ochoa-Hueso, R.; Schütz, M.; Frey, B.; Firn, J. L.; Fay, P. A.; Hagedorn, F.; Borer, E. T.; Seabloom, E. W.; et al. Soil net nitrogen mineralisation across global grasslands. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10 (1), 4981 (10 pp.). doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12948-2

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

We conducted coordinated measurements of realised and potential soil net Nmin, and assessed water holding capacity, bulk density, C and N content, texture, pH, pore space, microbial biomass, and archaeal (AOA) and bacterial (AOB) ammonia oxidiser abundance using identical materials and methods across 30 grasslands on six continents. The sites covered a globally relevant range of climatic and edaphic conditions. Climate data was obtained from worldclim - Global climate data https://www.worldclim.org/

global

display_name: global

mineralization

display_name: mineralization

nutrient-network

display_name: nutrient-network

soil

display_name: soil

soil-biology

display_name: soil-biology

soil-chemistry

display_name: soil-chemistry

worldwide

display_name: worldwide


weather-station-davos-wolfgang

maintainer: Jörg Wieder

title_for_slug: weather-station-davos-wolfgang

en: relative-humidity pressure weather temperature raclets

en: Weather Station Davos Wolfgang

en: The data file contains date and time (YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss) in UTC, temperature (°C), relative humidity (%), pressure (hPa) at 10 m above ground and above sea level. The data was averaged over 10 minutes.

en: The dataset contains weather parameters measured at Davos Wolfgang (LON: 9.853594, LAT: 46.835577).

pressure

display_name: pressure

raclets

display_name: raclets

relative-humidity

display_name: relative-humidity

temperature

display_name: temperature

weather

display_name: weather


mosaic-snow-on-sea-ice-data

title_for_slug: mosaic-snow-on-sea-ice-data

en: spatial-variability arctic-sea-ice drifting-and-blowing-snow snow-distribution surface-mass-balance

en: SNOWPACK setup for MOSAiC

media_type: various

en:
 The zip file contains both input and output data as well as the model configuration as used in the submitted manuscript "Towards a fully physical representation of snow on Arctic sea ice using a 3D snow-atmosphere model".

The zip file contains 2 main folders:
* SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA1
* SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA3

In the SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA1 (reference "SP_R" simulation) and SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA3 (comparison "SP_C" scenario) folders you find the corresponding inputs, outputs and configuration as used in the paper, as well as the settings used - which only differ by the changed "SCHMIDT_DRIFT_FUDGE" value that is found in each SNOWPACK_JGR_ALPHA/setup/io.ini file. The input data is already linked accordingly in each io.ini file.

To reproduce the results, download and compile the source code for the adjusted SNOWPACK model first, which can be obtained from https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/snow-models/snowpack.git under the "snowpack_mosaic" branch. After installing, you can run the provided model setup uploaded here.

en: ALPINE3D setup for MOSAiC

en:
The zip file contains a folder structure that must be kept as it is in order to run the simulation in the current configuration.
The setup contains both input and output data as well as the model configuration as used in the submitted manuscript
"Towards a fully physical representation of snow on Arctic sea ice using a 3D snow-atmosphere model".

The zip file contains 3 main folders:
* base_setup_files
* a3d_jgr_alpha1
* a3d_jgr_alpha3

The "base_setup_files" contains all input files that are necessary to run the reference (R) simulation ("a3d_jgr_alpha1" folder) and the comparison "C" scenario ("a3d_jgr_alpha3") folder. In the a3d_jgr_alpha1 and a3d_jgr_alpha3 folders you find the corresponding outputs as used in the paper, as well as the settings used - which only differ by the changed "SCHMIDT_DRIFT_FUDGE" value that is found in each a3d_jgr_alphax/setup/io.ini file. The input data is already linked accordingly in each io.ini file.

a3d_jgr_alpha1 also contains the detailed snow profiles for each point along the transects.

To reproduce the results, download and compile the source code for the adjusted ALPINE3D model first, which can be obtained from https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/snow-models/alpine3d.git under the "alpine3d_mosaic" branch. After installing, you can run the provided model setup uploaded here.

en:
Data accompanying David Wagners' Dissertation.
Covers model results and various input from ALPINE3D and SNOWPACK adjusted for sea ice during MOSAiC.

arctic-sea-ice

display_name: arctic-sea-ice

drifting-and-blowing-snow

display_name: drifting-and-blowing-snow

snow-distribution

display_name: snow-distribution

spatial-variability

display_name: spatial-variability

surface-mass-balance

display_name: surface-mass-balance

en: MOSAIC Snow on Sea Ice Data


maintainer: EnviDat Support

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

en: Field station data (SCF)

en: Data file.

en: Further details on the data repository

media_type: PDF

en: Meta data documentation.

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: 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: Data plot of the field station (SCF)

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

en: Data plot of the forest station (SCB)

en: Forest station data (SCB)

media_type: CSV

en: Site photo of the forest station (SCB)

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

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

swiss-forest-lab

display_name: swiss-forest-lab

wind-speed

display_name: wind-speed

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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


en: snow-depth remote-sensing snow swe uas

en: HS map Brämabül, 14. April 2015

media_type: image/tiff

en:
10 cm resolution
15 cm accuracy

format: TIFF

mimetype: image/tiff

en: .tfw file

media_type: tfw

en: coordinates for the .tif raster

en:
This snow depth map was generated 14 January 2015, close to peak of winter accumulation, applying Unmanned Aerial System digital surface models with a spatial resolution of 10 cm. The covered area is 285'000 m2 at the top of Brämabüel, 2490 m a.s.l. covering all expositions. Coordinate system: CH1903LV03.

A detailed description is given here:

Bühler, Y., Adams, M. S., Bösch, R., and Stoffel, A.: Mapping snow depth in alpine terrain with unmanned aerial systems (UASs): potential and limitations, The Cryosphere, 10, 1075-1088, 10.5194/tc-10-1075-2016, 2016.

Abstract:
Detailed information on the spatial and temporal distribution, and variability of snow depth (HS) is a crucial input for numerous applications in hydrology, climatology, ecology and avalanche research. Nowadays, snow depth distribution is usually estimated by combining point measurements from weather stations or observers in the field with spatial interpolation algorithms. However, even a dense measurement network is not able to capture the large spatial variability of snow depth in alpine terrain.
Remote sensing methods, such as laser scanning or digital photogrammetry, have recently been successfully applied to map snow depth variability at local and regional scales. However, such data acquisition is costly, if manned airplanes are involved. The effectiveness of ground-based measurements on the other hand, is often hindered by occlusions, due to the complex terrain or acute viewing angles. In this paper, we investigate the application of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), in combination with structure-from-motion photogrammetry, to map snow depth distribution. Such systems have the advantage that they are comparatively cost-effective and can be applied very flexibly to cover also otherwise inaccessible terrain. In this study we map snow depth at two different locations: a) a sheltered location at the bottom of the Flüela valley (1900 m a.s.l.) and b) an exposed location (2500 m a.s.l.) on a peak in the ski resort Jakobshorn, both in the vicinity of Davos, Switzerland. At the first test site, we monitor the ablation on three different dates. We validate the photogrammetric snow depth maps using simultaneously acquired manual snow depth measurements. The resulting snow depth values have a root mean square error (RMSE) better than 0.07 to 0.15 m on meadows and rocks and a RMSE better than 0.30 m on sections covered by bushes or tall grass. This new measurement technology opens the door for efficient, flexible, repeatable and cost effective snow depth monitoring for various applications, investigating the worlds cryosphere.

remote-sensing

display_name: remote-sensing

snow

display_name: snow

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

swe

display_name: swe

uas

display_name: uas

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: UAS based snow depth maps Brämabüel, Davos, CH


en: alptal time-series switzerland groundwater studibach

media_type: text/plain

en:
Groundwater time series of the monitoring network in the Studibach (C7) catchment, Alptal, Switzerland published in
Rinderer M., van Meerveld I, McGlynn B. (2019): From points to patterns – Assessing runoff source area dynamics and hydrological connectivity using time series clustering. Water Resources Research, doi: 2018WR023886R

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en: Groundwater time series between 2010 and 2014 of the distributed monitoring system in the Studibach (C7), Alptal, Switzerland. Data published in Rinderer M., van Meerveld I, McGlynn B. (2019): From points to patterns – Assessing runoff source area dynamics and hydrological connectivity using time series clustering. Water Resources Research, doi: 2018WR023886R

alptal

display_name: alptal

groundwater

display_name: groundwater

studibach

display_name: studibach

switzerland

display_name: switzerland

time-series

display_name: time-series

en: Groundwater time series Studibach (Rinderer et al., 2019, WRR)


restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

title_for_slug: restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

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

media_type: XLSX

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

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

en: Functional diversity above_belowground fauna

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

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

 Study area

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

 Experimental design and sampling

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

Vegetation properties

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

 Aboveground arthropods

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

 Belowground fauna

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

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

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

 Soil chemical and physical properties, soil nitrogen mineralization

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

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

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

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

 References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

mineralization

display_name: mineralization

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

en: Restoring grassland multifunctionality


maintainer: Loïc Pellissier Pellissier

en: herbivores-communities plant-herbivore-interactions community-indices elevation functional-traits alps environmental-gradients

en: Vegetion surveys

en: Species inventories of plants

en: Nematode surveys

en: Surveys of soil nematode along elevation

en: Orthoptera surveys

en: Species inventories of Orthoptera

en: Plant traits

en: Plant functional traits (SLA, LDMC, carbon and nitrogen content, punch strenght; averaged by species)

en: Orthoptera traits

en: Orthoptera functional traits (incisive mandibular strength averaged by species)

en: Study sites

en: Coordinates and elevation of the study sites

en: Despite the common role of above- and below-ground herbivore communities in mediating ecosystem functioning, our understanding of the variation of species communities along natural gradient is largely strongly biased toward aboveground organisms. This dataset enables to study the variations in assemblages of two dominant groups of herbivores, namely, aboveground orthoptera and belowground nematodes together with their food plants. Herbivores and plant surveys were conducted in 48 natural grasslands along six elevation gradients, selected to span the major macro-climatic and environmental conditions of the Swiss Alps. It compiles herbivores and plant surveys, information on the study sites as well as plant and herbivores functional traits sought to be involved in trophic interactions and to respond to climatic variation along the elevation. Plant functional traits considered are the SLA, the LDMC, the C/N content, the punch strength (i.e. force required to pierce the leave lamina), the mandibular strength for Orthoptera insect. Data were collected during the summer 2016 and 2017.

alps

display_name: alps

community-indices

display_name: community-indices

elevation

display_name: elevation

environmental-gradients

display_name: environmental-gradients

functional-traits

display_name: functional-traits

herbivores-communities

display_name: herbivores-communities

plant-herbivore-interactions

display_name: plant-herbivore-interactions

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Above- and below-ground herbivore communities along elevation


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

media_type: tif

en: Precipitation seasonality from CHELSA

media_type: TIFF

en: Soil clay content modified from SoilGrids

en: Frost change frequency modified from CHELSA

en: Mean diurnal range modified from CHELSA

en: Mean annual temperature modified from CHELSA

en: Soil organic carbon content modified from SoilGrids

en: Precipitation of driest quarter modified from CHELSA

en: Soil pH modified from SoilGrids

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

aridity

display_name: aridity

frost-change-velocity

display_name: frost-change-velocity

ground-temperature

display_name: ground-temperature

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

sdms

display_name: sdms

soil

display_name: soil

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

en: Environmental layers for SDM simulations (GDPlants)


maintainer: Achille Capelli

en: swe lwc liquid-water-content gps snow gnss snow-water-equivalent

en: Daily observer data for the site Weissfluhjoch at 2540 m a.s.l (46°49’47’’ N, 9°48’34’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: GNSS derived SWE, LWC and HS from Küblis at 820 m a.s.l. (46°54’48’’N, 9°46’54’’E) for the two winters 2018-20

en: Daily data for the site Weissfluhjoch at 2540 m a.s.l (46°49’47’’ N, 9°48’34’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020. These data were processed to daily values from the other data files.

en: Snow profiles data from Klosters (1210 m a.s.l. ,46°51’49’’N, 9°53’17’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: GNSS derived SWE, HS, and LWC for the site Weissfluhjoch at 2540 m a.s.l (46°49’47’’ N, 9°48’34’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: Webcam images

media_type: ZIP

en: Webcam images showing some typical differences in the snow conditions at the four sites (Küblis, Klosters, Laret and Weissfluhjoch) for two time periods (14-18.3.2019 and 27.1-11.2.2020). Both time periods included a precipitation event with partial rain-on–snow occurring at the lower locations.

format: ZIP

en: Daily data from Küblis at 820 m a.s.l. (46°54’48’’N, 9°46’54’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020. These data were processed to daily values from the other data files.

media_type: .csv

en: GNSS derived data for Laret at 1510 m a.s.l. (46°50’2’’N, 9°52’17’’E) for the two winter 2018-2020.

en: Daily observer data from Küblis at 820 m a.s.l. (46°54’48’’N, 9°46’54’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: Daily data for Laret at 1510 m a.s.l. (46°50’2’’N, 9°52’17’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020. These data were processed to daily values from the other data files.

en: Snow and meteo data from automatic sensors from Küblis at 820 m a.s.l. (46°54’48’’N, 9°46’54’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: Snow and meteo data from automatic sensors for the site Weissfluhjoch at 2540 m a.s.l (46°49’47’’ N, 9°48’34’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: Daily data from Klosters (1210 m a.s.l. ,46°51’49’’N, 9°53’17’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020. These data were processed to daily values from the other data files.

en: Snow and meteo data from automatic sensors for Laret at 1510 m a.s.l. (46°50’2’’N, 9°52’17’’E) for the two winter 2018-2020.

en: Profile data for Laret at 1510 m a.s.l. (46°50’2’’N, 9°52’17’’E) for the two winter 2018-2020.

en: Snow profiles data from Küblis at 820 m a.s.l. (46°54’48’’N, 9°46’54’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: Snow profiles data for the site Weissfluhjoch at 2540 m a.s.l (46°49’47’’ N, 9°48’34’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: GNSS derived SWE, LWC and HS from Klosters (1210 m a.s.l. ,46°51’49’’N, 9°53’17’’E) for the two winters 2018-20

en: Manual profiles

media_type: .zip

en: Data of the traditional manual profiles for the locations Weissfluhjoch, Klosters and Küblis. For the location of Küblis there are no traditional manual profile data. We provided the data as both PDF and .CAAML format (See https://niviz.org/ or http://caaml.org/Schemas/V5.0/Profiles/SnowProfileIACS/CAAMLv5_SnowProfileIACS.pdf). Moreover, we added LWC and density profiles when available (all locations).

en: Daily observer data from automatic sensors from Klosters (1210 m a.s.l. ,46°51’49’’N, 9°53’17’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: Snow and meteo data from automatic sensors from Klosters (1210 m a.s.l. ,46°51’49’’N, 9°53’17’’E) for the two winters 2018-2020.

en: This database contains GNSS derived snow water equivalent (SWE), liquid water content (LWC), and snow height (HS) and reference data collected during the two winter 2018-2020 at 4 sites Weissfluhjoch (2540 m asl, 46°49’47’’ N, 9°48’34’’E), Laret (1515 m asl, . 46°50’2’’N, 9°52’17’’E), Klosters (1200 m asl, 46°51’49’’N, 9°53’17’’E), and Küblis (815 m asl, 46°54’48’’N, 9°46’54’’E).

gnss

display_name: gnss

gps

display_name: gps

liquid-water-content

display_name: liquid-water-content

lwc

display_name: lwc

snow

display_name: snow

en: Snow water equivalent measurements with low-cost GNSS receivers along a steep elevation gradient in the East-ern Swiss Alps


en: snowpack-model machine-learning avalanche-size natural-avalanches avalanche

en: Data set AV2 used for training the avalanche-size estimator (Sections 2.1.2 and 3.2 in Mayer et al.)

en: Data set AV3 was used for validation of the avalanche-day classifier (Sections 2.1.3 and 3.3(1) in Mayer et al.).

en: Data set DL was used for validation of the avalanche-day classifier and the avalanche-size estimator. The data set contains the quality-checked danger levels merged with the respective SNOWPACK simulations (Sections 2.3 and 3.3(2) in Mayer et al.).

en: Data set AV1 was used for training the avalanche-day classifier (Sections 2.1.1, 2.2, and 3.1 in Mayer et al.).

en:
The data set contained in this repository was used in the analysis by Mayer et al. (2023):
Mayer, S. I., Techel, F., Schweizer, J., and van Herwijnen, A.: Prediction of natural dry-snow avalanche activity using physics-based snowpack simulations, EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-646, 2023.

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

avalanche-size

display_name: avalanche-size

machine-learning

display_name: machine-learning

natural-avalanches

display_name: natural-avalanches

snowpack-model

display_name: snowpack-model

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: Data-set for prediction of natural dry-snow avalanche activity and avalanche size using physics-based snowpack simulations


en: research-data-management raster time-series geodata core sentinel-2 gridded-data video-encoding

en: View publication in the Digital Object Repository at WSL (DORA)

media_type: HTML

format: HTML

media_type: .sh

en:
Shell script to reproduce the CORE format. You can 1) download and unzip the file, 2) make the script executable and 3) run it.
Disclaimer: only provided for peer review. Proper software for working with CORE will become available in time on https://github.com/EnviDat/?q=core (both Web/JS for Frontend and Python for Backend).

en: CORE Dataset (80 GB)

media_type: CORE

en:
Shell script to extract data from the CORE format. You can 1) download and unzip the file, 2) make the script executable and 3) run it.
Disclaimer: only provided for peer review. Proper software will become available in time on https://github.com/EnviDat/?q=core (both Web/JS for Frontend and Python for Backend).

en:
DISCLAIMER: CORE is still in development. Interested parties are warmly invited to join common development, to comment, discuss, find bugs, etc.

Acknowledgement: The CORE format was proudly inspired by the Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF ([COG](https://www.cogeo.org/)) format, by considering how to leverage the ability of clients issuing HTTP GET range requests for a time-series of remote sensing and aerial imagery (instead of just one image).

License: The Cloud Optimized Raster Encoding (CORE) specifications are released to the public domain under a Creative Commons 1.0 CC0 "No Rights Reserved" international license. You can reuse the information contained herein in any way you want, for any purposes and without restrictions.

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

Summary:
The Cloud Optimized Raster Encoding (CORE) format is being developed for the efficient storage and management of gridded data by applying video encoding algorithms. It is mainly designed for the exchange and preservation of large time series data in environmental data repositories, while in the same time enabling more efficient workflows on the cloud. It can be applied to any large number of similar (in pixel size and image dimensions) raster data layers. CORE is not designed to replace COG but to work together with COG for a collection of many layers (e.g. by offering a fast preview of layers when switching between layers of a time series).

WARNING: Currently only applicable to RGB/Byte imagery. The final CORE specifications may probably be very different from what is written herein or CORE may not ever become productive due to a myriad of reasons (see also 'Major issues to be solved').

With this early public sharing of the format we explicitly support the Open Science agenda, which implies "shifting from the standard practices of publishing research results in scientific publications towards sharing and using all available knowledge at an earlier stage in the research process" (quote from: European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, 2016. Open innovation, open science, open to the world).

CORE Specifications:

1) a MP4 or WebM video digital multimedia container format (or any future video container playable as HTML video in major browsers)

2) a free to use or open video compression codec such as H.264, VP9, or AV1 (or any future video codec that is open sourced or free to use for end users)

Note: H.264 is currently recommended because of the wide usage with support in all major browsers, fast encoding due to acceleration in hardware (which is currently not the case for AV1 or VP9) and the fact that MPEG LA has allowed the free use for streaming video that is free to the end users. However, please note that H.264 is restricted by patents and its use in proprietary or commercial software requires the payment of royalties to [MPEG LA](https://www.mpegla.com/programs/avc-h-264/). However, when AV1 matures and accelerated hardware encoding becomes available, AV1 is expected to offer 30% to 50% smaller file size in comparison with H.264, while retaining the [same quality](https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/AV1).

3) the encoding frame rate should be of one frame per second (fps) with each layer segmented in internal tiles, similar to COG, ordered by the main use case when accessing the data: either layer contiguous or tile contiguous;

Note: The internal tile arrangement should support an easy navigation inside the CORE video format, depending on the use case.

4) a CORE file is optimised for streaming with the moov atom at the beginning of the file (e.g. with -movflags faststart) and optional additional optimisations depending on the codec used (e.g. -tune fastdecode -tune zerolatency for H.264)

5) metadata tags inside the moov atom for describing and using geographic image data (that are preferably compatible with the [OGC GeoTIFF standard](https://www.ogc.org/standards/geotiff) or any future standard accepted by the geospatial community) as well as list of original file names corresponding to each CORE layer

6) it needs to encode similar source rasters (such as time series of rasters with the same extent and resolution, or different tiles of the same product; each input raster should be having the same image and pixel size)

7) it provides a mechanism for addressing and requesting overviews (lower resolution data) for a fast display in web browser depending on the map scale (currently external overviews)

Major issues to be solved:

- Internal overviews (similar to COG), by chaining lower resolution videos in the same MP4 container for fast access to overviews first); Currently, overviews are kept as separate files, as external overviews.

- Metadata encoding (how to best encode spatial extent, layer names, and so on, for each of the layer inside the series, which may have a different geographical extent, etc...; Known issues: adding too many tags with FFmpeg which are not part of the standard MP4 moov atom; metadata tags have a limited string length.

- Applicability beyond RGB/Byte datasets; defining a standard way of converting cell values from Int16/UInt16/UInt32/Int32/Float32/Float64/ data types into multi-band Byte values (and reconstructing them back to the original data type within acceptable thresholds)

Example

Notice: The provided CORE (.mp4) examples contain modified Copernicus Sentinel data [2018-2021].

For generating the CORE examples provided, 50 original Sentinel 2 (S-2) TCI data images from an area located inside Switzerland were downloaded from www.copernicus.eu, and then transformed into CORE format using ffmpeg with H.264 encoding using the [x264 library](https://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html).

For full reproducibility, we provide the original data set and results, as well scripts for data encoding and extraction (see resources).

core

display_name: core

geodata

display_name: geodata

gridded-data

display_name: gridded-data

raster

display_name: raster

research-data-management

display_name: research-data-management

time-series

display_name: time-series

video-encoding

display_name: video-encoding