maintainer: Anita Risch

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

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


maintainer: EnviDat Support

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

state: active

type: dataset

media_type: .sh

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).

format: SERVICE

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

media_type: HTML

format: HTML

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

fr: Education, science

de: Bildung, Wissenschaft

it: Formazione e scienza

envidat

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

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

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

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

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

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester


maintainer: M. Carol Resch

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

en: Nematode families

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

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

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

format: XLS

en: Nematode feeding types

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

en: Nemadotes and vegetation

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

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

X: X-Coordinate

Y: Y-Coordinate

Ri.veg: Total number of plant species

Div.veg: Shannon diversity of plant species

Ri.nem: Total number of nematode families

Div.nem: Shannon diversity of nematode families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tillage: last time of tillage

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

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

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

pH: soil pH (CaCl2)

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

en: Nematode colonizer-persister classes

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

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

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

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

en: Plant community composition (plant species)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diversity

display_name: diversity

long-term-experiment

display_name: long-term-experiment

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

restoration

display_name: restoration

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

vegetation

display_name: vegetation

en: Grassland restoration: nematodes and plant communities


en: eemma tracers end-member-mixing-analysis mixing-models emma stable-isotopes

en: eemma user's guide

media_type: application/pdf

en: A brief user's guide to EEMMA, with illustrations using a simple data set

format: PDF

mimetype: application/pdf

en: vignette data

media_type: text/plain

en: A simple data set for the vignette script

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en: eemma vignette script

media_type: application/octet-stream

en: An R script for the vignettes (simple data analysis demonstrations) shown in the user's guide

mimetype: application/octet-stream

media_type: r script (flat-ascii text)

en: An R script that performs ensemble end-member mixing analysis

en:
The R script eemma.R, which implements Ensemble End-Member Mixing Analysis (EEMMA) to estimate source fractions in mixtures, exploiting information contained in time-series correlations among tracer time series.

A brief user's guide, a demonstration script, and a demonstration data set are also provided, to accompany Kirchner, J.W., Mixing models with multiple, overlapping, or incomplete end-members, quantified using time series of a single tracer, Geophysical Research Letters, 2023.

The user's guide is available for public use under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA. Public use of the scripts is permitted under GNU General Public License 3 (GPL3); for details see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/

eemma

display_name: eemma

emma

display_name: emma

end-member-mixing-analysis

display_name: end-member-mixing-analysis

mixing-models

display_name: mixing-models

stable-isotopes

display_name: stable-isotopes

tracers

display_name: tracers

education

en: Education and science

en: eemma.R, an R script for Ensemble End-Member Mixing Analysis


en: natural-hazards protective-effect extreme-events drought compound-events forest-fire bark-beetles protection-forest

en: Description of the study site, extreme event (trigger event) and informations about the survey.

en: Case study website

en: Page of the case study on the project website. It includes figures fo all questions of the survey and additional synthesis graphs.

media_type: PDF

en: Factsheet summarising the key results of the study (in Italian).

media_type: XLSX

en:
This file contains the anonymous answers to the survey for the case study in the protective forest, Val Mesolcina, GR, Switzerland within the BAFU Project "Wenn Risiken kumulieren - Analyse und Umgang mit unerwarteten Ereignissen und kombinierten Risiken".
The survey consists of two parts, based on different concepts: "top-down" and "bottom-up". Answers for both concepts are available in two different worksheets within the Excel file.

en: Conclusions and recommendations of the project (in German).

en: Factsheet summarising the key results of the study (in French).

en: Factsheet summarising the methods used in this project (in German).

en: Factsheet summarising the key results of the study (in German).

en:
This dataset contains the results of a case study analysing the potential impacts of a compound meteorological extreme event on the protective forest in the Val Mesolcina. These impacts were assessed in an experts survey. 29 Experts from practice, administration and science estimated the probabilities for a loss of the protective function due to a drought-related compound extreme event based on different hazard scenarios. The experts not only assessed these probabilities but also provided estimates about the reliability of the scenarios, other socio-economic consequences and options for adaptation.
This dataset contains the following information:
- Table with all (anonymised) answers from the survey
- Factsheets summarising the results and methods in German, French and Italian
- A detailed description of the study site and survey instructions
- Link to the project website wit illustrations for each individual question of the survey

bark-beetles

display_name: bark-beetles

compound-events

display_name: compound-events

drought

display_name: drought

extreme-events

display_name: extreme-events

forest-fire

display_name: forest-fire

natural-hazards

display_name: natural-hazards

protection-forest

display_name: protection-forest

protective-effect

display_name: protective-effect

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: Experts survey protective forest and combined extremes in Val Mesolcina


maintainer: Matthias Haeni

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

en: Site photo of the forest station (ISB)

media_type: image/jpeg

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

mimetype: image/jpeg

en: Field station data (ISF)

media_type: text/csv

en: Data file.

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en: Data plot of the field station (ISF)

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

en: Site aerial photo (Isone)

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

en: Site photo of the field station (ISF)

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

en: Data plot of the forest station (ISB)

en: Forest station data (ISB)

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 Isone in Switzerland where one station is located within a natural broad-leaved forest stand (ISB) with European beech (_Fagus sylvatica_; 70-100 yrs) as dominant tree species. A second station is situated in the very vicinity outside of the forest (field station, ISF). The meteorological time series are presented in hourly time resolution of air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and wind speed. Isone is part of the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF) established and maintained by the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL.

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

long-term

display_name: long-term

meteo

display_name: meteo

meteorology

display_name: meteorology

par

display_name: par

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

relative-humidity

display_name: relative-humidity

swiss-forest-lab

display_name: swiss-forest-lab

temperature

display_name: temperature

wind-speed

display_name: wind-speed

en: Isone, Switzerland: Long-term forest meteorological data from the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF), from 1997 onwards


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

en: Data plot of the forest station (CIB)

en: Data plot of the field station (CIF)

en: Forest station data (CIB)

en: Site aerial photo (Chironico)

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

en: Site photo of the field station (CIF)

en: Site photo of the forest station (CIB)

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 Chironico in Switzerland where one station is located within a natural coniferous forest stand (CIB) with Norway spruce (_Picea abies_; 160-180 yrs) and European silver fir (_Abies alba_; 140-160 yrs) as dominant tree species. A second station is situated in the very vicinity outside of the forest (field station, CIF). The meteorological time series are presented in hourly time resolution of air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and wind speed. Chironico is part of the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF) established and maintained by the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL.

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: Chironico, Switzerland: Long-term forest meteorological data from the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF), from 2000 onwards


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

en: Sky-view fraction along the cablecar transect

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

en: Radiation Data 25.4.2018

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

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

en: Seasonal sub-canopy radiation data

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

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

en: Radiation Data 18.04.2019

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

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

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

forest

display_name: forest

fractional-snow

display_name: fractional-snow

longwave-radiation

display_name: longwave-radiation

shading

display_name: shading

shortwave-radiation

display_name: shortwave-radiation


en: time-series switzerland studibach groundwater alptal

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

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)


en: extreme-values alpine-precipitation reservoir-inflow return-periods low-flow

en: Daily Luzzone Reservoir Inflow 01-01-2000 to 31-12-2019

media_type: .csv

en: Daily total water inflow to Luzzone reservoir. Natural inflow (LUZ_inflow_raw) is back-calculated based on daily water level in reservoir (removing hydropower inputs and spills). Linear interpolation between daily values is used to bring all inflow values into positive space (LUZ_inflow_intrp).

en: R codes for Extreme Values Analysis

media_type: zip-compresses folder of R scripts

en: Zip file containing R codes for running extreme value analyses for high precipitation and inflow events as well as code for determining return levels of low inflow and low precipitation events

en:
 Summary

* Dataset of daily inflow to Luzzone reservoir in Ticino, Switzerland

* R scripts used to generate return levels for low reservoir inflow, low precipitation, high inflow, and extreme high precipitation based on various methods from extreme value analysis

 Data
The dataset included here is the "natural" reservoir inflow for the Luzzone reservoir.
Additional analyses were conducted on daily total precipitation of 6 meteorological stations (abbreviations: TIOLI, TIOLV, COM, VRN, VLS, ZEV). These precipitation data are freely available for teaching and research from the MeteoSwiss IDAweb portal (https://www.meteoswiss.admin.ch/services-and-publications/service/weather-and-climate-products/data-portal-for-teaching-and-research.html).

 Codes
R scripts used to determine return levels of the data set are included for both extreme high events and low events. The scripts include the following methods for calculating return levels:

* GEV (Generalized Extreme Value)

* GPD and GPDd (Generalized Pareto Distribution including declustered version)

* eGPD (extended Generalized Pareto Distribution)

* MEV (Metastatistical Extreme Value)

alpine-precipitation

display_name: alpine-precipitation

extreme-values

display_name: extreme-values

low-flow

display_name: low-flow

reservoir-inflow

display_name: reservoir-inflow

return-periods

display_name: return-periods

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Data and Code on Extreme Inflow and Lowflow Analysis for Alpine Reservoirs


soil-respiration-exclosure-experiment

title_for_slug: soil-respiration-exclosure-experiment

en: subalpine grazing soil-respiration ungulates grassland

en: Soil respiration Switzerland

en:
ID: Fence number

Year	:Year of sampling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grassland

display_name: grassland

grazing

display_name: grazing

soil-respiration

display_name: soil-respiration

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

ungulates

display_name: ungulates

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

en: Soil respiration - exclosure experiment


maintainer: Marcia Phillips

en: meteo-station permos borehole ritigraben permafrost

en: DATA ACCESS

media_type: SMET

en: Meterological station at the [Ritigraben permafrost borehole](http://www.envidat.ch/dataset/rit1) (RIT_0102) in canton Valais, Switzerland. The station is located at 2690 m asl on a flat site.

borehole

display_name: borehole

meteo-station

display_name: meteo-station

permafrost

display_name: permafrost

permos

display_name: permos

ritigraben

display_name: ritigraben

en: RIT2: Meteorological station at Ritigraben borehole site


maintainer: Dirk Nikolaus Karger

en: precipitation temperature bioclim climate-change free-climate-data climate climate-layers climatology

en: CHELSA Technical Documentation

en: Technical documentation document including the variable names, units, scaling, offset, and background.

en: CHELSA V2.1 (current)

media_type: geotiff

en: CHELSA Version 2.1 based on ERA5 forcings and CMIP6

format: GeoTIFF

en: CHELSA V1.2 (deprecated)

en: CHELSA Version 1.2 based on ERA-Interim forcings and CMIP5

en:
High-resolution information on climatic conditions is essential to many applications in environmental and ecological sciences. Here we present the CHELSA (Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas) data of downscaled temperature and precipitation to a high resolution of 30 arc sec. The temperature algorithm is based on statistical downscaling of atmospheric temperatures. The precipitation algorithm incorporates orographic predictors including wind fields, valley exposition, and boundary layer height, with a subsequent bias correction.

CHELSA data published in EnviDat includes the deprecated version 1.2 (originally published under 10.5061/dryad.kd1d4). Please use the current 2.1 version.

Paper Citation:
 > _Karger DN. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas, Scientific Data, 4, 170122 (2017) [doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.122](https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.122)._

bioclim

display_name: bioclim

climate

display_name: climate

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

climate-layers

display_name: climate-layers

climatology

display_name: climatology

free-climate-data

display_name: free-climate-data

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

temperature

display_name: temperature


maintainer: Ueli Reber

en: text-corpus environmental--policy switzerland bgb policy-analysis biodiversity policy-documents

en: Replication files

en:
 Introduction

The ZIP file contains all data and code to replicate the analyses reported in the following paper.

Reber, U., Fischer, M., Ingold, K., Kienast, F., Hersperger, A. M., Grütter, R., & Benz, R. (2022). Integrating biodiversity: A longitudinal and cross-sectoral analysis of Swiss politics. *Policy Sciences*. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09456-4](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09456-4)

If you use any of the material included in this repository, please refer to the paper. If you use (parts of) the text corpus, please also refer to the sources used for its compilation listed below. The content of the texts may not be changed.

 Data folder

The data folder contains the following files.

* _corpus.parquet_: Text corpus of Swiss policy documents
* _dict_de.csv_: Biodiversity dictionary (German)
* _dict_fr.csv_: Biodiversity dictionary (French)
* _dict_it.csv_: Biodiversity dictionary (Italian)
* _topic_labels.csv_: labels/codes for policy sectors
* _topics.csv_: labels/codes for policy sectors

The corpus and the dictionary were compiled by the authors specifically for this project. The labels/codes for policy sectors are based on the [coding scheme](http://ws-old.parlament.ch/affairs/topics) of the Swiss Parliament.

 Text corpus

The text corpus consists of 439,984 Swiss policy documents in German, French, and Italian from 1999 to 2018. The corpus was compiled from the following source between 2020-10-01 and 2021-01-31.

* Transcripts and parliamentary businesses (e.g. questions, motions, parliamentary initiatives) via the [Web Services (WS)](https://www.parlament.ch/de/%C3%BCber-das-parlament/fakten-und-zahlen/open-data-web-services) provided by the Swiss Parliament
* The official compilation of federal legislation ("Amtliche Sammlung", AS) via [opendata.swiss](https://opendata.swiss/de/dataset/official-compilation-of-federal-legislation-bs-as-1947-2018) provided by the Swiss Federal Archives (SFA)
* The federal gazette ("Bundesblatt") via [fedlex.admin.ch](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/de/fga/index)
* Decisions of federal courts via [entscheidsuche.ch (ES)](https://entscheidsuche.ch/)

The corpus is stored in a single data frame to use with R saved as [PARQUET](https://parquet.apache.org/) file (corpus.parquet). The data frame has the following structure.

* _text_id_: Unique identifier for each text (source information as prefix, e.g. "t_")
* _doc_type_: Document type (see coding scheme below)
* _branch_: Government branche (1 legislative, 2 executive, 3 judicative)
* _stage_: Stage of policy process (1 drafting, 2 introduction, 3 interpretation)
* _year_: Year of publication
* _topic_: Policy sector (coding scheme in separate file in data folder)
* _lang_: Language (de, fr, it)
* _text_: Text

The following list contains the coding scheme for the doc_type variable.

* 101: Federal gazette // Draft for public consultation ("Vernehmlassungsverfahren")
* 102: Federal gazette // Explanation of draft for parliament ("Botschaft")
* 103: Federal gazette // Strategy, action plan
* 104: Federal gazette // Federal council decree ("Bundesratsbeschluss")
* 105: Federal gazette // (Simple) Federal decree ("(Einfacher) Bundesbeschluss")
* 106: Federal gazette // General decree ("Allgemeinverfügung")
* 107: Federal gazette // Treaty ("Übereinkommen")
* 108: Federal gazette // Treaty ("Abkommen")
* 109: Federal gazette // Draft for parliament ("Entwurf")
* 110: Federal gazette // Report ("Bericht")
* 111: Federal gazette // Report of parliamentary comission ("Bericht")
* 112: Federal gazette // Report of federal council ("Bericht")
* 201: Parl. businesses // Submitted text
* 202: Parl. businesses // Reason text
* 203: Parl. businesses // Federal council response
* 204: Parl. businesses // Initial situation
* 205: Parl. businesses // Proceedings
* 301: Parl. transcripts // Speech of MP
* 302: Parl. transcripts // Speech of federal council
* 401: Federal legislation // Legal text of the official compilation (law, ordinances, etc.)
* 501: Court decisions // Federal Supreme Court
* 502: Court decisions // Federal Criminal Court
* 503: Court decisions // Federal Administrative Court

 Code folder

The code folder contains all R code for the analyses. The files are numbered chronologically.

* _1_classifier_training.R_: Training of classifiers for classification of policy sectors
* _2_classifier_application.R_: Classification of documents in corpus
* _3_dictionary_application.R_: Biodiversity indexing of documents in corpus
* _4_stm_truncation.R_: Truncation of indexed documents to keep only relevant parts
* _5_stm_translation.R_: Translation of FR and IT documents to DE
* _6_stm_model.R_: Preprocesssing and structural topic model
* _7_plots.R_: Plots and numbers as included in the paper

The code/functions folder contains custom functions used in the scripts, e.g. to support topic model interpretation.

Package versions and setup details are noted in the code files.

 Contact

Please direct any questions to Ueli Reber (ueli.reber@eawag.ch).

bgb

display_name: bgb

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

environmental--policy

display_name: environmental--policy

policy-analysis

display_name: policy-analysis

policy-documents

display_name: policy-documents

switzerland

display_name: switzerland

text-corpus

display_name: text-corpus

education

en: Education and science

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Replication files for "Integrating biodiversity: A longitudinal and cross-sectoral analysis of Swiss politics"