en: microbial-respiration microbial-biomass-carbon anthropogenic-management nutrient-addition soil-properties climate herbivore-exclusion

en: Risch et al. GEB_data.xlsx

media_type: .xlsx

en:
Study sites and experimental design
We collected data from 23 sites that are part of the Nutrient Network Global Research Cooperative (NutNet, https://nutnet.umn.edu/). The mean annual air temperature (MAT) across these sites ranged from -4 to 22°C, mean annual precipitation (MAP) from 252 to 1592 mm, and elevations from 6 to 4261 m above sea level (Fig 1a, Supplementary Table S1), hence cover a wide range of climatic conditions under which grasslands occur (Fig 1b). Soil organic C concentrations ranged between 0.8 to 7.8%, soil total N concentrations between 0.1 and 0.6%, and the soil C:N ratio between 9.1 and 21.5. Soil clay content spanned from 3.0 to 35%, and soil pH from 3.4 to 7.6 (Supplementary Table S2).
At each site, the effects of nutrient addition and herbivore exclusion were tested via a randomized-block design (Borer et al., 2014). Three blocks with 10 treatment plots each were established at each site, except for the site at bldr.us (only two blocks). Each of these 10 plots was randomly assigned to a nutrient or fencing treatment. An individual plot was 5 x 5 m, divided into four 2.5 x 2.5 m subplots. Each subplot was further divided into four 1 x 1 m square sampling plots, one of which was set aside for soil sampling (Borer et al., 2014). Plots were separated by at least 1 m wide walkways. We collected soil samples from four different treatments for this study: (i) untreated control plots (Control), (ii) herbivore exclusion plots (Fence), (iii) plots fertilized with N, P, K, plus nine essential macro and micronutrients (NPK), and (iv) plots with simultaneous fertilizer addition and herbivore exclusion (NPK+Fence). The experiments were established at different times in the past, with years of treatment different among sites (2 – 9 years since start of treatment; Supplementary Table S1). For the nutrient additions, all sites applied 10 g N m-2 each year as time-release urea; 10 g P m-2 yr-1 as triple-super phosphate; 10 g K m-2 yr-1 as potassium sulfate. A micro-nutrient mix (Fe, S, Mg, Mn, Cu, Zn, B, Mo, Ca) was applied at 100 g m-2 together with K in the first year of treatments but not thereafter.
We excluded large vertebrate herbivores (Fence) by fencing two plots, one with and one without NPK additions, within each block. The fences excluded all aboveground mammalian herbivores with a body mass of over 50 g (Borer et al., 2014). At most sites, the fences were 180 cm high, and the fence contained a wire mesh (1 cm holes) for the bottom 90 cm with a 30 cm outward-facing flange stapled to the ground to exclude burrowing animals. Climbing and subterranean animals may potentially still access these plots (Borer et al., 2014). For slight modifications in fence design at a few sites see Supplementary Table S3. Most sites only had wild herbivores, although four sites were also grazed by domestic animals (Supplementary Table S1).

Collection of soil samples, soil microbial respiration, microbial biomass, and other soil properties
Each of the 23 sites received a package containing identical material from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Switzerland to be used for sampling (Risch et al., 2015; Risch et al., 2019). We collected two soil cores of 5 cm diameter and 12 cm depth in each sampling plot and composited them to measure MR, MBC, and soil chemical properties (see below). An additional sample (5 x 12 cm) was collected to assess soil physical properties. This sample remained within a steel sampling core after collection and both ends were tightly closed with plastic caps to avoid disturbance. All soils were shipped cooled to the laboratory at (Location will be disclosed after manuscript acceptance) within a few days after collection. Soils were sampled roughly 6 weeks prior to peak biomass at each site during 2015 and 2016.
To assess MR (CO2 production) in a laboratory incubation experiment we weighed duplicate soil samples (8 g dry soil equivalent) into 50-ml Falcon tubes. No additional substrate (glucose, sugar) was added to these samples. We adjusted the soil moisture of each sample to 60% field capacity. We then placed a 15 ml plastic test tube (Semadeni 1701A) containing 7.25 ml 0.05 M NaOH over each soil sample. The test tube was fixed with a plastic rod so that it was not in contact with the soil sample. The Falcon tubes were then sealed with a screw cap and placed in an incubator under completely dark conditions at 20°C. The CO2 produced by microbial respiration was absorbed by the 0.05 M NaOH. For five weeks we measured the decrease in conductivity within the 0.05 M NaOH solution on a weekly basis with a Multimeter WTW Multi 3410 (WTW GmbH, Germany) and replaced the 0.05 M NaOH with fresh solution. We included Falcon tubes without soil samples in each incubation run as blanks to test if tubes were tight and no CO2 could enter or escape. We calibrated the relationship between conductivity reduction and NaOH absorbed as follows: 400 ml 0.05 M NaOH was placed in a beaker and its conductivity was measured with the multimeter. While stirring, air containing CO2 was blown into the solution for approximately one minute, which reacts with NaOH to form Na2CO3. After this process, conductivity was measured again. We then transferred 7.25 ml of the solution into a smaller beaker and added 1 ml of 0.1 M BaCl2 to precipitate Na2CO3 and then titrated the solution with 0.05 M HCl to determine the remaining NaOH. We then repeated these steps with the remaining solution a total of nine times and plotted the conductivities (y-axis) against the NaOH consumed (x-axis, Supplementary Fig S1). This regression line was used to infer the consumption of NaOH from the conductivity reduction in the incubation experiments and to calculate CO2 evolution during incubation. In addition, we determined the optimum concentration for the NaOH solution in series of preliminary experiments, so that the concentration was not too high to become insensitive, but also not too low so that not all NaOH reacts during incubation. We then calculated MR (mg CO2-C kg dry soil-1 h-1) as total amount of CO2 released over the 5 weeks divided by the duration of the entire incubation in hrs.
Soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC; mg C kg soil-1 ) was measured at the beginning of the experiment by measuring the maximal respiratory response to the addition of glucose solution (4 mg glucose per g soil dry weight dissolved in distilled water; substrate-induced respiration method) on approximately 5.5 g of soil (J. P. E. Anderson & Domsch, 1978; Nico Eisenhauer et al., 2018; Scheu, 1992). For this purpose we used an O2-micro-compensation apparatus (Scheu, 1992). More specifically, substrate-induced respiration was calculated from the respiratory response to D-glucose for 10 hr at 20°C. Glucose was added according to preliminary studies to saturate the catabolic enzymes of microorganisms (4 mg g soil-1 dissolved in 400 ml deionized water). The mean of the lowest three readings within the first 10 hrs (between the initial peak caused by disturbing the soil and the peak caused by microbial growth) was taken as maximum initial respiratory response (MIRR; ml O2 kg soil-1 h-1) and microbial biomass (mg C kg soil-1) was calculated as 38 x MIRR (Beck et al., 1997; Cesarz et al., 2022; Thakur et al., 2015).
The rest of the composited sample was dried at 65°C for 48 h, ground and sieved (2 mm mesh) to assess the soil pH, mineral soil total C and N and C:N ratio, and mineral soil organic C (Risch et al., 2019). The undisturbed sample was used to assess water holding capacity (WHC), bulk density (BD), and soil texture [sand, silt, clay; methods in (Risch et al., 2019)]. We used the percentage of sand and clay as an indicator of soil texture in this study. MAT (°C), MAP (mm) and temperature of the wettest quarter (°C) were obtained from www.worldclim.com (Fick & Hijmans, 2017; Hijmans, Cameron, Parra, Jones, & Jarvis, 2005). These variables were selected as they were found to be drivers of soil nutrient processes across these sites in earlier studies (Risch et al., 2020; Risch et al., 2019). Mean annual soil temperatures (MAST; °C) for the 0 to 5 cm soil layer were obtained for each site from the SoilTemp maps (J. Lembrechts et al., 2021; J. J. Lembrechts et al., 2022), global gridded modelled products of soil bioclimatic variables for the 1979-2013 period at a 1-km² resolution, based on CHELSA, ERA5 and in-situ soil temperature measurements.
Numerical calculations and statistical analyses
We calculated MMQ as MR/MBC. We corrected this measure using the average soil temperature of each site (MMQsoil). This temperature correction is necessary as incubation temperatures are usually much higher than site mean annual soil temperatures (see Xu et al. 2017). MMQsoil = MMQ x Q10(MAST – 20)/10, where Q10 was assumed to be 2 (Xu et al. 2017). See Supplementary Fig S2 for comparison of air and soil temperatures across the 23 sites as well as the incubation temperature.
Some of the explanatory variables (clay, soil organic C, C:N ratio) were skewed and were thus log-transformed prior to analyses. All continuous explanatory variables were centred and scaled to have a mean of zero and variance of one. To avoid collinearity between them we filtered them using correlation analysis (Supplementary Fig S3). From the variables that were strongly correlated (Pearson’s |r| > 0.70) (Dormann et al., 2013), we selected the ones that allowed us to minimize the number of variables (Supplementary Fig S3). Specifically, soil total N concentration, soil total C concentration, soil sand content and soil bulk density were dropped from the dataset. We then assessed how these edaphoclimatic variables are related to MMQ across our global grasslands.
For this, we used linear mixed effects models (LMMs) fitted by maximum likelihood with the lme function in the nlme package (version 3.1-153) (Pinheiro, Bates, DebRoy, & Sarkar, 2021) in R version 3.6.3. (R Core Team, 2019). We used treatment as a fixed effect and plot nested in site as random effects to assess treatment differences in MMQsoil, as well as MR, and MBC. The number of years since the treatment started was included as a fixed effect in all the initial models but was not significant and therefore not retained in the models. To assess how differences in MMQsoil were affected by environmental factors (soil, climatic properties) we again used LMMs. Soil and climatic properties were included as fixed effects and plot nested in site as random effects. We did not include interactions between environmental variables. We then used the MuMin package (Barton, 2018) (version 1.42.1) to select the best models that explained the most variation based on Akaike’s information criterion (AIC; model.avg function). We used the corrected AIC (AICc) to account for our small sample size and selected the top models that fell within 4 AICc units (delta AICc < 4) (Burnham & Anderson, 2002; Johnson & Omland, 2004). We present all our top models rather than model averages. Conditional averages are provided in the Supplementary material.
Based on findings from analyses described above and the literature, we developed a conceptual model of direct and indirect relationships between both edaphoclimatic variables and experimental treatments (Supplement Figure S4) to obtain a more holistic approach in understanding how these properties affect MMQsoil. We had data from 23 sites with 272 observations. We tested this model using structural equation modelling based on a d-sep approach (Lefcheck, 2016; Shipley, 2009). We considered those environmental drivers that were included in our top LMMs, namely temperature of the wettest quarter (T.q.wet), soil pH, water holding capacity (WHC) and soil organic C (organic C; Supplementary Figure S4). These factors were allowed to directly affect MMQsoil, and via their interactions with treatments. In addition, treatments were allowed to directly affect MMQsoil. Treatments were included as dummy variables in the model. We tested our conceptual model (Supplementary Fig S4) using the piecewiseSEM package (version 2.0.2; Lefcheck, 2016) in R 3.4.0, in which a structured set of linear models are fitted individually. This approach allowed us to account for the nested experimental design, and overcome some of the limitations of standard structural equation models, such as small sample sizes (Lefcheck, 2016; Shipley, 2009). We used the lme function of the nlme package to model response variables, including site as a random factor. Good fit of the SEM was assumed when Fisher’s C values were non-significant (p > 0.05). For all significant interactions between soil or climate variables and treatments detected in the SEMs, we calculated treatment effect sizes, i.e., the differences in MMQsoil between Control and treatments as log response ratios (LRR) and plotted these values against the climate or soil factors. The LRR were defined as log(Control/Treatment), where treatment was either Fence, NPK or NPK+Fence. To assess which of the LRR-climate or soil property relationships were significant we again used LMMs, in which soil and climatic properties were included as fixed effects and plot nested in site as random effects.

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

Paper Citation:

Risch Anita C., Zimmermann, Stefan, Schütz, Martin, Borer, Elizabeth T., Broadbent, Arthur A.D., Caldeira, Maria C., Davies, Kendi F., Eisenhauer, Nico, Eskelinen, Anu, Fay, Philip A., Hagedorn, Frank, Knops, Johannes M.H., Lembrechts, Jonas, J., MacDougall, Andrew S., McCulley, Rebecca L., Melbourne, Brett A., Moore, Joslin L., Power, Sally A., Seabloom, Eric W., Silveira, Maria L., Virtanen, Risto, Yahdjian, Laura, Ochoa-Hueso, Raul (accepted). Drivers of the microbial metabolic quotient across global grasslands. Global Ecology and Biogeography

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

The microbial metabolic quotient (MMQ; mg CO2-C mg MBC-1 h-1), defined as the amount of microbial CO2 respired (MR; mg CO2-C kg soil-1 h-1) per unit of microbial biomass C (MBC; mg C kg soil-1), is a key parameter for understanding the microbial regulation of the carbon (C) cycle, including soil C sequestration. Here, we experimentally tested hypotheses about the individual and interactive effects of multiple nutrient addition (NPK+micronutrients) and herbivore exclusion on MR, MBC, and MMQ across 23 sites (5 continents). Our sites encompassed a wide range of edaphoclimatic conditions, thus we assessed which edaphoclimatic variables affected MMQ the most and how they interacted with our treatments. Soils were collected in plots with established experimental treatments. MR was assessed in a five-week laboratory incubation without glucose addition, MBC via substrate-induced respiration. MMQ was calculated as MR/MBC and corrected for soil temperatures (MMQsoil). Using LMMs and SEMs, we analysed how edaphoclimatic characteristics and treatments interactively affected MMQsoil. MMQsoil was higher in locations with higher mean annual temperature, lower water holding capacity, and soil organic C concentration, but did not respond to our treatments across sites as neither MR nor MBC changed. We attributed this relative homeostasis to our treatments to the modulating influence of edaphoclimatic variables. For example, herbivore exclusion, regardless of fertilization, led to greater MMQsoil only at sites with lower soil organic C (<1.7%). Our results pinpoint the main variables related to MMQsoil across grasslands and emphasize the importance of the local edaphoclimatic conditions in controlling the response of the C cycle to anthropogenic stressors. By testing hypotheses about MMQsoil across global edaphoclimatic gradients, this work also helps to align the conflicting results of prior studies.

anthropogenic-management

display_name: anthropogenic-management

climate

display_name: climate

herbivore-exclusion

display_name: herbivore-exclusion

microbial-biomass-carbon

display_name: microbial-biomass-carbon

microbial-respiration

display_name: microbial-respiration

nutrient-addition

display_name: nutrient-addition

soil-properties

display_name: soil-properties


maintainer: Leonie Schönbeck

en: drought gas-exchange photosynthesis pinus-sylvestris fluorescence acclimation vpd

state: active

type: dataset

en: Pfynwald gas exchange

media_type: CSV

en:
Full dataset of Pfynwald gas exchange data taken in the period from June 2013 to October 2020.
All metdata can be found in attached documents.
Data uploaded after quality control using guidelines by Ely et al (2021). A reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101232

format: CSV

en: Methods fluorescence

en:
Parameters and methodology for Fluorescence measurements

Metadata format from
Ely et al (2021). A reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101232

en: Methods survey

media_type: .csv

en: Parameters and methods for point measurements / survey measurements

format: SERVICE

en: Variable names and units

media_type: XLSX

en: Variable names, description and units for the Pfynwald Gas exchange data

format: XLS

en: Methods light response

en: Methods and parameters for light response curves

en: Methods diurnal measurements

en:
Parameters and methodology for diurnal measurements

Metadata format from
Ely et al (2021). A reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101232

en: Methods ACi curves

en:
Parameters and methods for CO2 response curves of Photosynthesis.

Metatdata format by
Ely et al (2021). A reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101232

en: Instrument details

en:
Instrument details for all LiCor instruments used during collection of dataset.

Metatdata created following guidelines from
Ely et al (2021). A reporting format for leaf-level gas exchange data and metadata. Ecological Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101232

en:
Gas exchange was measured on control, irrigated and irrigation-stop trees at the irrigation experiment Pfynwald, during the years 2013, 2014, 2016-2020. The measurement campaigns served different purposes, resulting in a large dataset containing survey data, CO2 response curves of photosynthesis, light response curves of photosynthesis, and fluorescence measurements. Measurements were done with LiCor 6400 and LiCor 6800 instruments. Until 2016, measurements were done on excised branches or branches lower in the canopy. From 2016 onwards, measurements were done in the top of the canopy using fixed installed scaffolds.
All metadata can be found in the attached documents.

acclimation

display_name: acclimation

drought

display_name: drought

fluorescence

display_name: fluorescence

gas-exchange

display_name: gas-exchange

photosynthesis

display_name: photosynthesis

pinus-sylvestris

display_name: pinus-sylvestris

vpd

display_name: vpd

education

fr: Education, science

de: Bildung, Wissenschaft

en: Education and science

it: Formazione e scienza

envidat

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

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

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

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

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

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester

en: 2013-2020 gas exchange at Pfynwald


restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

maintainer: EnviDat Support

title_for_slug: restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

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

en: Functional diversity above_belowground fauna

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

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

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

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

 Study area

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

 Experimental design and sampling

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

Vegetation properties

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

 Aboveground arthropods

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

 Belowground fauna

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

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

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

 Soil chemical and physical properties, soil nitrogen mineralization

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

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

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

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

 References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

mineralization

display_name: mineralization

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

en: Restoring grassland multifunctionality


biogas-aus-hofdunger-in-der-schweiz

title_for_slug: biogas-aus-hofdunger-in-der-schweiz

en: bioenergy biogas manure switzerland review

en: Biogas aus Hofdünger in der Schweiz

media_type: PDF

en: Ziel dieses Whitepapers ist es, Entscheidungsträgern, Verwaltungen und Stakeholdern die aktuellsten Forschungsergebnisse zur Verfügung zu stellen, um die optimale Nutzung von Bioenergie aus Hofdünger in der Schweizer Energiewende zu fördern. Zu diesem Zweck werden die Ergebnisse des Schweizer Kompetenzzentrums für Bioenergieforschung - SCCER BIOSWEET - zusammengefasst und in einem breiteren Kontext dargestellt. Wenn nichts anderes erwähnt wird, beziehen sich die Ergebnisse auf die Schweiz und im Falle der Ressourcen auf die heimischen Biomassepotenziale.

format: PDF

bioenergy

display_name: bioenergy

biogas

display_name: biogas

manure

display_name: manure

review

display_name: review

switzerland

display_name: switzerland


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

en: Data plot of the forest station (LEB)

media_type: application/pdf

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

mimetype: application/pdf

en: Forest station data (LEB)

media_type: text/csv

en: Data file.

mimetype: text/csv

en: Site photo of the forest station (LEB)

media_type: image/jpeg

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

mimetype: image/jpeg

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 one meteorological station in Lens in Switzerland which is located within a natural coniferous forest with Scots pine (_Pinus sylvestris_; 150-170 yrs)) as dominant tree species. The meteorological time series are presented in hourly time resolution of air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and wind speed. Lens 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: Lens, Switzerland: Long-term forest meteorological data from the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF), from 1997 onwards


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

en: eemma user's guide

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

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

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


en: ash-dieback cross-resistance intraspecific-variation emerald-ash-borer fraxinus invasive-species defense-chemistry

en: Raw data-Publication cross-resistance in ash-New Phytologist

en:
What are the research data files about: Raw data on perfomance (dry weight, development and mortality) of emerald ash borer larvae used in published bioassays. Raw data on ash dieback leasion lenghts. Raw data on untargeted and targeted specialized ash metabolites.
Which methods were used: Bioassays in greenhouses and climate chambers to collect data on emerald ash borer and ash dieback perfomance. Phytochemical analyses on ash phloem for quantifiying specialized metabolites
When and where was the data created / extracted: Summer 2020-2021

en:
 What are the research data files about: Raw data on perfomance (dry weight, development and mortality) of emerald ash borer larvae used in published bioassays. Raw data on ash dieback leasion lenghts. Raw data on untargeted and targeted specialized ash metabolites.

Which methods were used: Bioassays in greenhouses and climate chambers to collect data on emerald ash borer and ash dieback perfomance. Phytochemical analyses on ash phloem for quantifiying specialized metabolites.

When and where was the data created / extracted: Summer 2020-2021

ash-dieback

display_name: ash-dieback

cross-resistance

display_name: cross-resistance

defense-chemistry

display_name: defense-chemistry

emerald-ash-borer

display_name: emerald-ash-borer

fraxinus

display_name: fraxinus

intraspecific-variation

display_name: intraspecific-variation

invasive-species

display_name: invasive-species

en: Raw data-Publication cross-resistance in ash - New Phytologist


maintainer: Anita Risch

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

en: Datafile

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

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

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

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

Soil.moist	: Soil moisture (%)

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

pH: Soil pH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant.richness: Plant species richness

Plant.N: Plant tissue nitrogen content (%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#References

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

ecosystem-coupling

display_name: ecosystem-coupling

ecosystem-functions

display_name: ecosystem-functions

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

exclusion

display_name: exclusion

grassland

display_name: grassland

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


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

avalanche-accident-statistics

display_name: avalanche-accident-statistics

avalanche-fatalities

display_name: avalanche-fatalities

fatalities-in-or-around-buildings

display_name: fatalities-in-or-around-buildings

fatalities-in-settlements

display_name: fatalities-in-settlements

fatalities-in-the-backcountry

display_name: fatalities-in-the-backcountry

fatalities-on-transportation-corridors

display_name: fatalities-on-transportation-corridors

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


maintainer: Océane Hames

en: mosaic arctic-sea-ice openfoam snow-deposition snow-transport

en: MOSAiC Met City preliminary (Level 2) wind data

media_type: zip-compressed folder of csv

en:
Extract from the preliminary MOSAiC atmospheric data (Level 2) for the time period 6th to 13th of November, 2019.
This data was used to set up the fluid forcing parameters in the snowBedFoam simulations on MOSAiC sea ice. It is being published in this repository with the kind permission from Matthew Shupe and his team.
The final processed and quality controlled version of this dataset (Level 3) has not been published yet. A complete reference will be added in this description once it is released.

en: Paper Draft

en: This is the initial draft of the paper where the snowBedFoam 1.0. results are tested against Terrestrial Laser Scan (TLS) measurements of snow dynamics on Arctic sea ice (MOSAiC expedition). It highlights the numerical limitations of our model as well as the measurement uncertainties, which may occur in such extreme environments.

en: snowBedFoam 1.0.

media_type: .zip

en:
OpenFOAM-2.3.0. scripts containing the implemented Eulerian-Lagrangian snow transport model.

The code file provided here is not updated. The most recent version of the script can be found on the WSL/SLF GitLab repository: https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/atmospheric-models/snowbedfoam-v1-0.git

en:
snowBedFoam 1.0. is a snow transport solver implemented in the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software OpenFOAM. It is adapted from the standard multi-phase flow solver DPMFoam for application in snow-influenced environments.

To simulate aeolian snow transport, snowBedFoam 1.0. handles coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian phases, which involve a finite number of particles (snow) spread in a continuous phase (air). The snow erosion and deposition are modelled through physically-based equations such as the ones employed in the well-established LES-Lagrangian Stochastic Model (Comola and Lehning, 2017 ; Sharma et al., 2018). This modelling approach is computationally intensive and thus adapted to simulate snow movement and distribution on small scale terrain.

snowBedFoam 1.0. was tested against topographical data collected on Arctic sea ice during the MOSAiC expedition (Clemens-Sewall, 2021) . Together with atmospheric data from the MOSAiC Met City (Shupe et al., 2021) used for the fluid forcing, the model was able to accurately simulate the zones of erosion and deposition of snow along a complex ice ridge structure.

The core code of snowBedFoam 1.0. is also accessible on the WSL/SLF GitLab repository (more details in the Resources section).

arctic-sea-ice

display_name: arctic-sea-ice

mosaic

display_name: mosaic

openfoam

display_name: openfoam

snow-deposition

display_name: snow-deposition

snow-transport

display_name: snow-transport

en: snowBedFoam: an OpenFOAM Eulerian-Lagrangian solver for modelling snow transport


modeling-snow-failure-with-dem

title_for_slug: modeling-snow-failure-with-dem

en: discrete-element-modelling snow-micro-mechanics snow snow-avalanche snow-failure

en: Read-me

en: The read-me file contains a description of all the data provided in the zip file.

en: Python file

media_type: text/x-python

en: Python file to reproduce the figures in Bobillier et al. (2019)

mimetype: text/x-python

en: Dataset

media_type: application/zip

en: The zip file contains the data underlying the figures presented in Bobillier et al. (2019). The figures can be reproduced with the python file, which is also provided.

format: ZIP

mimetype: application/zip

en: This data set includes the modeling results described in the research article by Bobiller et al. (2020). All the figures in the article can be reproduced with the data provided.

discrete-element-modelling

display_name: discrete-element-modelling

snow

display_name: snow

snow-avalanche

display_name: snow-avalanche

snow-failure

display_name: snow-failure

snow-micro-mechanics

display_name: snow-micro-mechanics

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: Modeling snow failure with DEM


en: catchment-data snow-hydrology meteorological-data rain-on-snow snowpack

en: The file contains all data needed to run simulations with the snow cover model SNOWPACK.

en: Meteorological data used to run SNOWPACK for 58 catchments in the Swiss Alps. The data consists of a 2 km grid of "virtual meteorological stations" for each catchment. It was used to simulate snow cover processes during rain-on-snow events, therefore meteorological data of each catchment contains at least one rain-on-snow event. Further information can be found in the attached readme.txt and in Würzer & Jonas et al. (2017), currently under review in Hydrological Processes.

catchment-data

display_name: catchment-data

meteorological-data

display_name: meteorological-data

rain-on-snow

display_name: rain-on-snow

snow-hydrology

display_name: snow-hydrology

snowpack

display_name: snowpack

en: Meteorological data for investigation of rain-on-snow events in 58 catchments in Switzerland


global-cryosphere-watch-data-survey

maintainer: Mathias Bavay

title_for_slug: global-cryosphere-watch-data-survey

en: gcw data-usage data-exchange automatic-publication data-portal

en: Data interoperability survey

en: Third party data usage

en: Two surveys on the topic of data usage where conducted for the Global Cryosphere Watch data portal. The first one focused on the data provider point of view while the second one focused on the data user point of view. 37 data providers (ie institutions) worldwide provided their answers for the first survey (from fall 2017 until summer 2018) while 54 users (contacted through various mailing list such as the Cryolist) answered the questions on their third party data usage (fall 2019 until January 2020).

automatic-publication

display_name: automatic-publication

data-exchange

display_name: data-exchange

data-portal

display_name: data-portal

data-usage

display_name: data-usage

gcw

display_name: gcw

en: Global Cryosphere Watch data survey


en: discharge precipitation hydrological-simulations drought-2018 soil-moisture prevah low-flow

en: Soil moisture

en: Simulated plant-available soil moisture for the 307 medium-sized catchments. The first column provides the date in the format YYYYMMDD. One column corresponds to one catchment. Unit: mm.

en: Shapefile of 307 catchments in Switzerland

en: Shapefile of 307 catchments for which simulations of precipitation, discharge, soil moisture, and low flow are provided. The OBJECTID entry corresponds to the data columns in the textfiles of the simulated data provided.

en: Low-flow storage

en: Simulated low-flow storage for the 307 medium-sized catchments. The first column provides the date in the format YYYYMMDD. One column corresponds to one catchment. Unit: mm.

en: Discharge

en: Simulated discharge for the 307 medium-sized catchments. The first column provides the date in the format YYYYMMDD. One column corresponds to one catchment. Unit: mm/d.

en: Precipitation

en: Simulated precipitation for the 307 medium-sized catchments. The first column provides the date in the format YYYYMMDD. One column corresponds to one catchment. Unit: mm/d.

en: The dataset provides simulated 1) precipitation, 2) discharge, 3) soil moisture, and 4) low-flow simulations for 307 medium-sized catchments in Switzerland for the period 1981-2018. The data were simulated using the hydrological model PREVAH in its gridded-version. The simulated time series are provided at daily resolution. A detailed description of the modeling approach can be found in Brunner et al. 2019 submitted to NHESS.

discharge

display_name: discharge

hydrological-simulations

display_name: hydrological-simulations

low-flow

display_name: low-flow

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

prevah

display_name: prevah

soil-moisture

display_name: soil-moisture

en: Hydro-meteorological simulations for the period 1981-2018 for Switzerland