maintainer: Anita Risch

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

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

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


maintainer: EnviDat Support

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

state: active

type: dataset

media_type: application/pdf

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

format: PDF

mimetype: application/pdf

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

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

en: Case study website

media_type: text/html

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

format: HTML

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

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

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

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

format: XLS

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

bark-beetles

display_name: bark-beetles

compound-events

display_name: compound-events

drought

display_name: drought

extreme-events

display_name: extreme-events

forest-fire

display_name: forest-fire

natural-hazards

display_name: natural-hazards

protection-forest

display_name: protection-forest

protective-effect

display_name: protective-effect

educ

fr: Éducation, culture et sport

de: Bildung, Kultur und Sport

en: Education, culture and sport

it: Istruzione, cultura e sport

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

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: Experts survey protective forest and combined extremes in Val Mesolcina


maintainer: Francesco Comola

en: saltation cohesion sand sediment wind snow

en: Output of the model simulations

media_type: application/zip

en: Model results on granular splash and saltation process of sand and snow particles

format: ZIP

mimetype: application/zip

en:
The wind-driven saltation of sand and snow shapes dunes and ripples, generates dust emission, and erodes the surface of the Antarctic ice sheet. Here, we use a model based on the discrete element method to simulate grain-flow interactions and study the effect of particle cohesion on saltation dynamics.

The data contains the model output of granular splash simulations and saltation simulations. Granular splash, the main particle entrainment process in saltation, occurs upon impact of saltating particles with the granular bed. We performed Monte Carlo simulations of granular splash for loose sand grains and for cohesive ice grains. The analysis indicate that different values of cohesion have significant effects not on the number of splashed grains, on the ejection velocity, and the rebound velocity.

In our saltation simulations, we trigger particle movement with a single splash event at the inlet section section and let the system evolve until steady state. Our results show that saltation over cohesive surfaces is difficult to initiate but easy to sustain at low wind speed. The occurrence of transport thus depends on the history of the wind speed, a phenomenon known as hysteresis. We also show that saltation over cohesive surfaces presents higher mass fluxes but requires longer distances to saturate, which increases the size of the smallest stable surface ripples. Our model results have implications for large-scale aeolian processes on Earth and Titan, where sand grains are thought to be very cohesive.

cohesion

display_name: cohesion

saltation

display_name: saltation

sand

display_name: sand

sediment

display_name: sediment

snow

display_name: snow

wind

display_name: wind

en: Saltation of cohesive granular materials


maintainer: Giulia Francesca Azzurra Donati

en: circuit-theory network-analysis biodiversity ecological-corridors urban-planning ecosystem-services

en: Amphibian movement resistance layers and scripts for connectivity modelling - part 2

en: The zipped folder includes the script to create and analyse the networks from Circuitscape outputs. The subfolders “Boundaries”, “Layers”, and “Reference_net” contain files either called by the code or created in the process. The subfolder “Outputs_from_Circuitscape” contains the outputs from Circuitscape including node and branch cumulative currents in a network format.

format: SERVICE

en: Amphibian movement resistance layers and scripts for connectivity modeling - part 1

en: The zipped folder includes the script to aggregate the resistance layers into squared and hexagonal grids. The subfolders “Boundaries”, “Layers”, “Reference_grids”, and “Resistance_from_SDMs” contain files either called by the code or created in the process.The subfolder “Inputs_for_Circuitscape” contains the inputs to run Circuitscape, after doing some subsequent processing steps in QGIS (listed in the R script) with the files created with the script.

en: This data includes (1) Scripts to aggregate landscape resistance layers into squared and hexagonal grids (i.e., different representations and resolutions), (2) Input resistance layers and focal nodes in .txt format to run in Circuitscape (Python implementation v4.0.5). Circuitscape is a software tool for modeling and analyzing landscape connectivity, which simulates movement of organisms across landscapes by estimating resistance to movement across each point of the landscape. (3) Scripts for the ecological network analysis, and (4) environmental predictors for amphibian whole-life cycle habitats used to describe the local environment for BGI design (i.e. topographic, hydrologic, edaphic, vegetation, land-use derived, movement-ecology related).

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

circuit-theory

display_name: circuit-theory

ecological-corridors

display_name: ecological-corridors

ecosystem-services

display_name: ecosystem-services

network-analysis

display_name: network-analysis

urban-planning

display_name: urban-planning

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Multi-Scale Prioritization framework for Urban Blue-Green Infrastructure Planning to Support Biodiversity: Data & Codes


maintainer: Milojevic

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

en: R codes for Extreme Values Analysis

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

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

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

en:
 Summary

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

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

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

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

* GEV (Generalized Extreme Value)

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

* eGPD (extended Generalized Pareto Distribution)

* MEV (Metastatistical Extreme Value)

alpine-precipitation

display_name: alpine-precipitation

extreme-values

display_name: extreme-values

low-flow

display_name: low-flow

reservoir-inflow

display_name: reservoir-inflow

return-periods

display_name: return-periods

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


sensitivity-of-modeled-snow-instability

maintainer: Bettina Richter

title_for_slug: sensitivity-of-modeled-snow-instability

en: snow-instability snowpack snow-cover-modeling global-sensitivity-analysis numerical-avalanche-forecasting

en: Case WL

en: Extracted output data for case ALL. Here biases were introduced to meteorological input data during the period of weak layer formation. Data include quasi random biases, which were introduced, extracted output of simulated snow profiles and sobol indices for each output variable.

en: Manually observed snow profiles

en: Manually observed snow profiles at Weissfluhjoch field site for winter season 2016-2017, including layer depth, hand hardness, grain size and grain shape for each layer.

en: Case SL

en: Extracted output data for case SL. Here biases were introduced to meteorological input data during the period of slab formation. Data include quasi random biases, which were introduced, extracted output of simulated snow profiles and sobol indices for each output variable.

en: Reference run

en: Reference run for the sensitivity analysis at Weissfluhjoch field site for winter season 2016-2017. Meteorological data from the automatic weather stations are used. No biases were introduced to the input data.

en: Case ALL

en: Extracted output data for case ALL. Here biases were introduced to meteorological input data during the whole simulation period. Data include quasi random biases, which were introduced, extracted output of simulated snow profiles and sobol indices for each output variable.

en: We investigated the sensitivity of modeled snow instability to meteorological input data using SNOWPACK. We therefore used input data from the automatic weather station at the Weissfluhjoch field site for the year 2016-2017. We investigated three scenarios and performed 14'000 simulations for each scenario. The dataset contains extracted output data from modeled SNOWPACK simulations, including setup files to reproduce the simulations. For further information read the README file.

global-sensitivity-analysis

display_name: global-sensitivity-analysis

numerical-avalanche-forecasting

display_name: numerical-avalanche-forecasting

snow-cover-modeling

display_name: snow-cover-modeling

snow-instability

display_name: snow-instability

snowpack

display_name: snowpack

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

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

en: Sensitivity of modeled snow instability


en: reef-fish traits ecology biodiversity dispersal

en: Functions used in R scripts in: Donati et al. 2019 "A process-based-model supports an association between  # dispersal and the prevalence of species traits in tropical reef fish assemblages" accepted in Ecography, August 2019

en: Functions for Figures illustrated in Donati et al. 2019 "A process-based-model supports an association between dispersal and the prevalence of species traits in tropical reef fish assemblages" accepted in Ecography, August 2019.

en: Input for spatial congruence test overlap between proportions of low and high dispersal and observed low- and high- dispersal-related traits in assemblages (30-50% threshold). see Table 2.

en: Global species distribution of tropical reef fish species

media_type: text/csv

en: Each species corresponds to a "Gaspar_code" gathered from the General Approach to Species Abundance Relationships (GASPAR) database (Kulbicki et al. 2013, Parravicini et al. 2013) and is linked to a specific Fishned ID corresponding to a specific Latitude and Longitude.

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

media_type: text/plain

en: Dispersal parameter value d per simulation starting with a minimum dispersal value, where each species is able to colonise each adjacent cell, and ending with the value of d for which all the extant habitats, including the most remote Pacific islands, have been colonised (d ∈ [1.75°: 5.45°]).

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en: Simulated rates of speciation and extinction under a range of dispersal parameters. Net diversification rates are calculated from the difference between speciation and extinction rates. This data allows the creation of Figure A4 in Supporting information, Appendix 1.

en: Global coast files from https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/shorelines/gshhs.html used in the Figures

en: Global simulated distribution of species under a range of dispersal parameter values

en:
Global distribution of simulated species richness under a range of dispersal parameter values d
d ∈ [1.75°: 5.45°].

en: Tropical reef fish trait data

en:
Species trait (i.e. adult body size, home range mobility behaviour, circadian activity and schooling) data gathered from the General Approach to Species Abundance Relationships (GASPAR) database (Kulbicki et al. 2013, Parravicini et al. 2013).

Kulbicki, M. et al. 2013. Global biogeography of reef shes: a hier- archical quantitative delineation of regions. – PLoS One 8: e81847.

Parravicini, V. et al. 2013. Global patterns and predictors of tropi- cal reef sh species richness. – Ecography 36: 1254–1262.

To complement the trait data with Pelagic Larval Duration information refer to the following publication:

Luiz, Osmar J., et al. "Adult and larval traits as determinants of geographic range size among tropical reef fishes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.41 (2013): 16498-16502.

In Donati et al. "A process-based model supports an association between dispersal and the prevalence of species traits in tropical reef fish assemblages" accepted in Ecography in August 2019, we used the PLD gathered from Luiz et al. 2013 as described in the methods - section "Species trait data".

en: Coral reef grid cells (shape, dbf, etc. files)

en:
Grid cells of 5 × 5°, corresponding to circa 555 × 555 km at the Equator (see Parravicini et al. 2013, Leprieur et al. 2016)

Parravicini, V. et al. 2013. Global patterns and predictors of tropi- cal reef sh species richness. – Ecography 36: 1254–1262.

Leprieur, F. et al. 2016. Plate tectonics drive tropical reef biodiver- sity dynamics. – Nat. Commun. 7: 11461.

en: Main text figures

en: R Script used for figures in main text in: Donati et al. 2019: "A process-based-model supports an association between dispersal and the prevalence of species traits in tropical reef fish assemblages" accepted in Ecography, August 2019.

en: Donati et al. main script

en:
Main script used in : Donati et al. 2019 "A process-based-model supports an association between dispersal and the prevalence of species traits in tropical reef fish assemblages"
accepted in Ecography, August 2019

en: Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures illustrated in Donati et al. 2019 "A process-based-model supports an association between dispersal and the prevalence of species traits in tropical reef fish assemblages". accepted in Ecography, August 2019

en: Input for the Global distribution maps for proportions of species richness for (a) simulated dispersal parameter value (b) observed dispersal-related traits

en: Geographic distribution data (species richness and proportions of high/low dispersal-related traits) on predominantly low dispersing and high dispersing species expected based on the simulations, and those where low- and high- dispersal related traits values are observed for the five investigated traits.

en:
This dataset contains all data and R codes (R Development Core Team, https://www.R-project.org) used in the following publication: Donati GFA, Parravicini V, Leprieur F, Hagen O, Gaboriau T, Heine C, Kulbicki M, Rolland J, Salamin N, Albouy C, Pellissier L. "A process-based model supports an association between dispersal and the prevalence of species traits in tropical reef fish assemblages" accepted by Ecography in August 2019. When using this data and R scripts the above publication should be cited.

The interaction of habitat dynamics with species dispersal abilities could generate gradients
in species diversity and prevalence of life-history and ecological traits, when the latter are associated with dispersal potential. In this dataset, we use a spatial mechanistic model of speciation, extinction and dispersal, constrained by a dispersal parameter. This model allows to simulate the interplay between reef habitat dynamics over the past 140 million years and dispersal, shaping lineage diversification history and global assemblage composition of over 6000 tropical reef fish species. Global trait distribution data of tropical reef fish are used to evaluate the congruence between simulations and observations.

dispersal

display_name: dispersal

ecology

display_name: ecology

reef-fish

display_name: reef-fish

traits

display_name: traits

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Simulated and observed prevalence of dispersal-related traits in tropical reef fish assemblages worldwide


en: wingtra drone-data dsm photogrammetry uav

en: Data Access

en:
- DSM 10cm resolution
- Orthomosaic 3cm resolution
- Agisoft Metashape Processing Report
- original RGB images

All generated products are also available as a cloud optimized geotiff.

en: We conducted four drone flights in Davos Wolfgang Arelen, in 2020/21 and 2022 to obtain data for the generation of DSMs and orthomosaics at a high resolution. The data was processed with the Agisoft Metashape Professional Software.

drone-data

display_name: drone-data

dsm

display_name: dsm

photogrammetry

display_name: photogrammetry

uav

display_name: uav

wingtra

display_name: wingtra

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

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: Photogrammetric Drone Data Wolfgang Arelen


maintainer: Christoph Marty

en: Aare input

en: Grid input data for the 'Aare' CH2014 simulation.

mimetype: application/x-tar

en: CH2014 REPORT

en:
CH2014-Impacts: Toward Quantitative Scenarios of Climate Change Impacts in Switzerland

The CH2014-Impacts report presents the results of a concerted effort of 15 Swiss research institutions to describe impacts of climate change in Switzerland quantitatively. This dataset contributes to the Crosphere/Snowcover section.

en: Dataset

en: Datasets are grouped under experiment "Aare" and "Graubunden".Data is also made available in netCDF format. A range of tools are available to [read netCDF](http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/software.html).

en: Graubunden input

en: Grid input data for the 'Graubunden' CH2014 simulation.

en:
 Overview

The CH2014-Impacts initiative is a concerted national effort to describe impacts of climate change in Switzerland quantitatively, drawing on the scientific resources available in Switzerland today. The initiative links the recently developed Swiss Climate Change Scenarios CH2011 with an evolving base of quantitative impact models. The use of a common climate data set across disciplines and research groups sets a high standard of consistency and comparability of results. Impact studies explore the wide range of climatic changes in temperature and precipitation projected in CH2011 for the 21st century, which vary with the assumed global level of greenhouse gases, the time horizon, the underlying climate model, and the geographical region within Switzerland. The differences among climate projections are considered using three greenhouse gas scenarios, three future time periods in the 21st century, and three climate uncertainty levels (Figure 1). Impacts are shown with respect to the reference period 1980-2009 of CH2011, and add to any impacts that have already emerged as a result of earlier climate change.

 Experimental Setup

Future snow cover changes are simulated with the physics-based model Alpine3D (Lehning et al., 2006). It is applied to two regions: The canton of Graubünden and the Aare catchment. These domains are modeled with a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with a resolution of 200 m × 200 m. This defines the simulation grid that has to be filled with land cover data and downscaled meteorological input data for each cell for the time period of interest at hourly resolution. The reference data set consists of automatic weather station data. All meteorological input parameters are spatially interpolated to the simulation grid. The reference period comprises only thirteen years (1999–2012), because the number of available high elevation weather stations for earlier times is not sufficient to achieve unbiased distribution of the observations with elevation. The model uses projected temperature and precipitation changes for all greenhouse gas scenarios (A1B, A2, and RCP3PD) and CH2011 time periods (2035, 2060, and 2085).

 Data

Snow cover changes are projected to be relatively small in the near term (2035) (Figure 5.1 top), in particular at higher elevations above 2000 m asl. As shown by Bavay et al. (2013) the spread in projected snow cover for this period is greater between different climate model chains (Chapter 3) than between the reference period and the model chain exhibiting the most moderate change. In the 2085 period much larger changes with the potential to fundamentally transform the snow dominated alpine area become apparent (Figure 5.1 bottom). These changes include a shortening of the snow season by 5–9 weeks for the A1B scenario. This is roughly equivalent to an elevation shift of 400–800 m. The slight increase of winter precipitation and therefore snow fall projected in the CH2011 scenarios (with high associated uncertainty) can no longer compensate for the effect of increasing winter temperatures even at high elevations. In terms of Snow Water Equivalents (SWE), the projected reduction is up to two thirds toward the end of the century (2085). A continuous snow cover will be restricted to a shorter time period and/or to regions at increasingly high elevation. In Bern, for example, the number of days per year with at least 5 cm snow depth will decrease by 90% from now 20 days to only 2 days on average.

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-water-equivalent

display_name: snow-water-equivalent

en: Alpine3D simulations of future climate scenarios CH2014


maintainer: Yves Bühler

en: snow-depth-mapping photogrammetry wingtra dsm drone-data orthophoto uav

en:
- DSM (10 cm resolution)
- Ortho (3 cm resolution)
- HS (10 cm resolution)
- original RGB drone images
- Agisoft Metashape Processing Report

All products are also available as a cloud optimized geotiff.

en: To map and assess snow depth on different dates, 9 flights were conducted in the winter season of 2020/21 at the Latschüelfurgga in Davos. The data was captured with a Sony RX1R II mounted on a Wingtra drone and was processed with the Agisoft Metashape software. High-resolution DSMs, orthomosaics and snow height rasters, as well as the original RGB images from each flight are available.

orthophoto

display_name: orthophoto

snow-depth-mapping

display_name: snow-depth-mapping

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Photogrammetric Drone Data Latschuelfurgga


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

en: Distance to target results

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

en: Fungi data

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

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

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

en: Networks

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

en: Vegetation data

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

en: Nematode data

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

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

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

en: Soil properties

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

en: Ecosystem coupling_interactions

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

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

Paper Citation:

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

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

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

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

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil

display_name: soil

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

soil-biology

display_name: soil-biology

soil-chemistry

display_name: soil-chemistry

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

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

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


en: climate-change soil-moisture discharge hydrology snowmelt precipitation

en: Shapefile of 307 catchments in Switzerland

en: Shapefile of the 307 medium-sized catchments in Switzerland. The "gridcode" provides the ID of the catchment used in the datafiles.

en: Daily simulated data for the reference period

en: Daily simulated discharge, precipitation, snowmelt, and soil moisture for the reference period 1981-2017 in mm.

en: Daily simulated data for the future period

en: Daily simulated discharge, precipitation, snowmelt, and soil moisture for the period 1981-2100 in mm for the 307 catchments.

en:
Daily discharge and the related hydro-meteorological variables precipitation, snowmelt, and soil moisture are provided for current (1981-2017) and for future climate conditions (1981-2100) for 307 medium-sized catchments in Switzerland. The catchments have a median catchment area of 117 km². The 307 catchments together form a set representative of the climatological conditions and runoff characteristics in Switzerland. The four variables were simulated at a daily resolution using the hydrological model PREVAH. PREVAH is a conceptual process-based model that was run in this study in its fully distributed version on a 500 m grid (Viviroli et al. 2009a). For the calibration, runoff time series from 140 mesoscale catchments covering the different runoff regimes were used. The model calibration was conducted over the period 1993-1997. Verification was performed on the period 1983-2005 using (i) volumetric deviation (Viviroli et al. 2007) and (ii) benchmark efficiency (Schäfli et al 2007) as objective functions. The calibration and validation procedures are described in detail in Köplin et al. (2010). The parameters for each model grid cell were derived by regionalizing the parameters obtained for the 140 catchments with a procedure based on ordinary kriging (Viviroli et al. 2009b, Köplin et al. 2010).
The calibrated and validated model was then driven with transient meteorological data (precipitation, temperature, radiation, and wind) representing both reference (1981-2017) and future climate conditions (2018-2099). The data were derived from the CH2018 climate scenarios (NCCS 2018) provided by the Swiss National Centre for Climate Services (NCCS). They were obtained from climate experiments produced with different climate modeling chains, consisting of a global and a regional circulation model each, within EUROCORDEX for three representative concentration pathways (RCP) emission scenarios. Downscaled output of ten climate model chains derived by quantile mapping were considered. The focus was on the chains of the EUR-11 domain with a horizontal resolution of 0.11 degrees (roughly 12.5 km). The climate model chains (GCM, RCM, RCP, and grid resolution) used are listed below:

- ICHEC-EC-EARTH	DMI-HIRHAM5	2.6	EUR-11
- ICHEC-EC-EARTH	DMI-HIRHAM5	4.5	EUR-11
- ICHEC-EC-EARTH	DMI-HIRHAM5	8.5	EUR-11
- ICHEC-EC-EARTH	SMHI-RCA4	2.6	EUR-11
- ICHEC-EC-EARTH	SMHI-RCA4	4.5	EUR-11
- ICHEC-EC-EARTH	SMHI-RCA4	8.5	EUR-11
- MOHC-HadGEM2-ES	SMHI-RCA4	4.5	EUR-11
- MOHC-HadGEM2-ES	SMHI-RCA4	8.5	EUR-11
- MPI-M-MPI-ESM-LR	SMHI-RCA4	4.5	EUR-11
- MPI-M-MPI-ESM-LR	SMHI-RCA4	8.5	EUR-11

*References*:

-	Köplin, N., D. Viviroli, B. Schädler, and R. Weingartner (2010), _How does climate change affect mesoscale catchments in Switzerland? - A framework for a comprehensive assessment_, Advances in Geosciences, 27, 111-119, doi:10.5194/adgeo-27-111-2010.
-	National Centre for Climate Services (2018), CH2018 - _Climate Scenarios for Switzerland_, Tech. rep., NCCS, Zurich.
-	Schäfli, B., and H. V. Gupta (2007), _Do Nash values have value?_, Hydrological Processes, 21, 2075-2080, doi:10.1002/hyp.6825.
-	Viviroli, D., J. Gurtz, and M. Zappa (2007), _The hydrological modelling system PREVAH. Part II - Physical model description_, Geographica Bernensia, 40, 1-89.
-	Viviroli, D., M. Zappa, J. Gurtz, and R. Weingartner (2009a), _An introduction to the hydrological modelling system PREVAH and its pre- and post-processing-tools_, Environmental Modelling & Software, 24, 1209-1222, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.04.001.
-	Viviroli, D., H. Mittelbach, J. Gurtz, and R. Weingartner (2009b), _Continuous simulation for flood estimation in ungauged mesoscale catchments of Switzerland-Part II: Parameter regionalisation and flood estimation results_, Journal of Hydrology, 377 (1), 208-225, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.022.

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

discharge

display_name: discharge

hydrology

display_name: hydrology

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

snowmelt

display_name: snowmelt

soil-moisture

display_name: soil-moisture

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Simulated future discharge and climatological variables for medium-sized catchments in Switzerland


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

en: vignette data

en: A simple data set for the vignette script

en: eemma user's guide

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

en: eemma vignette script

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

mimetype: application/octet-stream

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

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


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

en: Sky-view fraction along the cablecar transect

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

en: Seasonal sub-canopy radiation data

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

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

en: Radiation Data 25.4.2018

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

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

en: Radiation Data 18.04.2019

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

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

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

forest

display_name: forest

fractional-snow

display_name: fractional-snow

longwave-radiation

display_name: longwave-radiation

shading

display_name: shading

shortwave-radiation

display_name: shortwave-radiation

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

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


en: European Snow Booklet unpublished metadata

en: The entire station metadata of all European institutions that contributed data is stored in METADATA_unpublished.xlsx. This file, however, cannot be accessed, since not all institutions gave permission to publish their station metadata. If you wish to access the metadata, please send a request to marty@slf.ch stating clearly why you want to access these metadata. NOTE: in this file ONLY station metadata (Lat/Lon/Altitude) is given, NO measured snow depth data.

en: COST European Snow Booklet (ESB)

en: Please find here the web version of the COST European Snow Booklet (ESB).

en: List of authors and list of the editorial board of the European Snow Booklet

en:
Here you can find the list of all lead authors of the different chapters of the European Snow Booklet (ESB).
In addition a list of the editorial board that reviewed the ESB is given.

en: COST European Snow Booklet (ESB) - DORA Link

en: DORA Link of the COST European Snow Booklet (ESB).

en: European Snow Booklet public metadata

en:
The core of the European Snow Booklet (ESB), the country reports of 38 European countries, are based on information and metadata on snow measurements collected through a comprehensive survey, the ESB Questionnaire, between August 2017 and March 2018. The station metadata (for example location, elevation, measurement start date) from each country was provided by one or several institutions responsible for snow observations. By answering the questionnaire the contacts agreed that the information and metadata provided could be presented in the ESB. For cases where institutions indicated that information on station locations could be made publicly available, the metadata for the variables snow depth (HS), depth of snowfall (HN) and water equivalent of the snow cover (SWE), is additionally provided here for download (METADATA.xlsx).
Please note that not all institutions gave permission to publish their station metadata. This metadata has to be requested from the non-personal institution contacts provided in the METADATA.xlsx file. In some cases, however, no institutional contact is available and thus the contact of the country representative who filled in the questionnaire is used.
For current, updated station metadata we refer to the (non-personal) institutional contacts provided in METADATA.xlsx and/or the institution webpages. Note, however, that we cannot guarantee for completeness of the dataset for all countries because operational networks are prone to changes.

en:
The European Snow Booklet (ESB) is a book of reference for snow measurements that has been produced through collaboration with many European snow practitioners and snow scientists in the framework of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action ES1404 “A European network for a harmonised monitoring of snow for the benefit of climate change scenarios, hydrology and numerical weather prediction (HarmoSnow)”. The ESB provides a unique collection of information about operational snow observations in the European countries and the methods used to perform basic measurements of snow on the ground: snow depth (HS), depth of snowfall (HN), water equivalent of the snow cover (SWE) and presence of snow on the ground (PSG). Information and station metadata (for example location, elevation) for these basic snow variables were collected through a comprehensive survey, the ESB questionnaire between August 2017 and March 2018. Numerous institutions of 38 European countries provided detailed information describing the status of the operational snow observations and the methods used at the time of the survey. Based on the information provided, a country report was written for each European country. Similarities and differences among the countries, that is, the choice of snow variables to be measured, the measurement principles applied, the number of stations, or the spatial and elevational station distribution are pointed out. Thus the collection of country reports demonstrates the relevance of snow measurements for each country. Thus, the intention of the ESB is to foster better knowledge transfer regarding snow measurements between the snow science and operational communities and to improve the communication of information to the general public.

For detailed information on the European countries, we refer to the ESB, which can be downloaded here (envidat.ch). Please note that the ESB is not a living document and information and station metadata are from August 2017 till March 2018, except for Latvia (metadata updated in December 2018).

depth-of-snowfall

display_name: depth-of-snowfall

harmonisation-of-snow-measurements

display_name: harmonisation-of-snow-measurements

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-measurement-methods

display_name: snow-measurement-methods

water-equivalent-of-the-snow-cover

display_name: water-equivalent-of-the-snow-cover

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: European Snow Booklet – an Inventory of Snow Measurements in Europe