en: seilaplan accessible-forest forest openstreetmap geoprocessing qgis

en: Power lines vector data (close to the area of the sample forest range)

en: Digitised sample perimeter

en: Juypter Notebook for Data Preparation

en: Juypter Notebook for Data Preparation (online)

en: Railways vector data (close to the sample forest range)

en: Preview

mimetype: image/png

en: Forest vector data (for sample forest range)

en: DEM (for the area of the sample forest range)

mimetype: image/tiff

en:
This dataset contains open vector data for railways, forests and power lines, as well an open digital elevation model (DEM) for a small area around a sample forest range in Europe (Germany, Upper Bavaria, Kochel Forest Range, some 70 km south of München, at the edge of Bavarian Alps).
The purpose of this dataset is to provide a documented sample dataset in order to demonstrate geospatial preprocessing at FOSS4G2019 based on open data and software. This sample has been produced based on several existing open data sources (detailed below), therefore documenting the sources for obtaining some data needed for computations related to forest accessibility and wood harvesting. For example, they can be used with the open methodology and QGIS plugin [Seilaplan]( https://doi.org/10.16904/envidat.software.1) for optimising the geometric layout cable roads or with additional open software for computing the forest accessibility for wood harvesting.
The vector data (railways, forests and power lines) was extracted from OpenStreetMap (data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors and available from https://www.openstreetmap.org). The railways and forests were downloaded and extracted on 18.05.2019 using the open sources QGIS (https://www.qgis.org) with the QuickOSM plugin, while the power lines were downloaded a couple of days later on 23.05.2019.

Additional notes for vector data:
Please note that OpenStreeMap data extracts such as forests, roads and railways (except power lines) can also be downloaded in a GIS friendly format (Shapefile) from http://download.geofabrik.de/ or using the QGIS built-in download function for OpenStreetMap data. The most efficient way to retrieve specific OSM tags (such as power=line) is to use the QuickOSM plugin for QGIS (using the Overpass API - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API) or directly using overpass turbo (https://overpass-turbo.eu/). Finally, the digitised perimeter of the sample forest range is also made available for reproducibility purposes, although any perimeter or area can be digitised freely using the QGIS editing toolbar.

The DEM was originally adapted and modified also with QGIS (https://www.qgis.org) based on the elevation data available from two different sources, by reprojecting and downsampling datasets to 25m then selecting, for each individual raster cell, the elevation value that was closer to the average. These two different elevation sources are:

- Copernicus Land Monitoring Service - EU-DEM v.1.1 (TILE ID E40N20, downloaded from https://land.copernicus.eu/imagery-in-situ/eu-dem/eu-dem-v1.1; this original DEM was produced by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service “with funding by the European Union” based on SRTM and ASTER GDEM)
- Digitales Geländemodell 50 m Gitterweite (https://opendata.bayern.de/detailansicht/datensatz/digitales-gelaendemodell-50-m-gitterweite/), produced by the Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung – www.geodaten.bayern.de –and downloaded from http://www.geodaten.bayern.de/opendata/DGM50/dgm50_epsg4258.tif

This methodology was chosen as a way of performing a basic quality check, by comparing the EU-DEM v.1.1 derived from globally available DEM data (such as SRTM) with more authoritative data for the randomly selected region, since using authoritative data is preferred (if open and available). For other sample regions, where authoritative open data is not available, such comparisons cannot longer be performed.

Additional notes DEM: a very good DEM open data source for Germany is the open data set collected and resampled by Sonny (sonnyy7@gmail.com) and made available on the Austrian Open Data Portal http://data.opendataportal.at/dataset/dtm-germany. In order to simplify end-to-end reproducibility of the paper planned for FOSS4G2019, we use and distribute an adapted (reprojected and resampled to 25 meters) sample of the above mentioned dataset for the selected forest range.

This sample dataset is accompanied by software in Python, as a Jupiter Notebook that generates harmonized output rasters with the same extent from the input data. The extent is given by the polygon vector dataset (Perimeter). These output rasters, such as obstacles, aspect, slope, forest cover, can serve as input data for later computations related to forest accessibility and wood harvesting questions. The obstacles output is obtained by transforming line vector datasets (railway lines, high voltage power lines) to raster. Aspect and slope are both derived from the sample digital elevation model.

accessible-forest

display_name: accessible-forest

forest

display_name: forest

geoprocessing

display_name: geoprocessing

openstreetmap

display_name: openstreetmap

qgis

display_name: qgis

seilaplan

display_name: seilaplan

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Sample Geodata and Software for Demonstrating Geospatial Preprocessing for Forest Accessibility and Wood Harvesting at FOSS4G2019


maintainer: Mountain Hydrology and Mass Movements

en: flood-fatalities debris-flow-fatalities rockfall-fatalities earthquake-fatalities ice-avalanche-fatalities windstorm-fatalities lightning-fatalities landslide-fatalities natural-hazard-fatalities

state: active

type: dataset

media_type: text/csv

en: Natural hazard fatalities per year in Swizterland since 1946.

format: CSV

mimetype: text/csv

en:
This dataset contains the number of fatalities due to flood, debris flow, landslide, rockfall, windstorm, lightning, ice avalanche, earthquake and other processes like roof avalanche or lacustrine tsunami for each year since 1946.
The following information is contained (by column and column title):

* year
* total number of hazard fatalities
* number of fatalities by flood (German: Hochwasser, Überschwemmung). Flood includes people drowned in flooded or inundated areas or carried away in streams under high-water conditions.
* number of fatalities by debris flow (German: Murgang).
* number of fatalities by landslide (German: Erdrutsch). Landslide includes people killed by landslides and hillslope debris flows (German: Hangmure).
* number of fatalities by rockfall (German: Steinschlag, Fels- und Bergsturz).
* number of fatalities by windstorm (German: Sturm). Windstorm includes people killed by falling objects or trees during very strong wind conditions and people who drowned in lakes because their boat capsized during such conditions.
* number of fatalities by lightning (German: Blitz).
* number of fatalities by ice avalanche (German: Eislawine).
* number of fatalities by earthquake (German: Erdbeben).
* number of fatalities by other processes like roof avalanche, lacustrine tsunami (German: andere Prozesse wie Dachlawine, Tsunami im See).

The data was collected based on newspaper research. For more information please refer to

_Badoux, A., Andres, N., Techel, F., and Hegg, C.: Natural hazard fatalities in Switzerland from 1946 to 2015, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2747-2768, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2747-2016, 2016._

The data collection is financed by the FOEN (with exception of the collection of the avalanche fatalities). The data contains the official statistics of the FOEN on fatalities due to flood, debris flow, landslide, rock fall and avalanche.

Restrictions: The data set is not complete. Only fatalities in or around settlements and on open transportation routes are included. More precisely, fatalities were not collected, when persons exposed themselves to a great danger on purpose. Or fatalities during leisure activities which are connected to a higher risk were not included (this includes e.g. canoeing or river surfing during flood, canyoning, mountaineering, climbing, walking or driving on a closed road).

Fatalities by avalanches are collected at the WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF. You can download the avalanche fatalities per hydrological year [here](https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/avalanche-fatalities-switzerland-1936) and per calendar year [here](https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/avalanche-fatalities-per-calendar-year-since-1936). For a direct comparison with the fatalities presented here, please download the data set with the calendar years and do not consider fatalities in the backcountry (tour) or in terrain close to ski areas (offpiste).

debris-flow-fatalities

display_name: debris-flow-fatalities

earthquake-fatalities

display_name: earthquake-fatalities

flood-fatalities

display_name: flood-fatalities

ice-avalanche-fatalities

display_name: ice-avalanche-fatalities

landslide-fatalities

display_name: landslide-fatalities

lightning-fatalities

display_name: lightning-fatalities

natural-hazard-fatalities

display_name: natural-hazard-fatalities

rockfall-fatalities

display_name: rockfall-fatalities

windstorm-fatalities

display_name: windstorm-fatalities

fr: Éducation, culture et sport

de: Bildung, Kultur und Sport

it: Istruzione, cultura e sport

envidat

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

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

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

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

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

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester

en: Number of natural hazard fatalities per year in Switzerland since 1946


maintainer: Axel Volkwein

en: field-test mass-movements field-data experiment rockfall experiments trajectory natural-hazards field-tests

en: Jumps and impacts

en: This table contains data of more than 2200 of each jumps and impacts of the test blocks on a grassy slope. It gives there durations in combination with acting accerlartions and the rotational speed of the blocks. The data were retrieved using the block internal accelerometer and rotation sensors. The combination of these data with the measurement from the local positioning system allows the deduction of jump lengths, slope gradient etc.

format: SERVICE

media_type: application/zip

en: These data contain the point clouds obtained from laser scanning the test slope and the six test blocks used for the experiments. The coordinates of the slope are given in CH-1903 format. The coordinates of the block point clouds are kept in a lokal x/y/z coordinate system.

format: ZIP

mimetype: application/zip

en: Block trajectories recorded from local positioning system

en: This file contains more than 80 rockfall trajectories projected onto the terrain, i.e. the positions of the single blocks over time during the single tests that were recorded by the local positioning system with about 10Hz. It contains the detected positions as well as a smoothened path (see Volkwein et al., Geosciences, 2018). The table also contains the derived velocities and accelerations along the slope (attention: these accelerations are the once that occur during an impact).

en: Overview of all tests

en:
This table gives an overview on all tests performed including
- block used
- start & end position
- number of jumps
- etc.
-

en:
In summer 2014, 6 rock blocks between 20 and 80kg have been thrown in total 111 times down a slope at the Swiss Oberalppass close to the village Tschamut. The slope was mainly covered by grass and its lower part was flat and large enough to provide natural runouts of the single trajectories.

An extensive measurement program has been set up to measure the block trajectories: With surveyor's instruments the slope and the six used rock blocks were scanned and the start and end positions of each test were recorded. During the single events two cameras filmed the trajectories. A special sensor device located within the blocks recorded the acting accelerations and rotational speeds over time. Further, the device emitted a Wifi signal that got detected from eight receivers around the slope. Based on this signal the block position has been recorded over time.

The dataset contains all data that were gathered through above field campaign.

experiment

display_name: experiment

experiments

display_name: experiments

field-data

display_name: field-data

field-test

display_name: field-test

field-tests

display_name: field-tests

mass-movements

display_name: mass-movements

natural-hazards

display_name: natural-hazards

rockfall

display_name: rockfall

trajectory

display_name: trajectory

en: Repetitive trajectory testing in Tschamut 2014


en: forest microbial-biomass plfa drought c13-labeling biogeochemical-cycling

en: Gao_Frank_C13 pulse labeling.xlsx

en:
Data of manuscript by Gao t al. : Drought resistance and resilience of rhizosphere communities in forest soils from the cellular to ecosystem scale – insights from 13C pulse labeling
Inludes data on 13C pulse-labeling experiment in young beech model ecosystems and a mature pine forest. Data of soil climate, total PLFA, 13C label strength in PLFA of pulse-labeling carried out under drought and after rewetting

format: XLS

en: Data of 13C-pulselabeling experiments in a young beech model ecosystem and a mature pine forest exposed to drought and rewetting. Data include microclimate during the experiment, total PLFA contents, d13C signatures in PLFA , microbial biomass, soil-respired CO2 measure during 30 days following 3-4 hour long pulse labeling with highly 13C-enriched CO2.

biogeochemical-cycling

display_name: biogeochemical-cycling

drought

display_name: drought

forest

display_name: forest

microbial-biomass

display_name: microbial-biomass

plfa

display_name: plfa

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Gao_Drought resistance and resilience of rhizosphere communities_13C-PLFA


en: soil-quality fungi conservation soil-organisms database soil-dependency fauna soil-biodiversity eco-fauna ecosystem-protection red-list lichens info-fauna

en: Overview over the soil dependency and endangerment status of different groups of organisms.

en: Raw dataset of species and their soil dependency as well as endangerment status.

en: Proportion of endangered species grouped by the four soil dependency classes.

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

Paper Citation:
Frey B., Maurer C., Schneider K. (2023) Informationen zum Boden anhand der Gebundenheit der Rote-Liste Arten BAFU. Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU. 26 p.

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

Soil is the habitat and basis of life for countless creatures. The great importance of soil organisms for the fertility of our soils is widely recognized, but information is sparse on their distribution and possible endangerment in Switzerland. In the present project, target species, i.e. species that are closely linked to the soil, were identified, and for the the first time, information was gathered on the degree of endangerment of the soil ecosystem in Switzerland on the basis of Red List species. For eleven Red List groups, the species' soil dependency was determined, i.e. whether their life cycle includes stages in or on the soil. The assessment of soil dependency was made using four classes, which enabled the classification not only of insects but also of vertebrates, land snails, lichens and fungi.

conservation

display_name: conservation

database

display_name: database

eco-fauna

display_name: eco-fauna

ecosystem-protection

display_name: ecosystem-protection

fauna

display_name: fauna

fungi

display_name: fungi

info-fauna

display_name: info-fauna

lichens

display_name: lichens

red-list

display_name: red-list

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

soil-dependency

display_name: soil-dependency

soil-organisms

display_name: soil-organisms

soil-quality

display_name: soil-quality

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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

en: Information on soil based on the soil dependency of the FOEN red list species


restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

maintainer: EnviDat Support

title_for_slug: restoring-grassland-multifunctionality

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

en: Functional diversity above_belowground fauna

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

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

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

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

 Study area

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

 Experimental design and sampling

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

Vegetation properties

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

 Aboveground arthropods

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

 Belowground fauna

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

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

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

 Soil chemical and physical properties, soil nitrogen mineralization

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

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

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

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

 References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

grassland

display_name: grassland

mineralization

display_name: mineralization

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

en: Restoring grassland multifunctionality


en: fem crystallographic x-ray-tomography elasticity microstructure geometrical anisotropy

en:
The study aims to determine the effective elastic properties of snow, firn, and bubbly ice based on microstructural quantities. Anisotropy, one of these quantities (the other being ice volume fraction) in snow and ice, has two types: geometrical and crystallographic, resulting in snow's macroscopic anisotropic elastic behavior. The research focuses on the impact of geometrical anisotropy on potential ice volume fractions in snow and ice. 391 micro-CT images from various locations, including laboratories, the Alps, the Arctic, and Antarctica, were analyzed to achieve this.
 The analysis involved microstructure-based finite element simulations, which inherently consider microstructure and calculate the elasticity tensor. Hashin-Shtrikman bounds were utilized to predict the elastic properties of the microstructure samples. These bounds effectively captured the nonlinear interplay between geometrical anisotropy, captured by the Eshelby tensor and density. HS bounds have the advantage of the correct limiting behavior for low to high-ice volume fractions.
 We derived parameterization for five transversely isotropic elasticity tensor components, requiring only two free parameters. This parameterization was valid for ice volume fractions ranging from 0.06 to 0.93. The analysis employing the Thomsen parameter highlighted the dominance of geometrical anisotropy until an ice volume fraction of 0.7. However, to fully comprehend the elasticity of bubbly ice, a comprehensive approach is necessary to integrate coupled elastic theories that account for both geometrical and crystallographic anisotropy.
This dataset includes a Jupyter notebook with all the necessary functions required to predict the elasticity tensor of snow for the given ice volume fraction and anisotropy. Also, the code contains the least squares optimization function to compute the elasticity tensor for the six components of stress and strain. For example, we consider our dataset to calculate the samples' elasticity tensor and reproduce Fig. 7 from the paper. We take the stress and strain values obtained from load states as input for this example.
Also, a .csv file contains all the microstructural information: ice volume fraction, anisotropy, correlation functions, voxels size, and no. of voxels of the samples and the elasticity tensor obtained from finite element simulations and from present work parameterization.

anisotropy

display_name: anisotropy

crystallographic

display_name: crystallographic

elasticity

display_name: elasticity

fem

display_name: fem

geometrical

display_name: geometrical

microstructure

display_name: microstructure

x-ray-tomography

display_name: x-ray-tomography

en: Effective, anisotropic elasticity tensor of snow, firn, and bubbly ice


maintainer: Anita Risch

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

en: Datafile

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

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

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

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

Soil.moist	: Soil moisture (%)

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

pH: Soil pH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant.richness: Plant species richness

Plant.N: Plant tissue nitrogen content (%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#References

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

ecosystem-coupling

display_name: ecosystem-coupling

ecosystem-functions

display_name: ecosystem-functions

exclusion

display_name: exclusion

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


en: drainage-network dynamics catchment-data water-level erlenbach drainage precipitation dataset data channel catchment

media_type: application/pdf

format: PDF

en: The dataset contains time series of water levels and precipitation measured in the Erlenbach catchment and its vicinity in summer and autumn 2021. Moreover, the dataset contains a time series of flowing drainage network lengths calculated using the CEASE method developed by authors. Detailed description of the dataset is provided in the documentation.

catchment

display_name: catchment

catchment-data

display_name: catchment-data

channel

display_name: channel

data

display_name: data

dataset

display_name: dataset

drainage

display_name: drainage

drainage-network

display_name: drainage-network

dynamics

display_name: dynamics

erlenbach

display_name: erlenbach

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

water-level

display_name: water-level

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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

en: Short-term Drainage Density Dynamics Dataset


maintainer: Yves Bühler

en: snow avalanche hazard-indication-mapping hazard-mapping release ramms

en: Potential Release  Area  NHESS

en: This folder contains the output of the different investigated algorithms plus the reference dataset, used for training and validation.

en: RAMMS simulations NHESS

en: Simulated maximum pressures for the scenarios frequent and extreme taking the forest layer into account

en:
This dataset contains the output and reference data published in the paper "Automated snow avalanche release area delineation - validation of existing algorithms and proposition of a new object-based approach for large scale hazard indication mapping" Yves Bühler, Daniel von Rickenbach, Andreas Stoffel, Stefan Margreth, Lukas Stoffel, Marc Christen (2018) Natural Hazards And Earth System Sciences.

Abstract:
Snow avalanche hazard is threatening people and infrastructure in all alpine regions with seasonal or permanent snow cover around the globe. Coping with this hazard is a big challenge and during the past centuries, different strategies were developed. Today, in Switzerland, experienced avalanche engineers produce hazard maps with a very high reliability based on avalanche cadastre information, terrain analysis, climatological datasets and numerical modelling of the flow dynamics for selected avalanche tracks that might affect settlements. However, for regions outside the considered settlement areas such area-wide hazard maps are not available mainly because of the too high cost, in Switzerland and in most mountain regions around the world. Therefore, hazard indication maps, even though they are less reliable and less detailed, are often the only spatial planning tool available. To produce meaningful and cost-effective avalanche hazard indication maps over large regions (regional to national scale), automated release area delineation has to be combined with volume estimations and state-of-the-art numerical avalanche simulations.

In this paper we validate existing potential release area (PRA) delineation algorithms, published in peer-reviewed journals, that are based on digital terrain models and their derivatives such as slope angle, aspect, roughness and curvature. For validation, we apply avalanche cadastre data from three different ski resorts in the vicinity of Davos, Switzerland, where experienced ski-patrol staff mapped most avalanches in detail since many years. After calculating the best fit input parameters for every tested algorithm, we compare their performance based on the reference datasets. Because all tested algorithms do not provide meaningful delineation between individual potential release areas (PRA), we propose a new algorithm based on object-based image analysis (OBIA). In combination with an automatic procedure to estimate the average release depth (d0), defining the avalanche release volume, this algorithm enables the numerical simulation of thousands of avalanches over large regions applying the well-established avalanche dynamics model RAMMS. We demonstrate this for the region of Davos for two hazard scenarios, frequent (10 – 30 years return period) and extreme (100 – 300 years return period). This approach opens the door for large scale avalanche hazard indication mapping in all regions where high quality and resolution digital terrain models and snow data are available.

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

hazard-indication-mapping

display_name: hazard-indication-mapping

hazard-mapping

display_name: hazard-mapping

ramms

display_name: ramms

release

display_name: release

snow

display_name: snow

en: Automated Avalanche Release Area (PRA) Delineation Davos


maintainer: Marco Moretti

en: elevation-gradient wild-bee hymenoptera climate urbanization functional-diversity beta-diversity community-indices predictive-modelling resource-availability switzerland biodiversity anthophila protected-areas

en: Protected areas

en: Protected areas considered, divided in three groups and rasters: protected areas sensu stricto, protected areas sensu lato and all protected areas

en: Taxonomic and functional metrics in the community plots

en:
Response data used for the modeling.
Lat: latitude community plot
Lon: longitude community plot
Richness: species richness
Shannon: Shannon diversity index
FDis: functional dispersion
TOP: Trait Onion Peeling (functional richness)
TED: Trait Even Distribution (functional evenness)
LCBD_taxo: local community contributions to taxonomic beta diversity
LCBD_fun: local community contributions to functional beta diversity
ITD: community weighted means inter-tegula distance
feeding_specialization: community weighted means feeding specialization
tong_length: community weighted means tongue length
phenostart: community weighted means start of the phenology
phenoduration: community weighted means duration of the phenoloy
cleptoparasite: community weighted means cleptoparasites
belowgound: community weighted means proportion belowground
solitary: community weighted means proportion solitary

en: Wild bee trait data

en: Text file containing the scores of the 8 used traits. The data originates from the European trait database (compiler: Stuart Roberts; pollinator loss module of the EU- FP6 ALARM project).

en: Deprecated-Predictors

en:
The compress file includes the rster files of the predictors used in the analyses, including the climate, resource availability, land-use and beekeeping intensity metrics.

The raster on the climate contains the PCA axes on the CHELSA variables.
The raster on resource availability contains the PCA axes on plant communities
The raster on land-use contains the land-use composition at 2500 m.
The raster on beekeeping intensity contains thedensity of hives within 2500 m

en: Variable importance, model evaluation, partial dependence plots

en: The compress file containes a set of txt files with the variable importance, the model evaluation metrics and the partial dependence plots of each of the responses used (alpha and beta taxonomic and functional diversity metrics; community weighted means of 8 functional traits)

en: Spatial environmental predictors and responses

en:
The .zip file contains the rasters of the environmental predictors and the predicted responses:
-  **Environmental predictors.**:
  -  The raster on the climate contains the PCA axes on the CHELSA variables.
  -  The raster on resource availability contains the PCA axes on plant communities
  -  The raster on land-use contains the land-use composition at 2500 m.
  -  The raster on beekeeping intensity contains thedensity of hives within 2500 m
-  **Responses**:
- The predicted responses (alpha and beta taxonomic and functional metrics and the traits) without masking the waterbodies, used in the analyses (Diversity_stack_revised_Selected_descriptors.tif). It contains a stack of 20 responses in this order: "belowgound", "cleptoparasite","FDis", "feeding_specialization", "FEve", "FRic", "InvSimpson", "ITD","LCBD_fun" ,"LCBD_taxo","phenoduration", "phenostart", "Rao", "Richness", "Shannon", "Simpson","solitary", "TED", "tong_length", "TOP". "FEve", "FRic", "InvSimpson","Rao", "Simpson" were not included in the linked paper.
- The predicted responses (alpha and beta taxonomic and functional metrics and the traits) masking the waterbodies (masked.stack.all.diversity.tiff). It includes a stack of 15 responses (excludes "FEve", "FRic", "InvSimpson","Rao", "Simpson").

en: Elevation and waterbodies

en: Zip file containing two rasters: the digital elevation model of Switzerland and the waterbodies of Switzerland.

en:
Raw data supporting the paper "Countrywide wild bee taxonomic and functional diversity reveal a spatial mismatch between alpha and beta-diversity facets across multiple ecological gradients". It contains taxonomic and functional metrics in 3343 community-plots distributed across Switzerland. The calculated metrics are:
- Alpha taxonomic community metrics: species richness and Shannon diversity
- Alpha functional community metrics: Functional richness (using the Trait Onion Peeling index, TOP), functional eveness (using the Trait Even Distribution index, TED) and the functional dispersion.
- Community weighted means of 8 functional traits
- The local community contributions on the functional and taxonomic beta diversity (LCBD).

The dataset also includes the following:
- The used predictors to model the spatial distribution of the community metrics (climate PCA, vegetation PCA, land-use metrics, beekeeping intensity).
-The three types of protected areas, defined according to the protective measures.
- The model evaluation, variable importance and partial dependece data.

anthophila

display_name: anthophila

beta-diversity

display_name: beta-diversity

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

climate

display_name: climate

community-indices

display_name: community-indices

elevation-gradient

display_name: elevation-gradient

functional-diversity

display_name: functional-diversity

hymenoptera

display_name: hymenoptera

predictive-modelling

display_name: predictive-modelling

protected-areas

display_name: protected-areas

resource-availability

display_name: resource-availability

switzerland

display_name: switzerland

urbanization

display_name: urbanization

wild-bee

display_name: wild-bee

en: Data on wild bee taxonomic and functional diversity in Switzerland


en: cosmo-wrf wrf numerical-simulation grayzone complex-terrain

en:
This dataset contains simulation data for *"Influence of Air Flow Features on Alpine Wind Energy Potential" (Kristianti et al., 2024).*
•	The WRF_dia2702 and WRF_dia1103 folders contain the namelist.wps, namelist.input, and output files from the simulation in the Diablerets region on 27/02/2021 and 11/03/2021, respectively.
•	The WRF_luk2310 and WRF_luk0912 folders contain the namelist.wps, namelist.input, and output files from the simulation in the Lukmanier region on 23/10/2020 and 09/12/2020, respectively.
•	The postprocessing file contains Python codes used to create figures in Kristianti et al. (2024).
**Notes:**
•	Topography input is provided by Gerber et al. (2021).
•	Simulations are run using the COSMO-WRF model developed by Gerber et al. (2018).
•	Visualization by Python code uses wrf-python provided by Ladwig et al. (2017).
*This dataset was produced by the EDGE consortium sponsored by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy's SWEET programme, Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF): Grant 179130, and the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) projects s938, s1115 and s1242.*

complex-terrain

display_name: complex-terrain

cosmo-wrf

display_name: cosmo-wrf

grayzone

display_name: grayzone

numerical-simulation

display_name: numerical-simulation

wrf

display_name: wrf

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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

en: COSMO-WRF Dataset for Swiss Alps Simulations in Gray-Zone Resolution


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

en: Data Access

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.

drone-data

display_name: drone-data

dsm

display_name: dsm

orthophoto

display_name: orthophoto

photogrammetry

display_name: photogrammetry

snow-depth-mapping

display_name: snow-depth-mapping

uav

display_name: uav

wingtra

display_name: wingtra

en: Photogrammetric Drone Data Latschuelfurgga


en: terrestrial-laser-scanning mass-flux snowmicropen antarctica meteorological-data drifting-snow

en: Dataset

en: Links to the dataset

en: README

media_type: text/plain

en: Describes the dataset in detail

format: TXT

mimetype: text/plain

en:
This dataset contains the data acquired during the expedition to Princess Elisabeth Antarctica Station in December 2016 and January 2017. The dataset consits of meterorological data, drifting snow mass flux data, SnowMicroPen data and Terrestrial Laser Scanning data.

Please refer to the README for more information about the data.

This dataset is the basis of the following publication:

Sommer, C. G., Wever, N., Fierz, C., and Lehning, M.: Wind-packing of snow in Antarctica, The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2018-36, in review, 2018.

antarctica

display_name: antarctica

drifting-snow

display_name: drifting-snow

mass-flux

display_name: mass-flux

meteorological-data

display_name: meteorological-data

snowmicropen

display_name: snowmicropen

terrestrial-laser-scanning

display_name: terrestrial-laser-scanning

en: Expedition to Princess Elisabeth Antarctica Station, 2016/2017


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

en: Discharge

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

en: Precipitation

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

en: Soil moisture

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

en: Shapefile of 307 catchments in Switzerland

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

en: Low-flow storage

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

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

discharge

display_name: discharge

hydrological-simulations

display_name: hydrological-simulations

low-flow

display_name: low-flow

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

prevah

display_name: prevah

soil-moisture

display_name: soil-moisture

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


irkis-soil-moisture-measurements-davos

maintainer: Nander Wever

title_for_slug: irkis-soil-moisture-measurements-davos

en: meteo-station meteorological-measurements dischma-catchment davos soil-moisture

en: IRKIS soil moisture data (zip file)

en: Compressed archive (zip) containing soil moisture measurements, as well as meteorological measurements and interpolated meteorological time series.

en:
Meteorological and soil moisture measurements from soil moisture stations installed from October 2010 - October 2013 in the area surrounding Davos, in particular in the Dischma catchment.

There are in total 7 stations: 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 222, 333 and SLF2. For each of the stations, there is a:

* vwc_[stn].smet: containing the soil moisture measurements

* station_[stn].smet: in-situ measured meteorlogical parameters. Note, the quality of these measurements for stations 1202, 1203, 1204 and 1205 is very low, with data gaps. Use this data with care. For stations 222, 333 and SLF2, data quality is high and only the default cautiousness should be applied.

* interpolatedmeteo_[stn].smet contains per stations a dataset derived by interpolating from several stations in the Davos area to the stations location. This dataset was generated from the output of the Alpine3D model, of which simulations are presented in the Wever et al. (2017) manuscript.

At the soil moisture measurement sites, Decagon 10HS sensors were installed, at 10, 30, 50, 80 and 120 cm depth. Per depth 2 sensors were installed, labelled A and B in the datafiles. Note that at stations 1203, 1204 and 1205, sensors were only installed at 10, 30 and 50 cm depth.

The files follow the SMET format: https://models.slf.ch/docserver/meteoio/SMET_specifications.pdf and metadata for the stations can be found in the header of the smet files.

Please cite the Wever et al. (2017) reference when using this data in publications.

For a more detailed description, please refer to: Wever, N., Comola, F., Bavay, M., and Lehning, M.: Simulating the influence of snow surface processes on soil moisture dynamics and streamflow generation in an alpine catchment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4053-4071, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4053-2017, 2017.

davos

display_name: davos

dischma-catchment

display_name: dischma-catchment

meteo-station

display_name: meteo-station

meteorological-measurements

display_name: meteorological-measurements

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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

en: IRKIS Soil moisture measurements Davos