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

en: Data plot of the forest station (LEB)

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

en: Forest station data (LEB)

en: Data file.

en: Site photo of the forest station (LEB)

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

en: High quality meteorological data are needed for long-term forest ecosystem research, particularly in the light of global change. The long-term data series published here comprises almost 20 years of measurements for one meteorological station in Lens in Switzerland which is located within a natural coniferous forest with Scots pine (_Pinus sylvestris_; 150-170 yrs)) as dominant tree species. The meteorological time series are presented in hourly time resolution of air temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and wind speed. Lens is part of the Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research Programme (LWF) established and maintained by the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL.

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

long-term

display_name: long-term

meteo

display_name: meteo

meteorology

display_name: meteorology

par

display_name: par

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

relative-humidity

display_name: relative-humidity

swiss-forest-lab

display_name: swiss-forest-lab

temperature

display_name: temperature

wind-speed

display_name: wind-speed

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


maintainer: EnviDat Support

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

state: active

type: dataset

en: Distance to target results

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

format: XLS

en: Networks

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

en: Ecosystem coupling_interactions

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

en: Nematode data

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

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

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

en: Vegetation data

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

en: Fungi data

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

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

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

en: Soil properties

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

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

Paper Citation:

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

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

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

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

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

bacteria

display_name: bacteria

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

fungi

display_name: fungi

grassland

display_name: grassland

nematodes

display_name: nematodes

plants

display_name: plants

restoration

display_name: restoration

soil

display_name: soil

soil-biodiversity

display_name: soil-biodiversity

soil-biology

display_name: soil-biology

soil-chemistry

display_name: soil-chemistry

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

educ

fr: Éducation, culture et sport

de: Bildung, Kultur und Sport

en: Education, culture and 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.

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


maintainer: Anita Risch

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

en: Datafile

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

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

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

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

Soil.moist	: Soil moisture (%)

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

pH: Soil pH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant.richness: Plant species richness

Plant.N: Plant tissue nitrogen content (%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#References

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

ecosystem-coupling

display_name: ecosystem-coupling

ecosystem-functions

display_name: ecosystem-functions

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

exclusion

display_name: exclusion

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

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

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


maintainer: Roksolana Petrovska

en: fagus dominance regeneration mortality-rate shade-tolerance acer lar

en: Mortality of regeneration

media_type: text/csv

en: Acer platanoides, Acer pseudoplatanus and Fagus sylvatica living and dead juveniles (0-500 cm in height) grown in the deep shade of a prime beech-dominated forest.

format: CSV

en: The R-script of survival analysis for accelerated failure time model

format: SERVICE

en:
 One individual per species, vitality class (low and high) and height class (eight classes: 0–10, 11–20, 21–35, 36–60, 61–90, 91–130, 131–200 and 201–500 cm) was randomly selected and harvested in each of the six plots. This resulted in a sample of 82, 80 and 89 living individuals of A. platanoides, A. pseudoplatanus and F. sylvatica, respectively.

 Additionally stems of dead Acer spp. and F. sylvatica trees that had died within the last three years (2015–2018) were randomly harvested, matching the height classes of the harvested living trees wherever possible. In total, 179 dead young trees (60 A. platanoides, 72 A. pseudoplatanus and 47 F. sylvatica) were collected.

 Variables:
* species_code: a_pla - Acer platanoides, a_pse - Acer pseudoplatanus, f_syl - Fagus sylvatica
* species: as above
* dummy: 0 - living individual, 1 - dead individual
* LAR_cm2_g: leaf area ratio or ratio of leaf area to total plant biomass, [cm2/g]
* tree_age: in years
* avg_ring_micron: average width of the last 5 rings in tree life excluding the last ring
* dry_mass_g: aboveground and belowground biomass
* DLI: direct light index (measured only under living individuals)
* BLI: diffuse light index (measured only under living individuals)
* GLI: global light index

acer

display_name: acer

dominance

display_name: dominance

fagus

display_name: fagus

lar

display_name: lar

mortality-rate

display_name: mortality-rate

regeneration

display_name: regeneration

shade-tolerance

display_name: shade-tolerance

en: Mortality of regeneration: Acer spp. and Fagus sylvatica


en: smouldering database forest-fire lightning-location-system holdover zenodo

media_type: application/zip

en: No description

format: ZIP

en: This database contains open, harmonized, and ready-to-use global data on holdover time. Holdover time is defined as the time between lightning-induced fire ignition and fire detection. The first version of the database is composed of three data files (censored data, non-censored data, ancillary data) and three metadata files (description of database variables, list of references, reproducible examples). These data were collected through a literature review of LIW studies and some datasets were assembled by authors of the original studies, covering more than 150,000 LIW from 13 countries in five continents and a time span of a century from 1921 to 2020. Censored data are the core of the database and consist of frequency data reporting the number or relative frequency of LIW per interval of holdover time. Ancillary data provide additional information on the methods and contexts in which the data were generated in the original studies. Potential contributors to the database are encouraged to contact the corresponding author in the readme file.

database

display_name: database

forest-fire

display_name: forest-fire

holdover

display_name: holdover

lightning-location-system

display_name: lightning-location-system

smouldering

display_name: smouldering

zenodo

display_name: zenodo

en: Database on holdover time of lightning-ignited wildfires


maintainer: Nander Wever

en: precipitation-amount snow-depth shortwave-radiation air-temperature snow-ice-temperature humidity longwave-radiation wind-direction wind-speed

en: SNOWPACK ini file (old syntax)

en: This ini-file can be used to run SNOWPACK simulations with the WFJ data set, using version 3.4.0 or higher.

en: Version 5

en:
Deprecated version. Release notes:

Update: using the incoming and outgoing short- and longwave radiation data from the new processing chain from 2010 onwards, filling also data gaps in pre-2010 data.

Update: dataset extended to 2016-10-04T00:30

Update: refreshing data originating from MeteoSwiss (particularly precipitation)

en: Version 7 (current)

en:
Release notes:

Bug fix: in previous versions, snow lysimeter data from September 2010 onwards was erroneously reported for UTC+2, instead of UTC+1 (i.e., reported one hour later than should have been).

Update: dataset extended to 2017-07-11T00:30.

en: Version 3

en:
Deprecated version. Release notes:

Bug fix: in version 2, the undercatch correction was not applied correctly

Bug fix: in version 2, snow lysimeter data was missing for extended periods of time

Update: dataset extended to 2016-01-02T00:30

Update: refreshing data originating from MeteoSwiss (particularly precipitation)

en: Version 4

en:
Deprecated version. Release notes:

Update: dataset extended to 2016-09-02T00:30

Update: refreshing data originating from MeteoSwiss (particularly precipitation)

en: Undercatch correction

media_type: application/pdf

en: This document describes how the undercatch correction for the Weissfluhjoch measurement site was determined.

format: PDF

mimetype: application/pdf

en: SNOWPACK ini file (new syntax)

en: This ini-file can be used to run SNOWPACK simulations with the WFJ data set, using the new MeteoIO Filter, Generator and Interpolation syntax.

en: SNOWPACK sno file

en: This sno-file can be used to run SNOWPACK simulations with the WFJ data set, using version 3.4.0 or higher.

en: Version 1

en:
Deprecated version. Release notes:

First release of dataset.

en: Version 6

en:
Deprecated version.

Release notes:

- Missing ISWR for 2009-09-30 and 2010-04-30 has been replaced by data from WFJ Gipfel

This dataset is the basis for the Weissfluhjoch dataset in ESM-SnowMIP (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.16904/16).

en: Version 2

en:
Deprecated version. Release notes:

Bug fix: in v1, incoming radiation components were taken from WFJ_Gipfel station, instead of WFJ Versuchsfeld.

en: All versions

en:
Dataset of meteorological and snowpack measurements from the automatic weather station at Weissfluhjoch, Davos, Switzerland, suitable for driving snowpack models. The dataset contains standard meteorological measurements, and additionally snowpack runoff data from a snow lysimeter. Where possible, data is quality checked and missing data are replaced from backup sensors from the measurement site itself, or (in only a few cases) from the MeteoSwiss weather station at 470 m distance and 150 m above the measurement site.

Publication
Wever, N., Schmid, L., Heilig, A., Eisen, O., Fierz, C., and Lehning, M. Verification of the multi-layer SNOWPACK model with different water transport schemes. 2015. The Cryosphere. Volume 9. 2271-2293. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-2271-2015.

air-temperature

display_name: air-temperature

humidity

display_name: humidity

longwave-radiation

display_name: longwave-radiation

precipitation-amount

display_name: precipitation-amount

shortwave-radiation

display_name: shortwave-radiation

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-ice-temperature

display_name: snow-ice-temperature

wind-direction

display_name: wind-direction

wind-speed

display_name: wind-speed

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: WFJ_MOD: Meteorological and snowpack measurements from Weissfluhjoch, Davos, Switzerland


maintainer: Joan Casanelles Abella

en: floral-resources floral-inventories urban poznan zurich angiospermae tartu paris antwerp plants

en: List of plant species sampled in the five cities (Antwerp, Paris, Poznan, Tartu and Zurich) during the different sampling perionds (four for Zurich, three for the other cities) with their frequency (oc1-oc16) within a 100 m radius

en: Floral units, mean number of flowers per floral unit and floral abundance of the different plants counted in quadrats in the study sites in Zurich during the four sampling periods

en: Trait values for the sampled plants

en: Data of a survey of flowering plants in 80 sites in five European cities and urban agglomerations (Antwerp, Belgium; greater Paris, France; Poznan, Poland; Tartu, Estonia; and Zurich, Switzerland) sampled between April and July 2018.

angiospermae

display_name: angiospermae

antwerp

display_name: antwerp

floral-inventories

display_name: floral-inventories

floral-resources

display_name: floral-resources

paris

display_name: paris

plants

display_name: plants

poznan

display_name: poznan

tartu

display_name: tartu

urban

display_name: urban

zurich

display_name: zurich

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: Flowering Plants (Angiospermae) in Urban Green Areas in five European Cities


maintainer: Jana von Freyberg

en: alptal hydrology stable-water-isotope precipitation catchment stream-water

media_type: text/plain

en: Single comma-separated txt-file with daily data of stable water isotopes measured in streamwater and precipitation in the Swiss Alptal catchment and two of its tributaries (Erlenbach and Vogelbach), as well as daily data of key hydrometeorological variables from the Alptal valley

format: TXT

en:
Version 2 of the dataset contains additional information on:
- line-conditioned (lc) excess
- precipitation sample volumes
- isotope data quality

en: Data Set Documentation: alptal_Isotopes_daily_2015-2019_v2

en: Documentations contains meta data of the data columns and information about the study catchments.

en: This dataset contains four years of daily measurements of the natural isotopic composition (2H, 18O) of precipitation and stream water at the Alp catchment (area 47 km2) in Central Switzerland and two of its tributaries (0.73 km2 and 1.55 km2). In addition, the dataset contains daily measurements of key hydrometeorological variables.

alptal

display_name: alptal

catchment

display_name: catchment

hydrology

display_name: hydrology

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

stable-water-isotope

display_name: stable-water-isotope

stream-water

display_name: stream-water

en: Four years of daily stable water isotope data in stream water and precipitation from three Swiss catchments


maintainer: Chunhong Zhao

en: land-dynamics land-use austin landscape urban-morphology

en: Land use dynamics in Austin since 1992

en: The present dataset is part of the published scientific paper Zhao C, Weng Q, Hersperger A M. Characterizing the 3-D urban morphology transformation to understand urban-form dynamics: a case study of Austin, Texas, USA. Landscape and urban planning, 2020, 203:103881. The overall objective of this paper is to understand urban form dynamics in the Austin metropolitan area for the periods 2006–2011 and 2011–2016. The study also aims to understand to what extent the changes in the built environment (in terms of ‘efficient growth’ versus ‘inefficient growth’) from the 1990s to 2016 in the Austin metropolitan area corresponded with ‘compact and efficient growth’ planning policy documents. The UMT distribution can be found in the paper. The area of transitioning UMT was provided in Table 2 and Table 3 can be found in the Appendix of the paper. A protocol was developed to perform the content analysis of the strategic plans and gather the data. The detailed list of protocol items can be found in Appendix B of the paper. This study demonstrates the advantage of applying Lidar data to characterize 3-D urban morphology type (UMT) transition and understand its dynamics, which helps develop a comprehensive understanding of the urbanization process and provides a tool for planning intentions and policies evaluation on urban development over time. The UMT maps can be found in Appendix A of the paper. The Lidar point datasets and the 30 × 30 m National Land Cover Database (NLCD) are the two main data sources of UMT mapping. Lidar datasets were gathered from different projects that had been conducted and collected by state agencies and other organizations between 2007 and 2017. Table A1 in the appendix in the paper shows the accuracies and acquisition parameters of the Lidar projects from 2007 to 2017. Land use/cover dynamics in Austin metropolitan area dataset provides Land use/cover patterns in the years 1992, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2016 with a spatial resolution of 30 meters. Since NLCD 1992 used a different classification system for the urban land classes, we first reclassified the NLCD 1992 using a customized Arcpy package.

austin

display_name: austin

land-dynamics

display_name: land-dynamics

land-use

display_name: land-use

landscape

display_name: landscape

urban-morphology

display_name: urban-morphology

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: Land use/cover dynamics in Austin metropolitan area since 1992


en: permos permafrost ground-temperature ritigraben borehole

en: Map of PERMOS borehole network

en: DATA ACCESS

en: PERMOS DATA POLICY

en:
_ENVIDAT NOTE: Data currently unvailable and measures are being taken to recover and restore the data files._

Processed ground temperature measurements at the Ritigraben permafrost borehole (RIT_0102) in canton Valais, Switzerland. The borehole is located at 2690 m asl on a flat site. The surface material is coarse blocks and borehole depth is 30 m. Thermistors used YSI 44006. Year of drilling 2002. This borehole is part of the Swiss Permafrost network, PERMOS (www.permos.ch). Contact phillips@slf.ch for details of processing applied.

borehole

display_name: borehole

ground-temperature

display_name: ground-temperature

permafrost

display_name: permafrost

permos

display_name: permos

ritigraben

display_name: ritigraben

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: RIT1: Processed permafrost borehole data (2690  m asl), Ritigraben, Switzerland


mosaic-snow-on-sea-ice-data

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

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

en: SNOWPACK setup for MOSAiC

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

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

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

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

en: ALPINE3D setup for MOSAiC

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

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

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

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

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

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

arctic-sea-ice

display_name: arctic-sea-ice

drifting-and-blowing-snow

display_name: drifting-and-blowing-snow

snow-distribution

display_name: snow-distribution

spatial-variability

display_name: spatial-variability

surface-mass-balance

display_name: surface-mass-balance

en: 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: MOSAIC Snow on Sea Ice Data


en: air-temperature cmip5 precipitation-amount climate-change orographic-precipitation

en: Data Access

en:
Predicting future climatic conditions at high spatial resolution is essential for many applications in science. Here we present data for monthly time series of precipitation and minimum and maximum temperature for four downscaled global circulation models. We used model output statistics in combination with mechanistic downscaling (the CHELSA algorithm) to calculate mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, as well as monthly precipitation sums at ~5km spatial resolution globally for the years 1850-2100. We validated the performance of the downscaling algorithm by comparing model output with observed climates for the years 1950-2069.

CHELSA_cmip5_ts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.

air-temperature

display_name: air-temperature

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

orographic-precipitation

display_name: orographic-precipitation

precipitation-amount

display_name: precipitation-amount

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: High resolution monthly precipitation and temperature timeseries for the period 2006-2100


snow-depth-mapping

maintainer: Mauro Marty

title_for_slug: snow-depth-mapping

en: snow-depth image-matching snow-hydrology aerial-imagery avalanche dsm snow-water-equivalent

en: Snow depth map 20160420

media_type: image/tiff

format: TIFF

mimetype: image/tiff

en: Snow depth map 20140417

en: Snow depth map generated from ADS 100 imagery (CIR). GSD of imagery = 0.18 m

en: Snow depth map 20150415

en: Snow depth map 20120320

en: Snow depth map generated from ADS 80 imagery (CIR). GSD of imagery = 0.25 m

en: Snow depth map 20160309

en: Snow depth map 20160126

en:
Snow depth map generated from ADS 100 imagery (CIR). GSD of imagery = 0.16 m
Because of very diffuse light conditions at time of image acquisition the quality of the resulting snow depth values are in some regions quite poor.

en: Snow depth map 20130415

en: Snow depth map 20100416

en:
The available datasets are snow depth maps with a spatial resolution of 2m generated from image matching of ADS 80/100 data. Image acquisition took place at peak of winter (time when the thickest snowpack is expected). The snow depth maps are the difference of a summer DSM from the winter DSM of the corresponding date . The summer DSM used is a product of image matching of ADS 80 data from summer 2013. In the available products buildings, vegetation and outliers were masked (set to NoData).
For the elimination of buildings the TLM layer (swisstopo) was used, because this layer might not represent exactly the
state of infrastructure at time of image acquisition, it is possible that mainly in dense settlement some buildings were not successfully masked. For the relevant area above treeline the masking of buildings showed good results. Vegetation got masked for a height above ground > 1m and was detected in a combination of summer and winter data sets. As Outliers were considered unrealistic snow depths caused by a failure of the image matching algorithm. Snow depths > 15m and smaller than < -15m were classified as outliers. Negative snow depth were kept, because of an uncertainty in image orientation accuracy. It is expected that in regions with negative snow depth also positive snow depth are underestimated by the same amount, which means that an estimation of snow volume should be carried out summing up the absolute values of snow depth (also the negative ones). For volume estimation in small regions the user has to take into account, that orientation accuracy of the images is roughly around 1-2 GSD (30cm), which propagates directly to the snow depth product. Areas which are not covered by snow got assigned a value of 0 as snow depth.

The work is published in:

Bühler, Y.; Marty, M.; Egli, L.; Veitinger, J.; Jonas, T.; Thee, P.; Ginzler, C., (2015). Snow depth mapping in high-alpine catchments using digital photogrammetry. Cryosphere, 9 (1), 229-243. doi: 10.5194/tc-9-229-2015

aerial-imagery

display_name: aerial-imagery

avalanche

display_name: avalanche

dsm

display_name: dsm

image-matching

display_name: image-matching

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-hydrology

display_name: snow-hydrology

snow-water-equivalent

display_name: snow-water-equivalent


maintainer: James W. Kirchner

en: streamflow ecohydrology diurnal-cycle groundwater snowmelt diel-cycle evapotranspiration sap-flow

en: Metadata

en: Column descriptions for both data files, and map coordinates for all measurement locations.

en: 30-minute time series

en: 30-minute hydrometeorological and ecohydrological time series.

mimetype: text/plain

en: Subcatchment polygons

en: Subcatchment polygons for use in the Google Earth Engine scripts.

en: MODIS NDSI script

en: Google Earth Engine script for computing MODIS normalized difference snow index (NDSI) values and averaging them over subcatchment areas.

en: Daily time series

en: Daily hydrometeorological and ecohydrological time series

en: MODIS EVI2 script

en: Google Earth Engine script for computing MODIS two-band enhanced vegetation index (EVI2) values and averaging them over subcatchments.

en:
Hydrometerological and ecohydrological time series from Sagehen Creek and Independence Creek, Sierra Nevada, USA, illustrating hydrological responses to daily cycles in snowmelt and evapotranspiration forcing.

Data include 30-minute time series of

- weather variables,

- sap flow fluxes,

- groundwater levels (in two riparian transects of shallow groundwater wells),

- and stream stages (at 12 sites spanning a 500-meter elevation gradient),

and daily time series of

- temperature, precipitation, and snow water equivalent at three nearby snow telemetry stations

- diel cycle index values for groundwater levels and stream stages,

- and MODIS normalized difference snow index (NDSI) and enhanced vegetation index (EVI2) values averaged over selected subcatchments.

Google Earth Engine scripts for extracting the MODIS data are also provided.

diel-cycle

display_name: diel-cycle

diurnal-cycle

display_name: diurnal-cycle

ecohydrology

display_name: ecohydrology

evapotranspiration

display_name: evapotranspiration

groundwater

display_name: groundwater

sap-flow

display_name: sap-flow

snowmelt

display_name: snowmelt

streamflow

display_name: streamflow

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: Daily cycles in solar flux, snowmelt, transpiration, groundwater, and streamflow at Sagehen and Independence Creeks, Sierra Nevada, USA


maintainer: Daniela Brito Melo

en: saltation large-eddy-simulations snow-cohesion mixed-grain-transport drifting-snow

en: Data in Figures

en: Simulation results presented in Figures 1 to 11 of the research article "Modeling snow saltattion: the effect of grain size and interparticle cohesion" in csv format.

en: LES-LSM code

en: Source code used to perform the analysis presented at the research article "Modeling snow saltation: the effect of grain size and interparticle cohesion". The source code is also available at the WSL/SLF GitLab Repository (https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/atmospheric-models/les-lsm).

en:
This dataset includes the parallel application and the main results supporting the research article "Modeling snow saltation: the effect of grain size and interparticle cohesion" published at the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
The code is a flow solver based on the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) technique coupled with a Lagrangian Stochastic Model (LSM). The interaction of snow particles with the bed is modeled with statistical and physically-based models for aerodynamic entrainment, rebound and splash, following the works of Groot Zwaaftink et al. (2014), Comola and Lehning (2017) and Sharma et al. (2018). This algorithm was also used by Sigmund et al. (2021) to model snow sublimation.

drifting-snow

display_name: drifting-snow

large-eddy-simulations

display_name: large-eddy-simulations

mixed-grain-transport

display_name: mixed-grain-transport

saltation

display_name: saltation

snow-cohesion

display_name: snow-cohesion

educ

en: Education, culture and sport


en: mass-balance nutrient sustainability soil beech

en: With this study, our aim was to estimate the nutrient fluxes relevant for assessing nutrient sustainability as accurately as possible and to calculate nutrient balances for alternative forest management scenarios. Furthermore, we tested whether mapping units from existing geologic maps can serve as a basis for forest practitioners to estimate nutrient sustainability or whether more detailed data is needed. Positive fluxes include deposition and weathering, while negative fluxes include losses due to leaching and nutrient removal through timber harvesting in the balance. Weathering and leachate losses were modeled with a geochemical model. The SwissStandSim model was used to simulate the biomass growth under different harvesting and silvicultural strategies, allowing sustainability to be assessed for each nutrient at a given intensity of use. This assessment was made per rotation period of 100 years based on two criteria: i) nutrient supply; and ii) total stocking volume.

beech

display_name: beech

mass-balance

display_name: mass-balance

nutrient

display_name: nutrient

soil

display_name: soil

sustainability

display_name: sustainability

en: Nutrient sustainability in beech forests


backward-trajectories

maintainer: Michael Sprenger

title_for_slug: backward-trajectories

en: backward-trajectories raclets cosmo complex-topopgraphy lagrangian-analysis alps atmospheric-dynamics

en: Backward Trajectories

en: The trajectories are started from surface up to 5000 m altitude, with an equidistant vertical spacing of 200 m, and calculated 120 h backward in time. As long as the trajectories stay in the COSMO1 domain (essentially the Alpine region), as run operationally at MeteoSwiss, the COSMO analysis wind fields are used. When the trajectories leave this domain, they are extended further backward in time based on ECMWF analysis data. The following fields are traced along the trajectories: longitude, latitude, geopotential height, pressure, specific humidity, temperature and surface topography. Furthermore, it is indicated for each trajectory time instance on which model data, COSMO or ECMWF, the trajectory time is based. Finally, the trajectories are started every hour in the specified time period, and positions and fields are available every 10 min. Each day is saved as a separate file. The last 8 digits of the file names indicate the starting date of the trajectories.

mimetype: application/zip

en: Backward trajectories were calculated from two positions: Davos Wolfgang (LON: 9.85361, LAT: 46.83551) and Weissfluhjoch (LON: 9.80646 LAT: 46.83304) for the time period February 2 until March 27 2019 using COSMO or ECMWF, respectively.

alps

display_name: alps

atmospheric-dynamics

display_name: atmospheric-dynamics

backward-trajectories

display_name: backward-trajectories

complex-topopgraphy

display_name: complex-topopgraphy

cosmo

display_name: cosmo

lagrangian-analysis

display_name: lagrangian-analysis

raclets

display_name: raclets

en: Backward  Trajectories


en: tree-volume forest-inventory single-tree terrestiral-laserscanning biomass lidar

en: Individual tree parameters and volume estimates based on TLS point clouds and allometric models

en:
"ASM" denotes volume estimates calculated by allometric scaling models (as used in Swiss NFI), based on tree height, DBH and D7.
"QSM" denotes volume estimates derived from TLS point clouds by quantitative structure models (QSM).
The remaining variables are geometrical features directly calculated from single tree TLS point clouds.
For more detailed variable descriptions see related publication.

en:
 Dataset
This dataset is based on terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) data acquired during winter 2020/2021 in leaf-off conditions, with a Leica BLK 360 instrument following a tree-centric scanning pattern.
The data was acquired on two sites (47.42°N 8.49°E and 47.504°N, 7.78°E), both of which were managed mixed temperate forest stands.
Individual trees were semi-automatically segmented from the co-registered TLS point clouds.

 Background
Accurate estimates of individual tree volume or biomass within forest inventories are essential for calibration and validation of biomass mapping products based on Earth observation data.
Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) enables detailed and non-destructive volume estimation of individual trees, with existing approaches ranging from simple geometrical features to virtual 3D reconstruction of entire trees. Validating such approaches with weight measurements is a key step before the integration of TLS or other close-range technologies into operational applications such as forest inventories.
In this study, we firstly evaluate individual tree volume estimation approaches based on 3D reconstruction through quantitative structure models (QSM) against destructive reference data of 60 trees and compare them to operational allometric scaling models (ASM).
Secondly, we determine the explanatory power of TLS-derived geometric parameters regarding total tree, stem, coarse wood and fine branch volume.

biomass

display_name: biomass

forest-inventory

display_name: forest-inventory

lidar

display_name: lidar

single-tree

display_name: single-tree

terrestiral-laserscanning

display_name: terrestiral-laserscanning

tree-volume

display_name: tree-volume

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: Individual tree TLS point clouds for tree volume estimation


en: drifting-snow aerodynamic-entrainment splash snow-saltation saltation-parameterizations large-eddy-simulation

en: Code and input files to reproduce the simulations in Melo et al. (2024), as well as the post-processing scripts used in the analysis.

en:
This dataset includes the necessary files to reproduce the results presented in Melo et al. (2024):
- code version used in the simulations (also available at the institutional [GitLab repository](https://gitlabext.wsl.ch/atmospheric-models/les-lsm) - tag 'r2024')
- input files to run the simulations
- post-processing scripts (MATLAB and FORTRAN)
- selected raw output files
- post-processed results (MATLAB data files).
 	**Note:** Direct model outputs are not provided because of their size, but they can be shared upon request. They can be reproduced by running the code. The post-processed results allow you to reproduce all figures in Melo et al. (2024).

aerodynamic-entrainment

display_name: aerodynamic-entrainment

drifting-snow

display_name: drifting-snow

large-eddy-simulation

display_name: large-eddy-simulation

saltation-parameterizations

display_name: saltation-parameterizations

snow-saltation

display_name: snow-saltation

splash

display_name: splash

en: Understanding snow saltation parameterizations - Reproducibility


en: branchwood growing-stock section-wise-diameter stemwood tree-volume allometry

en: definitions of data in columns contained in the dataset Stem&Branchchwood_2024-02-29.txt

en: additional background information on this work

en: Revised version of the initial submission StemBranchwood_Didionetal_initialsubmission.pdf after review.

en: manuscript submitted for publication.

en: Updated dataset of outdated_Stem&Branchchwood_2024-02-29.txt, including corrections to the assignment of tree species to NFI main species and location information for two additional sites.

en: dataset with section-wise stem diameter and branchwood volume measurements. For column definitions see Column_definitions.pdf.

en:
The data presented here were prepared for publication in form of a data paper. The dataset presents an update of the information in Didion M, Herold A, Vulovic Z, Nitzsche J, Stillhard J (2022) Datasets for deriving functions for the stem- and branchwood volume in the Swiss National Forest Inventory. EnviDat. doi:https://www.doi.org/10.16904/envidat.358. The new dataset is based on an alternative, more accurate and comprehensive dataset, that was identified as the source of the dataset in Didion et al. 2022. It includes additional data, including newly digitized information.
The dataset includes section-wise stem measurements on 40’349 felled individual trees and empirically derived coarse (diameter >= 7 cm) and fine branch volume of 27’297 and 18’980, respectively, individual trees. The data were collected between 1888 and 1974 across Switzerland covering a large topographic gradient and a diverse species range. The dataset has undergone quality controls and due to its origin from 768 plots of the Experimental Forest Management project long-term consistency is assured.

allometry

display_name: allometry

branchwood

display_name: branchwood

growing-stock

display_name: growing-stock

section-wise-diameter

display_name: section-wise-diameter

stemwood

display_name: stemwood

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

en: A dataset of 40000 trees with section-wise measured stem diameter and length and volume of branches from across Switzerland


en: treeline long-term-experiment mountain-forest afforestation stillberg

en: Documentation

en: This data documentation is outdated and has been replaced with an updated version (see description).

mimetype: application/msword

en: Dataset V1

en: This dataset is outdated and has been replaced with an updated version (see description).

format: GDB

en: Site photo

en: This site photo is outdated and has been replaced with an updated version (see description).

en:
 Important
This EnviDat entry is outdated. The most recent, usable version of the data can be found under the new EnviDat entry "Long-term afforestation experiment at the Alpine treeline site Stillberg, Switzerland." The entry can be found under this link <https://www.envidat.ch/dataset/afforestation-stillberg> and with this DOI 10.16904/envidat.397.

afforestation

display_name: afforestation

long-term-experiment

display_name: long-term-experiment

mountain-forest

display_name: mountain-forest

stillberg

display_name: stillberg

treeline

display_name: treeline

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Long-term treeline research dataset at Stillberg, Davos