maintainer: Esther Frei

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

mimetype: application/x-zip-compressed

en:
 Background information

The Stillberg ecological treeline research site in the Swiss Alps was established in 1975, with the aim to develop ecologically, technically, and economically sustainable reforestation techniques at the treeline to reduce the risk of snow avalanches. In the course of time, additional research aspects gained importance, such as the ecology of the treeline ecotone under global change. Long-term monitoring of the large-scale high-elevation afforestation has generated data about tree growth, survival, and vitality. In addition, detailed characteristics of the microsite conditions of the research were conducted. Besides providing a scientific basis and practical guidelines for high-elevation afforestation, this research has contributed to a comprehensive understanding of ecological processes in the treeline ecotone.

 Experiment description

The Stillberg afforestation experiment was established in 1975 by planting 92,000 seedlings of *Larix decidua*, *Pinus cembra* and *Pinus mugo* ssp. *uncinata* in the alpine treeline ecotone. The afforestation site is located on a northeast-facing slope with steep, topographically highly structured terrain and covers elevations from 2075 to 2230 m a.s.l. The afforestation site was divided into 4052 square plots of 3.5 × 3.5 m, arranged in a regular species-alternating pattern over the whole area. Each plot contained 25 trees of one species (1350 plots per species), and the seedlings were systematically planted 70 cm apart. The trees have been monitored since 1975. Specifically, tree mortality was assessed annually from 1975 until 1995 and has been documented every ten years since then, with surveys in 2005 and 2015 (the next survey is due in 2025). Height of the surviving trees was measured in 1975, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2005, and 2015. In 1995, 2005, and 2015, drivers of tree vitality were assessed for a subset of trees per plot. Additionally, an extensive set of environmental parameters characterizing microsite conditions of the afforestation area were recorded before and after the planting of the trees.

 Data description

The five datasets from the afforestation experiment comprise ecological and environmental data from the main afforestation experiment in five datasets with accompanying metadata (Stillberg_afforestation_all_metadata.xlsx). All data and metadata files are bundled in a ZIP-file (Stillberg_afforestation_v1.zip). In particular, a first dataset contains environmental data characterising microsite conditions of the 4000 plots with regard to soil, topography, vegetation and microclimatic conditions (Stillberg_afforestation_plot_data_v1.csv; Stillberg_afforestation_plot_metadata_v1.csv. In each plot, the natural tree regeneration was assessed by counting seedings of several tree species in 2005 and 2015 (Stillberg_afforestation_regeneration_data_v1.csv; Stillberg_afforestation_regeneration_metadata_v1.csv). Furthermore, specific information about each of the 92’000 planted trees of the tree species is available (Stillberg_afforestation_tree_parameter_data_v1.csv; Stillberg_afforestation_tree_parameter_metadata_v1.csv). Survival data for each of the 92’000 individual trees can be found in a separate dataset (Stillberg_afforestation_tree_survival_data_v1.csv; Stillberg_afforestation_tree_survival_metadata_v1.csv). Tree growth and vitality parameters are available for all trees from 1995, and for subsets of trees for 2005 and 2015 (Stillberg_afforestation_tree_measurements_data_v1.csv; Stillberg_afforestation_tree_measurements_metadata_v1.csv).

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 afforestation experiment at the Alpine treeline site Stillberg, Switzerland


figures-perspective-urban-beekeeping

title_for_slug: figures-perspective-urban-beekeeping

en: diversity-distributions urban-beekeeping hymenoptera wildbees insects urban-ecology

state: active

type: dataset

en: Coordinates studied cities

media_type: text/csv

en: Coordinates (LatLon format) of the cities where data from urban bee ecology studies was used.

format: CSV

en: DEPRECATED. Data growth urban beekeeping

en: Data growth urban beekeeping

en:
The dataset contains the data of the growth of urban beekeeping in different cities.
For each city in a given year, it contains the following:
Continent.
Country.
City: the name of the city
Year: the year when the information was collected
Area: of the city
Total N. beekeepers: when available, the estimated number of beekeepers in that city for that given year
Total N. hives: when available, the estimated number of beehives in that city for that given year
Density: the total number of hives divided by the city area
Reference: the source of the information.

en: DEPRECATED. Distirbution beehives among beekeepers

en: The dataset contains the number of beehives per registered beekeeper ID (annonymised) in four Swiss cities (Bern, Lausanne, Geneve, Zurich).

en: Proportion honeybees and wildbees

en: Outdated, use the new resource "Propotion urban honeybees and wildbees"

en: Species-abundance data

en:
Abundance data at the species level per used dataset for the rank abundance distribution (RAD).
40 datasets used.

en: Results literature review

en:
 The file shows the results from the literature review. Briefly, we searched papers using google scholar search engine using the following query: (“WILD BEE OR WILDBEE”)(“URBAN” OR “CITY”), and limited the time span from 2010-2023. The search query returned 200 candidate papers. In addition, we complemented the candidate papers from the literature research performed by Ferrari & Polidori (2022), adding 22 additional candidate papers. To select papers, we checked that (1) were conducted in urban areas; (2) sampled the whole bee community; (3) provided data on abundance of wildbees; (4) provided data on honeybees; and (5) provided individual abundance data of each wild bee species.
The dataset contains the following:
-Article_ID: ID for the specific article in the form "A1", "A2"..."An"
- Title: of the article
- Year: of publication
- Journal: of publication
- Publisher:
- Link: link to the publication
- DOI: when applicable
- Total abundance wild bees reported: was the total number of collected bees reported? Logical (Y/N)
- Honey bee abundance reported: was thenumber of honeybees collected reported? 	Logical (Y/N)
- Abundance per wild bee species: was the number of wildbee species sampled provided? Logical (Y/N)
- Select proportion: paper selected to calculate the proportion of honeybees and wildbees.
- Select RAD: paper selected to compute the rank-abundance distribution diagram
Comment: comments on the papers, data availability, etc.

en: R script for the figures V1

en: Deprecated version of the R script

format: OCTET

en: NDVI values within 3 buffers  in hives in Zurich

en:
The dataset contains the average NDVI values around beehives in Zurich at three spatial scales (250, 500 and 1000 m). It contains 3 columns_
- buffer: indicating the spatial scale
- ID: hive ID (annonymised)
- mean.NDVI: mean NDVI value

en: Proportion urban honeybees and wildbees

en:
The dataset contains the proportion of wildbees and honeybees in the different studies obtained from the literature review.
Article_ID: ID for each article
DOI
Authors
Year: publication year
Duration sampling (years): numerical
Start_sampling: numerical, date
End_sampling: numerical, date
Continent
Country
N. cities: number of cities sampled in the article. Numerical.
City
Sampling type: categorical. Levels: active (e.g., Hand-netting); passive (e.g., pantraps. trap-nests); both (combination of passive and active methods).
Sampling methodology: categorical. Levels: direct observations, hand-netting, pantraps, interception traps, vane traps.
Number sites: total number of study sites.
Abundance honeybees: number of honeybees recorded
Abundance wild bees: number of wildbees recorded
Total bees: total number of bees recorded.
Proportion honeybees: Abundance of honeybees / Total number of bees
Proportion wildbees: Abundance of wildbees / Total number of bees

en: Distribution beehives among beekeepers

en: The dataset contains the number of beehives per registered beekeeper ID (annonymised) in four Swiss cities (Bern, Lausanne, Geneve, Zurich) and Paris.

en: Data rank-abundance distribution urban bees

en: Outdated, use the new resource

en: R script for the figures V2

en: R script for the figures

en: Local overheating values within 3 buffers in hives in Zurich

en:
The dataset contains the average overheating values around beehives in Zurich at three spatial scales (250, 500 and 1000 m). It contains 4 columns:
- buffer: indicating the spatial scale
-ID: hive ID (annonymised)
- mean.overwarming: mean overheating value, expressed in degrees Kelvin
-mena.overwarming.cor = transformed values do degrees Celsius

en:
Data and code from the perspective paper "When honeybees comes to town"
The .r file provides the code to generate the figures.
In addition, this repository contains the data for the figures 1-3.
For Figure 4, part of the data is confidential, Please, refer to the contacts provided:
- For the distribution of hives in Zurich (2018): https://www.zh.ch/de/gesundheitsdirektion/veterinaeramt.html
- For the overheating map of Zurich: Prof. Dr. Eberhard Parlow / Stadt Zurich (https://www.zh.ch/de/umwelt-tiere/umweltschutz/umweltpraxis/definitionsseite/2012/68/zup068_2012_a0030_klimaanalyse-pdf.html)

diversity-distributions

display_name: diversity-distributions

hymenoptera

display_name: hymenoptera

insects

display_name: insects

urban-beekeeping

display_name: urban-beekeeping

urban-ecology

display_name: urban-ecology

wildbees

display_name: wildbees

educ

fr: Éducation, culture et sport

de: Bildung, Kultur und Sport

en: Education, culture and sport

it: Istruzione, cultura e sport

fr: EnviDat: le portail de données environnementales

de: EnviDat: das Umwelt-Datenportal

it: EnviDat: il portale dei dati ambientali

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

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

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

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

political_level: other

wsl

capacity: public

type: organization


maintainer: Michael Lehning

en: snow-cover snow-distribution alpine3d-simulations alpine3d alpine-precipitation snow-hydrology snow

en: ADS datasets and simulation inputs

media_type: application/zip

en: The file contains the ADS datasets of snow depth and input data used for simulations.

format: ZIP

mimetype: application/zip

en:
Dataset (Model input, snow distribution and validation) for the precipitation scaling paper, which should be cited along with the data set citation.

This data is useful for distributed hydrological modelling or other tasks that involve the study of snow distribution and precipitation in the high Alpine.

The format of the data is for Alpine3D (models.slf.ch) model runs but other models could be used, too.

Please cite:

_Vögeli, C., Lehning, M., Wever, N., Bavay M., 2016: Scaling Precipitation Input to Spatially Distributed Hydrological Models by Measured Snow Distribution., Front. Earth Sci. 4: 108. doi: 10.3389/feart.2016.00108._

Dataset is provided as a single zip file.
The archive contains two directories, the valuable distributed snow depth maps for the landscape Davos and the simulation input.
The archive also contains the file: "ReadMeMetadataDataSetPrecipitationScaling" which explains the data structure.

alpine-precipitation

display_name: alpine-precipitation

snow

display_name: snow

snow-cover

display_name: snow-cover

snow-distribution

display_name: snow-distribution

snow-hydrology

display_name: snow-hydrology

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

approval_status: approved

key: guid

key: uri

value: Envidat Harvester

en: Precipitation Scaling Data Set (Vögeli et al., Frontiers)


photogrammetric-drone-data-dorfberg

maintainer: Yves Bühler

title_for_slug: photogrammetric-drone-data-dorfberg

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

en: Data Access

en:
- 3cm-resolution Orthophoto
- 10cm-resolution DSM
- 10cm-resolution snow depth raster
- original RGB images
- Agisoft Metashape Report

All products are also available as a cloud optimized geotiff.

format: SERVICE

en: The data was collected with a Wingtra Gen II drone and a Sony RX1R II sensor. In total, 10 flights were conducted at different dates, both in summer and winter. A DSM, an orthophoto, a snow depth raster and the original drone images from every flight are available at a high resolution (10cm and 3cm, respectively).

drone-data

display_name: drone-data

dsm

display_name: dsm

orthophoto

display_name: orthophoto

photogrammetry

display_name: photogrammetry

snow-depth-mapping

display_name: snow-depth-mapping

uav

display_name: uav

en: Photogrammetric Drone Data Dorfberg


maintainer: Felix Neff

en: restoration grassland diversity functional-diversity long-term-experiment insects topsoil-removal functional-traits

en: Plot information

en:
Information on the experimental plots.

- **Plot**: ID of Plot
- **Treatment**: Experimental treatment
- **Landuse_history**: recent agricultural use for Initial; agricultural use before restoration for all restored sites
- **Last_tilled**: Last time the site was tilled
- **Intensity**: Frequency and intensity of mowing and manuring (*intensity1*: mowing once and no manure, i*ntensity2*: 2-3 times mowing and no manure, *intensity3*: 2-3 times mowing and manuring, *intensity4*: 4-5 times mowing and manuring)
- **Slope**: slope gradient according to classes defined by FAO (1990)
- **X**: X coordinate of the plot (CH1903)
- **Y**: Y coordinate of the plot (CH1903)
- **Cluster**: Spatial cluster of the plot

mimetype: text/csv

en: Insect traits

en:
Functional traits of all herbivorous insect species sampled in the study.

- **Species**: Insect species name (following [Fauna Europaea](https://fauna-eu.org))
- **Author**: Author and year of species' description (following [Fauna Europaea](https://fauna-eu.org))
- **Group**: Insect group as used in the analyses
- **Body volume**: Body volume determined by body length, body width and body height (in mm$^3$)
- **Body_shape**: Ratio of body length to body width
- **Hind_femur_shape**: Ratio of hind-femur length to hind-femur width
- **Hind_front_leg_ratio**: Ratio of front-leg length to hind-leg length (leg length = femur length + tibia length)
- **Wing_length_rel**: Ratio of wing length to body length
- **Leg_length_rel**: Ratio of front-leg length to body length (leg length = femur length + tibia length)
- **Antenna_length_rel**: Ratio antenna length to body length
- **Eye_width_rel**: Ratio of eye width to head width (Auchenorrhyncha, Heteroptera) / to head height (Orthoptera)
- **Feeding_specialization**: Insect specialization on food source (*m*: monophagous, *o*: oligophagous, *p*: polyphagous)
- **Feeding_tissue**: Feeding tissue used for feeding (*c*: chewers, *x*: xylem, *p*: phloem, *m*: mesophyll, *m-p/r*: mesophyll as well as phloem and/or reproductive organs, *r*: reproductive organs, *se*: ripe seeds)
- **Hibernation**: Hibernation stage (*e*: egg, *e/n*: egg and nymph, *n*: nymph, *a*: adult)
- **Generations**: Number of generations per year (*1.5* stands for *1-2* generations per year)
- **Moisture_pref_mean**: mean of preferred habitat moistures (*1*: xerophilous, *2*: moderately xerophilous, *3*: moderately mesohygrophilous, *4*: mesohygrophilous, *5*: moderately hygrophilous, *6*: hygrophilous, *7*: moderately hydrophilous, *8*: hydrophilous)
- **Moisture_pref_range**: range of preferred habitat moistures (indicating degree of specialization)

en: Insect abundance

en:
Abundance of adult insects recorded in the samplings on all experimental sites

- **Plot**: ID of Plot
- **Treatment**: Experimental treatment
- **Species**: Insect species name (following [Fauna Europaea](https://fauna-eu.org))
- **Author**: Author and year of species' description (following [Fauna Europaea](https://fauna-eu.org))
- **Group**: Insect group as used in the analyses
- **Number_Adults**: Number of adult individuals recorded
- **Herbivore**: Logical indicating whether the species is feeding as a herbivore (*TRUE*) or not (*FALSE*)

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

**Paper Citation**:

Neff, F., Resch, M. C., Marty, A., Rolley, J. D., Schütz, M., Risch, A. C, Gossner, M. M. 2020. Long-term restoration success of insect herbivore communities in semi-natural grasslands: a functional approach. Ecological Applications, 30, e02133. [10.1002/eap.2133](https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2133)

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

 Methods

 Study site
The study area is situated within and nearby to Eigental nature reserve (47°27’36” to 47°29’06” N, 8°37’12” to 8°37’44” E, 461 to 507 m a.s.l.) in the vicinity of Zurich airport (Canton Zurich, Switzerland). Mean annual precipitation and temperature is 903 ± 136 mm and 9.14°C ± 0.50°C (mean ± SD for 2007-2017 (*MeteoSchweiz 2018*)). In 1967, the Eigental nature reserve was established to protect small and isolated remnants of species-rich, semi-natural grasslands (roughly 12 ha), which were embedded in an otherwise intensively managed landscape. It is characterized by oligo- to mesotrophic Molinion (semi-wet, matrix species *Molinia caerulea*) and Mesobromion (semi-dry, matrix species *Bromus erectus*) meadows (*Delarze et al. 2015*), reflecting small-scale habitat heterogeneity, mainly due to site-specific groundwater levels and slope inclination. As in most Central European grasslands, management is necessary to prevent shrub and tree invasions as well as to secure low levels of available soil nutrients and thus to maintain these species-rich habitats ([*Poschlod and WallisDeVries 2002*](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00201-4)).
In 1990, the government of the Canton Zurich decided to enlarge the Eigental nature reserve as a counter measure against degradation and biodiversity loss in semi-natural grasslands due to overutilization and the excessive input of nutrients (mostly nitrogen). Eleven patches of adjacent intensively managed grassland (in total roughly 20 ha) were targeted to be transformed into semi-natural grasslands. As a first restoration measure, fertilization was ceased, and biomass harvested three times to remove excessive soil nutrients from the original system and thus benefit plant species with low competitive ability on the long run. In 1995, the restoration efforts were increased and a large-scale experiment comprising three restoration measures with increasing intervention intensities was implemented:

- **Harvest only**: Initial restoration measures were continued with mowing and removing of the aboveground biomass two times a year (early summer and autumn).
- **Topsoil**: Removal of topsoil, depending on the thickness of the A horizon the upper 10 to 20 cm, in four randomly selected areas within the eleven patches in late autumn 1995. The size of the restoration area depended on individual patch size (2700 to 7000 m2).
- **Topsoil + Propagules**: Plant propagules were added on half of the area where topsoil was removed via application of fresh, seed-containing hay and hand-collected propagules of target species originating from semi-dry and semi-wet species-rich grasslands with local and regional provenance (within radius of 7 to 30 km) (1995, 1996, 1997).

Management of *Topsoil* and *Topsoil + Propagules* started five years after treatment implementation and included yearly mowing and removing of aboveground biomass (late summer or early autumn). The experiment was complemented with intensively managed grassland sites that share the same agricultural history as the restored sites (**Initial**; swards dominated by *Lolium perenne*, *L. multiflorum* and *Trifolium repens*): mowing and subsequent fertilizing (manure) up to five times a year, as well as different tillage regimes. Finally, sites were selected in target semi-dry and semi-wet grasslands (**Target**) located within the Eigental nature reserve and another nature reserve nearby (Altläufe der Glatt; 47°28’29” to 47°27’41” N, 8°31’56” to 8°32’26” E, 418 to 420 m a.s.l.). The selected target sites are mown and aboveground biomass removed once a year in late summer or early autumn. For each of the five treatments, we selected eleven plots (5 m × 5 m) spread across the sites. Altogether, the experiment included 55 plots.

 Arthropod sampling
Aboveground arthropods were sampled using suction sampling on four consecutive days in early July 2017 before the grasslands were mown. Arthropods were sampled in two locations on each 5 m × 5 m plot, once in the south-western and once in the north-eastern corner to account for possible spatial heterogeneity within the plots. Arthropods were sorted to order or lower taxonomic levels and individuals were identified to species level. We focused on three groups (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha, Hemiptera: Heteroptera, Orthoptera),

 Functional traits
We used two sets of functional traits in this study.

**Morphometric traits**:
Body volume, body shape, hind femur shape, hind/front leg ratio, wing length, leg length, antenna length and eye width. We used trait measurements from [*Simons et al. (2016)*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/15-0616.1) and [*Neff et al. (2019)*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00872-1) and complemented them with measurements on study specimens. These measurements were conducted using a high-resolution measuring stereo microscope (Leica DVM6, Leica Microsystems) including automated high-resolution photo stacking with the software Leica Application Suite X (LAS X, © 2018 Leica Microsystems CMS GmbH) and Leica Map Premium (Leica Microsystems, © 1996-2017 Digital Surf) at WSL Birmensdorf. The eight morphometric traits were calculated from direct measurements of body parts on specimens of all sampled species. From each species, we measured at least one female and one male specimen. Additionally, for species that show wing dimorphism, we included the different wing morphs and weighted them by their prevalence reported in literature. For few species, of which not all wing morphs were available for measurements (10 cases), we estimated relative wing length from congeneric species or from the literature.

**Life-history traits**
Based on an existing data set collected by [*Gossner et al. (2015)*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-2159.1). We included traits describing different life-history characteristics of herbivore insect species, namely: feeding specialization, feeding tissue, hibernation stage and number of generations per year, which are related to insect species’ vulnerability to changes in plant community composition, microhabitat use and disturbance tolerance. To represent potential changes in habitat moisture with abandonment of intensive land use (e.g., change in ground-water level), we also included two traits related to preferred habitat moisture of the study species: moisture preference, describing species’ optimum habitat moisture, and moisture range, which describes the species’ range of preferable moisture conditions.

 References

Delarze, R., Y. Gonseth, S. Eggenberg, and M. Vust. 2015. Lebensräume der Schweiz: Ökologie - Gefährdung - Kennarten. 3rd ed. Ott, Bern.

Gossner, M. M., N. K. Simons, R. Achtziger, T. Blick, W. H. O. Dorow, F. Dziock, F. Köhler, W. Rabitsch, and W. W. Weisser. 2015. A summary of eight traits of Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera and Araneae, occurring in grasslands in Germany. Scientific Data 2:150013.

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

Neff, F., N. Blüthgen, M. N. Chisté, N. K. Simons, J. Steckel, W. W. Weisser, C. Westphal, L. Pellissier, and M. M. Gossner. 2019. Cross-scale effects of land use on the functional composition of herbivorous insect communities. Landscape Ecology 34:2001–2015.

Poschlod, P., and M. F. WallisDeVries. 2002. The historical and socioeconomic perspective of calcareous grasslands—lessons from the distant and recent past. Biological Conservation 104:361–376.

Simons, N. K., W. W. Weisser, and M. M. Gossner. 2016. Multi-taxa approach shows consistent shifts in arthropod functional traits along grassland land-use intensity gradient. Ecology 97:754–764.

diversity

display_name: diversity

functional-diversity

display_name: functional-diversity

functional-traits

display_name: functional-traits

grassland

display_name: grassland

long-term-experiment

display_name: long-term-experiment

restoration

display_name: restoration

topsoil-removal

display_name: topsoil-removal

en: Grassland restoration: insects and insect traits


maintainer: EnviDat Support

en: snow-water-equivalent model-calibration-data snow-depth snow-density model-validation-data

en: swe2hs calibration and validation data

en:
 Contents of this archive

 README.md

 A readme file containing a description of the other files.

 automatic_stations_validation_data.csv

 Daily data from the automatic weather stations used for validation.

 Data sources and providers are listed in the SWE2HS paper, Table 1.

 Columns:

  * date: timestamp of the format YYYY-MM-DD
  * HS_[m]: snow depth in [m]
  * SWE_[m]: snow water equivalent in [m]
  * site_id: code for the measurement site
  - HS_interpolated: boolean flag for interpolated values
  - SWE_interpolated: : boolean flag for interpolated values

 coordinates_swe2hs_paper_stations.csv

 Coordinates of all measurement sites used in the SWE2HS paper.

 Columns:

  * site_id: code for the measurement site
  * location_name: location name of the measurement site
  * lon_[wgs84]: longitude in WGS84
  * lat_[wgs84]: latitude in WGS84
  * elevation_[m]: atitude of the measurement site in [m]
  * dataset: dataset in which the station is included

 manual_station_calibration_data.csv

 Calibration data from the Swiss manual observer stations. Long station records
 trmmed to 15 random water-years.

 Columns:

  * date: timestamp of the format YYYY-MM-DD
  * HS_[m]: snow depth in [m]
  * SWE_[m]: snow water equivalent in [m]
  * SWE_from_profile_[m]: biweekly measurement from the SWE in the measurement
   pit. Corrected with the bulk density in order to match the snow depth from
   the measurement stake. Please refer to the paper for further details.
  * site_id: code for the measurement site

 manual_stations_validation_data.csv

 Validation data from the Swiss manual observer stations. Remaining water-years
 from the long sttaion record not used for the calibration data.

 Columns:

  * date: timestamp of the format YYYY-MM-DD
  * HS_[m]: snow depth in [m]
  * SWE_[m]: snow water equivalent in [m]
  * SWE_from_profile_[m]: biweekly measurement from the SWE in the measurement
   pit. Corrected with the bulk density in order to match the snow depth from
   the measurement stake. Please refer to the paper for further details.
  * site_id: code for the measurement site

 manual_stations_used_deltasnow_parameters.csv

 Site specific DeltaSNOW model parameters used for the calculation of the daily
 SWE series in 'manual_stations_calibration_data.csv' and
 'manual_stations_validation_data.csv'.

 Parameters were optimized by reducing RMSE to the biweekly snow pit SWE measurements.
 Please refer to the paper for further details.

 A python implementation of the DeltaSNOW model was used for the calculation:
 pydeltasnow (https://pypi.org/project/pydeltasnow/)

 For a detailed description of the DeltaSNOW model parameters please see the
 respective publication:

 Winkler, M., Schellander, H., & Gruber, S. (2021). Snow water equivalents
 exclusively from snow depths and their temporal changes: the Δ snow model.
 Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 25(3), 1165-1187.

 Columns:

  * site_id: code for the measurement site
  * rho_max: Maximum density of an individual snow layer produced by the DeltaSNOW model in [kg/m3]
  * rho_null: Fresh snow density for a newly created layer [kg/m3
  * c_ov: Overburden factor due to fresh snow [-]
  * k_ov: Defines the impact of the individual layer density on the compaction due to overburden [-]
  * k: Exponent of the exponential-law compaction [m3/kg]
  * tau: Uncertainty bound [m]
  * eta_null: Effective compactive viscosity of snow for “zero-density” [Pa s]

en:
The data in this repository was used for the calibration and validation of the
SWE2HS model in the following publication:
Aschauer, J., Michel, A., Jonas, T., & Marty, C. (2023). An empirical model to calculate snow depth from daily snow water equivalent: SWE2HS 1.0. Geoscientific Model Development Discussions, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-258
Contains daily snow water equivalent and snow depth timeseries from stations in the European Alps.

model-calibration-data

display_name: model-calibration-data

model-validation-data

display_name: model-validation-data

snow-density

display_name: snow-density

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-water-equivalent

display_name: snow-water-equivalent

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

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

en: SWE2HS model calibration and validation data


en: microclimate forest radiation-transfer biodiversity climate-change ecology statistical-interpolation

en: Predicted microclimate air temperatures at 5 cm above ground. 10 m spatial resolution raster files are provided for mean daily minimum (tmin), mean (tmean) and maximum (tmax) temperatures during each month from April (04) to October (10) over the period between 2012 to 2021.

en: Predicted microclimate topsoil temperatures at 5 cm below ground. 10 m spatial resolution raster files are provided for mean daily minimum (tmin), mean (tmean) and maximum (tmax) temperatures during each month from April (04) to October (10) over the period between 2012 to 2021.

en: Predicted microclimate air temperatures at 100 cm above ground. 10 m spatial resolution raster files are provided for mean daily minimum (tmin), mean (tmean) and maximum (tmax) temperatures during each month from April (04) to October (10) over the period between 2012 to 2021.

en: Climate data matching the scales at which organisms experience climatic conditions are often missing. Yet, such data on microclimatic conditions are required to better understand climate-change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Here we combine a national network of microclimate temperature measurements with a novel radiative transfer model to map monthly minimum, mean and maximum temperatures during the vegetation period at a 10 meter spatial resolution across Switzerland. The temperature measurements took place in 107 sampling plots distributed across different habitat types, with 62 plots in forests, 22 below trees outside forests, and 23 in open grasslands. In each plot we measured temperature in the topsoil (-5cm), as well as in the air at 5cm and 100cm height above ground. Spatial interpolation was achieved by using a hybrid approach based on linear mixed effects models with input from detailed radiation estimates that account for topographic and vegetation shading, as well as other predictor variables related to the macroclimate, topography and vegetation height. Our data reveals strong horizontal and vertical variability in microclimate temperature, particularly for maximum temperatures at 5 cm above the ground and within the topsoil. Compared to macroclimate conditions as measured by weather stations outside forests, diurnal air and topsoil temperature ranges inside forests were reduced by up to 3.0 and 7.8 °C, respectively, while below trees outside forests, e.g. in hedges and below solitary trees, this buffering effect was 1.8 and 7.2 °C. We also found that in open grasslands, maximum temperatures at 5 cm above ground are on average 3.4 °C warmer than that of macroclimate, suggesting that in such habitats heat exposure close to the ground is often underestimated when using macroclimatic data. After accounting for macroclimate effects, microclimate patterns were primarily driven by radiation, with particularly strong effects on maximum temperatures. Results from spatial block cross-validation revealed predictive accuracies as measured by RSME’s ranging from 1.18 to 3.43 °C, with minimum temperatures generally being predicted more accurately than maximum temperatures. The microclimate maps presented here enable a more biologically relevant perspective when analysing climate-species interactions, which is expected to lead to a better understanding of biotic and ecosystem responses to climate and land use change.

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

ecology

display_name: ecology

forest

display_name: forest

microclimate

display_name: microclimate

radiation-transfer

display_name: radiation-transfer

statistical-interpolation

display_name: statistical-interpolation

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Monthly topsoil and near surface microclimate temperature data for Switzerland


maintainer: Mountain Hydrology and Mass Movements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

debris-flow-fatalities

display_name: debris-flow-fatalities

earthquake-fatalities

display_name: earthquake-fatalities

flood-fatalities

display_name: flood-fatalities

ice-avalanche-fatalities

display_name: ice-avalanche-fatalities

landslide-fatalities

display_name: landslide-fatalities

lightning-fatalities

display_name: lightning-fatalities

natural-hazard-fatalities

display_name: natural-hazard-fatalities

rockfall-fatalities

display_name: rockfall-fatalities

windstorm-fatalities

display_name: windstorm-fatalities

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


snow-drift-station-snow-and-air-data

maintainer: Benjamin Walter

title_for_slug: snow-drift-station-snow-and-air-data

en: temperature snow-temperature snow-depth raclets snow snow-height

en: Snow Depth

en: The snow depth (cm) was measured with a Lufft SHM-31 which was mounted at 1.7 m above ground. The time is given in UTC+1.

format: XLS

en: Air Temperature

en: The air temperature (°C) was measured with a Campbell CS-215 which was mounted at a height of 2.2 m above ground. The time is given in UTC+1.

en: Relative Humidity

en: The relative humidity (%) was measured with a Campbell CS-215 at a height of 2.2 m above ground. The time is given in UTC+1.

en: Snow Surface Temperature

en: The snow surface temperature (°C) was measured with a Campbell SI-111 at 0.7 m above ground. The time is given in UTC+1.

en: Snow and air data was monitored at Gotschnagrat (LON: 46.859 LAT: 9.849) by an infrarot radiometer (Campbell SI-111) for snow temperature (°C), a snow height sensor (Lufft SHM-31) for snow height change (cm) and a temperature and humidity sensor (Campbell CS-215) for air temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%). No filter was applied to the sensors and the smapling frequency was 1 Hz.

raclets

display_name: raclets

snow

display_name: snow

snow-depth

display_name: snow-depth

snow-height

display_name: snow-height

snow-temperature

display_name: snow-temperature

temperature

display_name: temperature

en: Snow Drift Station - Snow and Air Data


maintainer: Giulia Mazzotti

en: snow-distribution snow-energy-balance forest-structure snow-modelling forest-snow

en: Meteo data to drive FSM2 model

en: Includes meteorological driving data used to run the forest snow model FSM2, processed and parsed in text files that match the format required by FSM2. Separate files are available for each field area (Laret, Drusatscha and Ischlag) and season (2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15). Each file includes data for the period from October 1st to May 31st at hourly resolution.

en: Snow depth data open sites

en: Contains all snow detph data accquired at open sites nearby the forest stands during the same period.

en: Grid point nomenclature

en: The grid structure of each forest site and the respective nomenclature applied to label individual points within each grid are outlined here.  Each point marks the location of snow depth measurements and co-located canopy structure parameters.

en: Snow depth data forest sites

en: Contains all snow depth data acquired at all forest sites during winters 2012/13, 2013714 and 2014/15.

en: Canopy data

en: Includes all canopy structure metrics computed at all surveyed locations

en: Coordinates data

en: Includes coordinate information of each surveyed point (7 x 276 = 1932 forest points, 2 open areas)

en:
This dataset contains all snow, canopy and meteorological data presented and used in the publication: Mazzotti, G., Essery, R., Moeser, D. & Jonas T. (2020) 'Resolving spatial variability of forest snow using an energy-balance model with a 1-layer canopy'. Water Resources Research, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026129.
This publication must be cited when using this dataset.

forest-snow

display_name: forest-snow

forest-structure

display_name: forest-structure

snow-distribution

display_name: snow-distribution

snow-energy-balance

display_name: snow-energy-balance

snow-modelling

display_name: snow-modelling

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

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

en: Snow depth, canopy structure and meterorological datasets from the Davos area, Switzerland, Winters 2012/13-2014/15, used for high-resolution forest snow modelling


maintainer: Ana Beatriz Pierri Daunt

en: landscape-services landscape-ecology multifunctionality landscape-perception socio-ecological-system pdfsearch ecosystem-services planning sense-of-place resilience green-infrastructure decision-making landscape-planning literature-review

en: 6. Protocol

en: 2. Frequency of additional concepts.

en: 3. Use of any early concept.

en: 4. Use of any additional concept.

en: 5. Planning steps.

en: 1. Frequency of early concepts.

en:
Table of content: 1. Frequency of early concepts; 2. Frequency of additional concepts; 3. Use of any early concept; 4. Use of any additional concept, 5. Planning steps; 6. Protocol.

The present dataset is part of the published scientific paper entitled “Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments” (Hersperger et al., 2021). The goal of this research was to review recent publications to assess the use of landscape ecological concepts in planning. Specifically, we address the following research questions: Q1. Landscape ecological concepts: What are they? How frequently are they mentioned in current research? Q2. How are landscape ecological concepts integrated in landscape planning?

We analysed all empirical and overview papers that have been published in four key academic journals in the field of landscape ecology and landscape planning in the years 2015–2019 (n = 1918). Four key journals in the field of landscape ecology were selected to conduct the analysis, respectively Landscape Ecology (LE), Landscape Online (LO), Current Landscape Ecology Reports (CLER), and Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP). The title, abstract and keywords of all papers were read in order to identify landscape ecological concepts. Then, all 1918 papers went through a keyword search to identify the use of early and additional concepts. We used the “pdfsearch” package in R programming language and searched for singular and plural forms and different variations of the concepts (see Supplementary material 1, Table A). As a result, we provided four outputs:

  1. Frequency of early concepts. This data provides the total number of times each article used each early concept (Q1). This data was used to produce the Figure 2a at the original publication.

  2. Frequency of additional concepts. This data provides the total number of times each article used each additional concept (Q1). This data was used to produce the Figure 2b at the original publication.

  3. Use of any early concept. This data provides the total number of times each article used any early concept (Q1).
This data was used to produce the Figure 3a at the original publication.

  4. Use of any additional concept. This data provides the total number of times each article used any additional concept (Q1). This data was used to produce the Figure 3b at the original publication.

To address the second question (Q2), the title, abstract and keywords of the papers included in our sample (n=1918 articles) were screened to identify papers that might show how landscape ecological concepts are integrated into planning. We selected 52 empirical papers (see Supplementary material – 4 Integration of landscape ecological concepts into planning), and we provided two outputs:

  5. Planning steps. This data provides the number of times landscape ecological concepts were addressed in each
planning steps in 52 empirical papers analysed in detail (Q2). This data was used to produce the Figure 4 at the
original publication.

  6. Protocol for assessing the integration of landscape ecological concepts into planning. To systematically collect the
data, we used this protocol which addressed the following questions: (a) which type of planning is addressed by the
paper? (b) to which planning level does the paper refer to? (c) which concepts are integrated in any of the planning
steps described above?

decision-making

display_name: decision-making

ecosystem-services

display_name: ecosystem-services

green-infrastructure

display_name: green-infrastructure

landscape-ecology

display_name: landscape-ecology

landscape-perception

display_name: landscape-perception

landscape-planning

display_name: landscape-planning

landscape-services

display_name: landscape-services

literature-review

display_name: literature-review

multifunctionality

display_name: multifunctionality

pdfsearch

display_name: pdfsearch

planning

display_name: planning

resilience

display_name: resilience

sense-of-place

display_name: sense-of-place

socio-ecological-system

display_name: socio-ecological-system

en: The usage of landscape ecological concepts in the planning literature


maintainer: Anita Risch

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

en: Datafile

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

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

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

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

Soil.moist	: Soil moisture (%)

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

pH: Soil pH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plant.richness: Plant species richness

Plant.N: Plant tissue nitrogen content (%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#References

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

ecosystem-coupling

display_name: ecosystem-coupling

ecosystem-functions

display_name: ecosystem-functions

ecosystem-multifunctionality

display_name: ecosystem-multifunctionality

exclusion

display_name: exclusion

grassland

display_name: grassland

grazing

display_name: grazing

invertebrates

display_name: invertebrates

subalpine

display_name: subalpine

swiss-national-park

display_name: swiss-national-park

vertebrates

display_name: vertebrates

en: Ecosystem coupling and multifunctionality - exclosure experiment


maintainer: Tessa Hegetschweiler

en: childhood adolescents forest teenagers recreational-activities

en: Dataset comments

en: The codebook to the dataset

en: Dataset survey at schools

en: The dataset of the questionnaire survey at schools in excel format.

en: Survey at schools 2017

en: The dataset of the questionnaire survey at schools in SPSS-format.

en: Questionnaire school survey

media_type: application/pdf

en: The questionnaire used in the survey at 8 schools aimed at teenagers in German.

format: PDF

mimetype: application/pdf

en: The data results from a questionnaire survey conducted at 8 schools in the cantons Zurich, Aargau and St. Gallen. Respondents aged 13-22 years. The aim of the survey was to gain insight into teenagers' relationship to the forest, reasons for visiting or not visiting the forest and activities in the forest.

adolescents

display_name: adolescents

childhood

display_name: childhood

forest

display_name: forest

recreational-activities

display_name: recreational-activities

teenagers

display_name: teenagers

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal

en: Factors influencing teenagers' forest visit frequency


maintainer: Avalanche Warning Service SLF

en: Avalanche fatalities per year in Switzerland since 1936/1937

en:
Attention: this data is not updated after 2022 anymore.
This dataset contains the statistics on the number of avalanche fatalities per hydrological year in Switzerland. The data set commences with the beginning of the hydrological year 1936/37 on 01/10/1936. After the completion of a hydrological year, the new data is appended to the existing dataset.
The following information is contained (by column and column title):
 - hydrological year
 - number of fatalities in the backcountry (=tour)
 - number of fatalities in terrain close to ski areas (=offpiste)
 - number of fatalities on transportation corridors including ski runs, roads, railway lines (=transportation.corridors)
 - number of fatalities in or around buildings or in settlements (= buildings)
 - sum (of all four categories)
The definition for these four categories as described in the guidelines to the avalanche accident database:
**tour**:
activities include back-country ski, snowboard or snow-shoe touring
**offpiste**:
access from ski area, generally from the top of a skilift with short hiking distances
**transportation.corridors** ([Techel et al., 2016](http://www.geogr-helv.net/71/147/2016/ )):
people travelling or recreating on open or temporarily closed
transportation corridors (e.g. a road user or a skier on a ski run) and people working on open or closed transportation corridors (e.g. maintenance crews on roads, professional rescue teams)
**buildings** ([Techel et al., 2016](http://www.geogr-helv.net/71/147/2016/ )):
people inside or just outside buildings, and workers on high alpine building
sites

avalanche-accident-statistics

display_name: avalanche-accident-statistics

avalanche-accidents

display_name: avalanche-accidents

avalanche-fatalities

display_name: avalanche-fatalities

fatalities-in-or-around-buildings

display_name: fatalities-in-or-around-buildings

fatalities-in-settlements

display_name: fatalities-in-settlements

fatalities-in-the-backcountry

display_name: fatalities-in-the-backcountry

fatalities-on-transportation-corridors

display_name: fatalities-on-transportation-corridors

en: 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: Number of avalanche fatalities per hydrological year in Switzerland since 1936-1937


snow-drift-station-micro-rain-radar

title_for_slug: snow-drift-station-micro-rain-radar

en: snow rain radar precipitation mountain raclets

en: MRR data of period 4

en: The dataset contains measurements between March 13 and March 22, 2019, with time in UTC. The parameters and specifications are given in MRR_parameters.pdf. The zip folder contains hourly data files in netCDF format and a log file, reporting the instrument status.

en: MRR data of period 3

en: The dataset contains measurements between March 8 and March 13, 2019, with time in UTC. The parameters and specifications are given in MRR_parameters.pdf. The zip folder contains hourly data files in netCDF format and a log file, reporting the instrument status.

en: MRR data Period 2

en: The dataset contains measurements between March 5 and March 8, 2019, with time in UTC. The parameters and specifications are given in MRR_parameters.pdf. The zip folder contains hourly data files in netCDF format and a log file, reporting the instrument status.

en: Parameter MRR

en: The PDF contains additional information on parameters which were set for the certain time periods (time in UTC).

en: MMR Data Period 1

en: The dataset contains measurements between March 1 and March 5, 2019, with time in UTC. The parameters and specifications are given in MRR_parameters.pdf. The zip folder contains hourly data files in netCDF format and a log file, reporting the instrument status.

en: The instrument (MRR, Metek) was mounted at Gotschnagrat (LON: 46.859 LAT: 9.849) at a height of 1 m above snow surface (at the beginning of the campaign) with an orientation of 22° with respect to North and a horizontal viewing direction. The sampling time was either 5 s or 10 s, depending on the settings at the specific period. The MRR produces standard outputs like radar reflectivity, doppler velocity, etc., and additional information can be found [here](https://metek.de/de/product/mrr-2/).

mountain

display_name: mountain

precipitation

display_name: precipitation

raclets

display_name: raclets

radar

display_name: radar

rain

display_name: rain

snow

display_name: snow

en: Snow Drift Station - Micro Rain Radar


en: climate-change photobiont lichen-growthform biodiversity madeira-island lichen endemic bryophyte liverwort functional-taxonomic-group endemic-species functional-taxonomic-groups moss climate-change-impact disturbance elevational-gradient lichen-growth-form bryophyte-life-strategy

en: MadCrypto – Bryophyte and macrolichen diversity in laurel forests of Madeira

en:
This dataset includes species lists of bryophytes and macrolichens (presence/absence) sampled on the forest floor and on trees in disturbed and undisturbed plots along elevation gradients in the laurel forests of Madeira island. It also contains species specific information (bryophytes: red list status, endemic status, taxonomic group, life strategy; macrolichens: photobiont type, growth form) as well as plot information (Plot_ID, sampling date, coordinates, elevation a.s.l. (m), disturbance type, sampled host tree species).

The dataset was used for the paper
Boch S, Martins A, Ruas S, Fontinha S, Carvalho P, Reis F, Bergamini A, Sim-Sim M (2019) Bryophyte and macrolichen diversity show contrasting elevation relationships and are negatively affected by disturbances in laurel forests of Madeira island. Journal of Vegetation Science.

en:
This dataset includes species lists of bryophytes and macrolichens (presence/absence) sampled on the forest floor and on trees in disturbed and undisturbed plots along elevation gradients in the laurel forests of Madeira island. It also contains species specific information (bryophytes: red list status, endemic status, taxonomic group, life strategy; macrolichens: photobiont type, growth form) as well as plot information (Plot_ID, sampling date, coordinates, elevation a.s.l. (m), disturbance type, sampled host tree species).

The dataset was used for the paper
Boch S, Martins A, Ruas S, Fontinha S, Carvalho P, Reis F, Bergamini A, Sim-Sim M (2019) Bryophyte and macrolichen diversity show contrasting elevation relationships and are negatively affected by disturbances in laurel forests of Madeira island. Journal of Vegetation Science 30: 1122–1133.

The excel file contains 5 sheets:
1) Plot information
2) Bryophyte data with species specific information, separated per substrate
3) Macrolichen data with species specific information, separated per substrate
4) Bryophyte data with species specific information (plot level data). Species lists of the two substrates were merged; if one substrate in a plot hosted a species identified only to genus level (genus spec.) but the second investigated substrate hosted an identified species of the same genus, we removed the genus spec. entry in the particular plot. The species list of sheet 2 and 4 might therefore differ slightly.
5) Macrolichen data with species specific information (plot level data). Species lists of the two substrates were merged; if one substrate in a plot hosted a species identified only to genus level (genus spec.) but the second investigated substrate hosted an identified species of the same genus, we removed the genus spec. entry in the particular plot. The species list of sheet 3 and 5 might therefore differ slightly.

biodiversity

display_name: biodiversity

bryophyte

display_name: bryophyte

bryophyte-life-strategy

display_name: bryophyte-life-strategy

climate-change

display_name: climate-change

climate-change-impact

display_name: climate-change-impact

disturbance

display_name: disturbance

elevational-gradient

display_name: elevational-gradient

endemic

display_name: endemic

endemic-species

display_name: endemic-species

functional-taxonomic-group

display_name: functional-taxonomic-group

functional-taxonomic-groups

display_name: functional-taxonomic-groups

lichen

display_name: lichen

lichen-growth-form

display_name: lichen-growth-form

lichen-growthform

display_name: lichen-growthform

liverwort

display_name: liverwort

madeira-island

display_name: madeira-island

moss

display_name: moss

photobiont

display_name: photobiont

educ

en: Education, culture and sport

envidat

en: EnviDat: the Environmental Data Portal


en: clouds ice-nucleation aerosol backward-trajectories raclets

en: This dataset contains number concentrations of ice-nucleating particles active at -15 °C observed at Weissfluhjoch during February and March 2019, as well as complementary data (measured aerosol number concentrations and modelled total precipitation along air mass trajectories). This data formed the basis of our paper with the title “Towards parameterising atmospheric concentrations of ice-nucleating particles active at moderate supercooling”.

aerosol

display_name: aerosol

backward-trajectories

display_name: backward-trajectories

clouds

display_name: clouds

ice-nucleation

display_name: ice-nucleation

raclets

display_name: raclets

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: Ice nucleating particle concentrations active at -15 °C at Weissfluhjoch